Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex
Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM (459,157 Views)
Wolf Eagle
Member Avatar
M E G A P H Y S E T E R
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tyrannosaurus rex
Tyrannosaurus is a genus of coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur. The species Tyrannosaurus rex (rex meaning "king" in Latin), commonly abbreviated to T. rex, is a fixture in popular culture. It lived throughout what is now western North America, with a much wider range than other tyrannosaurids. Fossils are found in a variety of rock formations dating to the Maastrichtian age of the upper Cretaceous Period, 67 to 65.5 million years ago.[1] It was among the last non-avian dinosaurs to exist before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Like other tyrannosaurids, Tyrannosaurus was a bipedal carnivore with a massive skull balanced by a long, heavy tail. Relative to the large and powerful hindlimbs, Tyrannosaurus forelimbs were small, though unusually powerful for their size, and bore two clawed digits. Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it was the largest known tyrannosaurid and one of the largest known land predators. By far the largest carnivore in its environment, Tyrannosaurus rex may have been an apex predator, preying upon hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, although some experts have suggested it was primarily a scavenger. The debate over Tyrannosaurus as apex predator or scavenger is among the longest running in paleontology. Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time; the largest complete specimen, FMNH PR2081 ("Sue"), measured 12.8 metres (42 ft) long, and was 4.0 metres (13.1 ft) tall at the hips. Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7.2 metric tons (7.9 short tons), to less than 4.5 metric tons (5.0 short tons), with most modern estimates ranging between 5.4 and 6.8 metric tons (6.0 and 7.5 short tons). Packard et al. (2009) tested dinosaur mass estimation procedures on elephants and concluded that dinosaur estimations are flawed and produce over-estimations; thus, the weight of Tyrannosaurus could be much less than usually estimated. Other estimations have concluded that the largest known Tyrannosaurus specimens had a weight exceeding 9 tonnes.

Posted Image

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
Spinosaurus is a genus of theropod dinosaur which lived in what is now North Africa, from the lower Albian to lower Cenomanian stages of the Cretaceous period, about 112 to 97 million years ago. Spinosaurus may be the largest of all known carnivorous dinosaurs, even larger than Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus. Estimates published in 2005 and 2007 suggest that it was 12.6 to 18 metres (41 to 59 ft) in length and 7 to 20.9 tonnes (7.7 to 23.0 short tons) in weight. The skull of Spinosaurus was long and narrow like that of a modern crocodilian. Spinosaurus is thought to have eaten fish; evidence suggests that it lived both on land and in water like a modern crocodilian. The distinctive spines of Spinosaurus, which were long extensions of the vertebrae, grew to at least 1.65 meters (5.4 ft) long and were likely to have had skin connecting them, forming a sail-like structure, although some authors have suggested that the spines were covered in fat and formed a hump. Multiple functions have been put forward for this structure, including thermoregulation and display. Dal Sasso et al. (2005) assumed that Spinosaurus and Suchomimus had the same body proportions in relation to their skull lengths, and thereby calculated that Spinosaurus was 16 to 18 meters (52 to 59 ft) in length and 7 to 9 tonnes (7.7 to 9.9 short tons) in weight. The Dal Sasso et al. estimates were criticized because the skull length estimate was uncertain, and (assuming that body mass increases as the cube of body length) scaling Suchomimus which was 11 meters (36 ft) long and 3.8 tonnes (4.2 short tons) in mass to the range of estimated lengths of Spinosaurus would produce an estimated body mass of 11.7 to 16.7 tonnes (12.9 to 18.4 short tons).

Posted Image
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
If you know it is wrong why bring it up? It's not relevant. And look back at your posts, they show everything.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hatzegopteryx
Mar 1 2014, 11:04 AM
I am not the one making a bunch of baseless assumptions about colour changing, sexual dimorphism and many others. Back your claims with evidence, what I am doing here is simply debunking those baseless speculations
before you accuse Me of baseless speculation, you should know i study extensively in the realm of tyrannosaurs, and other theropods.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Yet you act like you don't know we have no evidence of sexual dimorphism on this species? Come on dude, you aren't that credible after that
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Carnosaur18
Mar 1 2014, 11:11 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Mar 1 2014, 11:04 AM
I am not the one making a bunch of baseless assumptions about colour changing, sexual dimorphism and many others. Back your claims with evidence, what I am doing here is simply debunking those baseless speculations
before you accuse Me of baseless speculation, you should know i study extensively in the realm of tyrannosaurs, and other theropods.
and to state that the abillity for spinosaurus sail to change color without any evidence kind of contredicts that.
plus the fact you said you belive that spinosaurus had a sail, dispite it now being one of the least assepted beleifs on the physiology of its back
heck, your vast wisom should have sniffed out bs from the post about the acounter before you even posted
Edited by spinosaurus rex, Mar 1 2014, 11:22 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
spinosaurus rex
Mar 1 2014, 11:09 AM
Carnosaur18
Mar 1 2014, 11:00 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Mar 1 2014, 10:53 AM
Carnosaur18
Mar 1 2014, 10:51 AM
spinosaurus rex
Mar 1 2014, 10:49 AM
Carnosaur18
Mar 1 2014, 10:45 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Mar 1 2014, 10:40 AM
Carnosaur18
Mar 1 2014, 10:35 AM
metatarsals don't drastically differ between individuals..
They do, as well as many proportions on different specimens vary, not to mention the countless frauds regarding UCMP 137538.
irrelavant how?
And oh i'm not even closed to finished, buddy.. Thomas the T-rex is about 34 ft long and 7,000-8,000 lbs at 17 years of age. This length and weight are close to what many say an adult Rex would average. However, at 17, Thomas still has a full year of rapid growth yet to come. Since T-rex put on nearly 10 lbs a day during this growth, Thomas would have gained over 3,650 pounds. So, at age 18, he would be 10,650-11,650 lbs. Probably would have been about 36-38 ft in length. That's comparable to what they say an adult Rex would average. But, Thomas would have had about 12 years of life before he died at about age 30. Tyrannosaurus rex grew throughout it's life. During those 12 years or so, Thomas probably could have put on over 2,000 lbs at least, probably more. With that, he would at least be over 13,650-14,650 lbs by the time he died with a length of over 40 ft. Thomas was a Male, keep that in mind. Females seem to be substantially bigger then the males. Based on this, it's my theory Thomas wasn't a freak individual, neither was sue( who seems to have gotten bigger then 12.4 meters, but i'll get to that). Not to mention again the c. Rex and F.Rex, it's entirely plausible they got to 14 meters, even if it's what they maxed out at.
c.rex is only 8-10 % complete. how can you assume 14 meters from that. the genetic variability in it is almost to much of a guess to make a proper length estimate.
this can be said for Spinosaurus too....
So? It doesn't strenghten your argument, you tried getting him in hipocrisy but he isn't making a load of baseless speculations one after another about a fragmentary specimen.
you guys....kill me...7? can you name 7 for your claims? "if not your wrong", bud. while not 7. i can provide some..
Dinosaur growth basicshttp://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081917
Tyrannosaurus growthhttp://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0026037
Here's a Tyrannosaurus growth chart..
Posted Image
those post don't even suggest anything about the fragmentary 14 meter individuales. it shown they had a massive growth rate, but provides nothing for the size estimates of a 14 meter tyrannosaur
man, can you guys really not put two and two together? no? ok, i'll put it all under one reply...
Here's a list of specimens that are about 40 ft or more....

The Holotype- 11.9 meters(39 ft)
AMNH 5027- 12 meters(41 ft)
Thomas- 12 meters(40 ft)*
Devil Rex- 11.6 meters(38 ft)
Sue- 12-13 meters(40-43 ft)**
Stan- 12 meters(40.1 ft)
Scotty- 12 meters(40 ft)
Samson- 11.9 meters(39 ft)

Possible Tyrannosaurus' rivaling Sue-
C. Rex- 13-14 meters(43-45 ft)
F. Rex- 12-13 meters(40-43 ft)

*Projected adult size for Thomas

Thomas the T-rex is about 34 ft long and 7,000-8,000 lbs at 17 years of age. This length and weight are close to what many say an adult Rex would average. However, at 17, Thomas still has a full year of rapid growth yet to come. Since T-rex put on nearly 10 lbs a day during this growth, Thomas would have gained over 3,650 pounds. So, at age 18, he would be 10,650-11,650 lbs. Probably would have been about 36-38 ft in length. That's comparable to what they say an adult Rex would average. But, Thomas would have had about 12 years of life before he died at about age 30. Tyrannosaurus rex grew throughout it's life. During those 12 years or so, Thomas probably could have put on over 2,000 lbs at least, probably more.With that, he would at least be over 13,650-14,650 lbs by the time he died with a length of over 40 ft.
Posted Image
Other tyrannosaurus specimens died at a rather young age (18 or below) but were large for their age (mor 008). Here's a scale of tyrannosaur specimens..Posted Image

now onto sexual dimorphism
As the number of known specimens increased, scientists began to analyze the variation between individuals and discovered what appeared to be two distinct body types, or morphs, similar to some other theropod species. As one of these morphs was more solidly built, it was termed the 'robust' morph while the other was termed 'gracile'. Several morphological differences associated with the two morphs were used to analyze sexual dimorphism in Tyrannosaurus rex, with the 'robust' morph usually suggested to be female. For example, the pelvis of several 'robust' specimens seemed to be wider, perhaps to allow the passage of eggs. It was also thought that the 'robust' morphology correlated with a reduced chevron on the first tail vertebra, also ostensibly to allow eggs to pass out of the reproductive tract, as had been erroneously reported for crocodiles.
In recent years, evidence for sexual dimorphism has been weakened. A 2005 study reported that previous claims of sexual dimorphism in crocodile chevron anatomy were in error, casting doubt on the existence of similar dimorphism between Tyrannosaurus rex sexes. A full-sized chevron was discovered on the first tail vertebra of "Sue", indicating that this feature could not be used to differentiate the two morphs anyway. As Tyrannosaurus rex specimens have been found from Saskatchewan to New Mexico, differences between individuals may be indicative of geographic variation rather than sexual dimorphism. The differences could also be age-related, with 'robust' individuals being older animals.
Only a single Tyrannosaurus rex specimen has been conclusively shown to belong to a specific sex. Examination of "B-rex" demonstrated the preservation of soft tissue within several bones. Some of this tissue has been identified as a medullary tissue, a specialized tissue grown only in modern birds as a source of calcium for the production of eggshell during ovulation. As only female birds lay eggs, medullary tissue is only found naturally in females, although males are capable of producing it when injected with female reproductive hormones like estrogen. This strongly suggests that "B-rex" was female, and that she died during ovulation. Recent research has shown that medullary tissue is never found in crocodiles, which are thought to be the closest living relatives of dinosaurs, aside from birds. The shared presence of medullary tissue in birds and theropod dinosaurs is further evidence of the close evolutionary relationship between the two.*
* this is why i doubt my sexual dimorphism theory now, i dug into it a bit more...so i retract that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
spinosaurus rex
Mar 1 2014, 11:15 AM
Carnosaur18
Mar 1 2014, 11:11 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Mar 1 2014, 11:04 AM
I am not the one making a bunch of baseless assumptions about colour changing, sexual dimorphism and many others. Back your claims with evidence, what I am doing here is simply debunking those baseless speculations
before you accuse Me of baseless speculation, you should know i study extensively in the realm of tyrannosaurs, and other theropods.
and to state that the abillity for spinosaurus sail to change color without any evidence kind of contredicts that.
plus the fact you said you belive that spinosaurus had a sail, dispite it now being one of the least assepted beleifs on the physiology of its back
heck, your vast wisom should have sniffed out bs from the post about the acounter before you even posted
never stated spinosaurus could change its sail color lol rolleyes it was in the story i posted on here, not from me XD
Also, i hadn't really studied sexual dimorphism in tyrannosaurs. Mostly stick to Paleoecology..
edit: a simple glance at my first post will show you that ;)
Edited by Ceratodromeus, Mar 1 2014, 11:43 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ok, lets start.

@Carnosaur18

CMN 9380, the holotype, is estimated by Scott Hartman at 11.8m long

AMNH 5027 was estimated by Scott Hartman at 11.9m long, the skeletal mount is shy of 11.9m long too according to the laser scanned model from Hutchinson et al. (2011)

LACM 7509/10167 (Thomas) has a dentary 732mm long according to figure 1.27 in the book The Tyrant King, this is 96% that of B-rex (MOR 1125), which is itself
less than 90% the size of Stan, so considering its age, lengths much over 9.8m (32ft) are probably out of the question (so no 34ft), I'll talk about the speculated
adult size in short notice.

MOR 555 (devil rex), the mounted skeleton is shy of 11.9m long according to the laser scans by Hutchinson et al. (2011), cranial and limb bone measurements along
with comparison of orthographic images of the 3D models by Hutchinson et al. (2011) revels similar size to Stan and AMNH 5027 and the holotype, similarly sized
specimens whose differing lengths of 11.3m-11.9m (by Scott Hartman) are the result of Stan possessing a proportionally shorter neck and tail, they are the same
size otherwise, what length is more appropriate for MOR 555 will probably depend on its age, if closer to Stan, its proportions (and length) will be more appropriate.


Sue 12.3m estimated by Scott Hartman and is also the measurement of the laser scan of the mounted skeleton by Hutchinson et al. (2011), giving its completeness,
this is the most accurate estimate/measurement for any specimen, any increase in length will be nothing more than a longer tail.

RSM 2523.8 (Scotty) femur length of 129cm according to the book The Tyrant King, citing a personal communication with P. Currie, again, similar to size to Stan,
AMNH 5027, the holotype and MOR 555, at least based on that single measurements, it could be anything between 11.3 to 11.9m.

Samson, same as Scotty.

MOR 1126 (C-rex), supposed 10% bigger than Sue is Horner's in the field guess, known from a prearticular, a surungular, 20 fragmentary ribs, a chevron and 3
partial vertebrae, 9% complete by bone count (Larson 2008), classified under XL (extra large) class in the supporting information of Horner et al. (2011), actual
measurements unknown.

MOR 1152 (F-rex), known from a leg (whole leg?) a pelvis, some ribs, some dorsal vertebrae, all heavily eroded, a metatarsal, 7 caudals and 4 chevrons, 8%
complete by bone count (Larson 2008), classified under XL (extra large) class in the supporting information of Horner et al. (2011), actual measurements unknown


For comparison, MOR 555 is classified as large in Horner et al. (2011), is possible that MOR 1126 and MOR 1152 are Sue sized, if they were bigger than Sue, Horner
would have already made it public by now, they were excavated 13 years ago and preparation was complete at least 6 years ago, in fact Horner and Padian (2004)
use cross sections of several limb bones of F-rex in their T. rex growth study and never is it mentioned it being of exceptionally big size.

Now into the growth of Thomas, we already established that it was 96% the size of B-rex, which the soft tissue findings say it was already an adult. B-rex was
estimated to be 19 years old by Erickson et al. (2006) and according to them, the source of that table that you have posted several times, the end of the rapid
growth phase of T. rex occurs between 16 and 20 years of age, citing Schweitzer et al. (2005). Of course, this is according to their growth curve which is not
definitive nor is the only one, Horner and Padian (2004) estimate a younger age for the end of rapid growth, between 15 to 18 years old, they also estimate the age
of B-rex at 18 years old (standard deviation of 2 years) and estimate that its phase of rapid growth had already ended for at least 2 years before it died, they also
estimate MOR 555 to be 14 years old (standard deviation of 2 years), 6 years younger than what Erickson et al. (2006) estimates it at, and that it had already
stopped actively growing for 2 or 3 years, note the great size disparity between this two specimens (femur length of ~115cm vs 128cm), based on the disparate
results and the different estimates of age between several studies you can't accurately know right now, how much, if anything, would have Thomas grown had it died
later than it did, what if it had already stopped actively growing? from where is that 17 years of age? neither Horner and Padian (2004) nor Erickson et al. (2006)
mention it and I am not aware of any other study of this sort, can you cite it?

btw MOR 008 was neither very young nor very large, ridiculous claims by the MOR based on a badly reconstructed skull notwithstanding, Erickson et al. (2006)
estimate its age at 22 years and based on its cranial measurements (from Larson 2008) none of which are bigger than those of Stan or MOR 555, it was rather "normal" sized.

Quote:
 
you should know i study extensively in the realm of tyrannosaurs, and other theropods.

With all due respect but I have yet to see you post with citations to back up you words, nor you corrected any of the bad information of that "guest post" you posted
earlier (I'm not saying that is your opinion though) nor where you very rigorous on your data gathering of those length estimates of T. rex specimens nor where you
cautious in engaging in the speculation of Thomas' "adult size", do you have a library of pdfs of paleontology papers at least? if you study them extensively I would
expect you to have one and have been less careless in your previous posts, anyway, none of this I say I meant it with the intention of being rude, so I'll give you the
welcome to the forum, I see you are relatively new and I had not really seen you post before. edit, I have actually, I just didn't remember, welcome anyway, I didn't do it before.
Edited by blaze, Mar 1 2014, 02:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Hatzegopteryx
Feb 25 2014, 07:18 AM
Drift
Feb 23 2014, 10:23 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Feb 23 2014, 08:33 AM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Feb 15 2014, 06:08 PM
1.0reef
Feb 15 2014, 03:35 PM
While I love Spinosaurus, T rex's are better armed to take on bigger theropods/similar in a fight. But it would get some bad wounds from Spino's arms.
If anything, that's the other way round, because Spinosaurus coexisted/competed with many other large theropods in its region, while Tyrannosaurus didn't.
Prey is totally irrelevant, there is no need to bring it up. Using the prey ideology a Bull is defeneless because it feeds on plants.
Not necessarily, a bull has no prey it is a herbivore rendering your argument invalid.Unless there is a case in which vegetation i considered a prey item to some indigenous species somewhere than what you say cannot hold water.
How? It is its equivalent of prey, hence the fact it feeds on that. Examples:

A theropod feeds on a ceratopsian, so the popular logic is that it is an efficient killer, becaue it hunts, kill and eats a potentially lethal creature. May I ask you, is that relevant to its combating skills againt a predator that has never had to deal with it?

A bovine feeds on grass, which is a defenseless organism. But does that mean that itself can't fight, due to what it feeds on? No, because if that logic worked, a Coyote would kill the Bull just because it preys on organisms that can actually represent more of a threat than grass.

A dinosaur's paleoecology is irrelevant when you are talking about two dinosaurs from different continents and temporal ranges, since they are multiple specimens, not MMA fighters. If they were MMA fighters, unique individuals, they'd know their opponents techniques and they would practice their combating skills, but we are talking about a classification superior to specimen. I hope this is enough to get my point.

Why justify your bull analogy further by delving into this idea that vegetation could possibly considered prey? I think you might have "diet" and 'prey' confused,
Prey-an animal that is hunted and killed by another for food
Diet-the kinds of food that a person, animal, or community habitually eats.

Actually, yes. If one eats primarily fish and the other took on animals that could hold their own against said predator or even kill it than i think that's all the proof you need.Then again you're not too fond of proof considering you don't believe spinosaurus has a spine.

I realize you don't wish to see it was a bad analogy but obviously a bull is no pushover, using this animal as an example that justifies your other views isn't the right way to go about it at all.Comparing a herbivore that can defend itself that happens to eat defenseless grass,is in no way the same as a carnivore preying on defenseless fish.We know bulls are dangerous if confronted and the same cannot be said for spinosaurus due to its preferred prey also being as helpless as the vegitation.You are comparing an animal we know can defend itself (bull) with an animal surrounded by sensationalism in terms of its killing capabilities (spino).There is no evidence it used its arms in the fashion some claim,no evidence it had a hump, no evidence of its actual size.And yet so many are so sure it would win? Speculation is a dangerous mistress one shouldn't be tempted by.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
blaze
Mar 1 2014, 01:53 PM
Ok, lets start.

@Carnosaur18

CMN 9380, the holotype, is estimated by Scott Hartman at 11.8m long

AMNH 5027 was estimated by Scott Hartman at 11.9m long, the skeletal mount is shy of 11.9m long too according to the laser scanned model from Hutchinson et al. (2011)

LACM 7509/10167 (Thomas) has a dentary 732mm long according to figure 1.27 in the book The Tyrant King, this is 96% that of B-rex (MOR 1125), which is itself
less than 90% the size of Stan, so considering its age, lengths much over 9.8m (32ft) are probably out of the question (so no 34ft), I'll talk about the speculated
adult size in short notice.

MOR 555 (devil rex), the mounted skeleton is shy of 11.9m long according to the laser scans by Hutchinson et al. (2011), cranial and limb bone measurements along
with comparison of orthographic images of the 3D models by Hutchinson et al. (2011) revels similar size to Stan and AMNH 5027 and the holotype, similarly sized
specimens whose differing lengths of 11.3m-11.9m (by Scott Hartman) are the result of Stan possessing a proportionally shorter neck and tail, they are the same
size otherwise, what length is more appropriate for MOR 555 will probably depend on its age, if closer to Stan, its proportions (and length) will be more appropriate.


Sue 12.3m estimated by Scott Hartman and is also the measurement of the laser scan of the mounted skeleton by Hutchinson et al. (2011), giving its completeness,
this is the most accurate estimate/measurement for any specimen, any increase in length will be nothing more than a longer tail.

RSM 2523.8 (Scotty) femur length of 129cm according to the book The Tyrant King, citing a personal communication with P. Currie, again, similar to size to Stan,
AMNH 5027, the holotype and MOR 555, at least based on that single measurements, it could be anything between 11.3 to 11.9m.

Samson, same as Scotty.

MOR 1126 (C-rex), supposed 10% bigger than Sue is Horner's in the field guess, known from a prearticular, a surungular, 20 fragmentary ribs, a chevron and 3
partial vertebrae, 9% complete by bone count (Larson 2008), classified under XL (extra large) class in the supporting information of Horner et al. (2011), actual
measurements unknown.

MOR 1152 (F-rex), known from a leg (whole leg?) a pelvis, some ribs, some dorsal vertebrae, all heavily eroded, a metatarsal, 7 caudals and 4 chevrons, 8%
complete by bone count (Larson 2008), classified under XL (extra large) class in the supporting information of Horner et al. (2011), actual measurements unknown


For comparison, MOR 555 is classified as large in Horner et al. (2011), is possible that MOR 1126 and MOR 1152 are Sue sized, if they were bigger than Sue, Horner
would have already made it public by now, they were excavated 13 years ago and preparation was complete at least 6 years ago, in fact Horner and Padian (2004)
use cross sections of several limb bones of F-rex in their T. rex growth study and never is it mentioned it being of exceptionally big size.

Now into the growth of Thomas, we already established that it was 96% the size of B-rex, which the soft tissue findings say it was already an adult. B-rex was
estimated to be 19 years old by Erickson et al. (2006) and according to them, the source of that table that you have posted several times, the end of the rapid
growth phase of T. rex occurs between 16 and 20 years of age, citing Schweitzer et al. (2005). Of course, this is according to their growth curve which is not
definitive nor is the only one, Horner and Padian (2004) estimate a younger age for the end of rapid growth, between 15 to 18 years old, they also estimate the age
of B-rex at 18 years old (standard deviation of 2 years) and estimate that its phase of rapid growth had already ended for at least 2 years before it died, they also
estimate MOR 555 to be 14 years old (standard deviation of 2 years), 6 years younger than what Erickson et al. (2006) estimates it at, and that it had already
stopped actively growing for 2 or 3 years, note the great size disparity between this two specimens (femur length of ~115cm vs 128cm), based on the disparate
results and the different estimates of age between several studies you can't accurately know right now, how much, if anything, would have Thomas grown had it died
later than it did, what if it had already stopped actively growing? from where is that 17 years of age? neither Horner and Padian (2004) nor Erickson et al. (2006)
mention it and I am not aware of any other study of this sort, can you cite it?

btw MOR 008 was neither very young nor very large, ridiculous claims by the MOR based on a badly reconstructed skull notwithstanding, Erickson et al. (2006)
estimate its age at 22 years and based on its cranial measurements (from Larson 2008) none of which are bigger than those of Stan or MOR 555, it was rather "normal" sized.

Quote:
 
you should know i study extensively in the realm of tyrannosaurs, and other theropods.

With all due respect but I have yet to see you post with citations to back up you words, nor you corrected any of the bad information of that "guest post" you posted
earlier (I'm not saying that is your opinion though) nor where you very rigorous on your data gathering of those length estimates of T. rex specimens nor where you
cautious in engaging in the speculation of Thomas' "adult size", do you have a library of pdfs of paleontology papers at least? if you study them extensively I would
expect you to have one and have been less careless in your previous posts, anyway, none of this I say I meant it with the intention of being rude, so I'll give you the
welcome to the forum, I see you are relatively new and I had not really seen you post before. edit, I have actually, I just didn't remember, welcome anyway, I didn't do it before.
yeah, i actually have a few PDFs....sited a few earlier....too disturbed by the lack of scientific discussion by the other two members to post them though
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
please, enlighten me with your pdf's. isn't the entire pourpous of this sight is to debate and discuss? so far, i haven't seen one post you posted that provided any substantial evidence on a 14 meter tyrannosaurus. if you have a specific study for it, not a growth chart that taken the conservative lengths of fragmentary specimens, i would very much appriciat it. also you may want to watch the disrespect of your posts. i admitt i have gone their too, so lets be civilized and put that behind us.
and i very much appriciate the post blaze. very informative
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Carnosaur18
Mar 1 2014, 03:51 PM
blaze
Mar 1 2014, 01:53 PM
Ok, lets start.

@Carnosaur18

CMN 9380, the holotype, is estimated by Scott Hartman at 11.8m long

AMNH 5027 was estimated by Scott Hartman at 11.9m long, the skeletal mount is shy of 11.9m long too according to the laser scanned model from Hutchinson et al. (2011)

LACM 7509/10167 (Thomas) has a dentary 732mm long according to figure 1.27 in the book The Tyrant King, this is 96% that of B-rex (MOR 1125), which is itself
less than 90% the size of Stan, so considering its age, lengths much over 9.8m (32ft) are probably out of the question (so no 34ft), I'll talk about the speculated
adult size in short notice.

MOR 555 (devil rex), the mounted skeleton is shy of 11.9m long according to the laser scans by Hutchinson et al. (2011), cranial and limb bone measurements along
with comparison of orthographic images of the 3D models by Hutchinson et al. (2011) revels similar size to Stan and AMNH 5027 and the holotype, similarly sized
specimens whose differing lengths of 11.3m-11.9m (by Scott Hartman) are the result of Stan possessing a proportionally shorter neck and tail, they are the same
size otherwise, what length is more appropriate for MOR 555 will probably depend on its age, if closer to Stan, its proportions (and length) will be more appropriate.


Sue 12.3m estimated by Scott Hartman and is also the measurement of the laser scan of the mounted skeleton by Hutchinson et al. (2011), giving its completeness,
this is the most accurate estimate/measurement for any specimen, any increase in length will be nothing more than a longer tail.

RSM 2523.8 (Scotty) femur length of 129cm according to the book The Tyrant King, citing a personal communication with P. Currie, again, similar to size to Stan,
AMNH 5027, the holotype and MOR 555, at least based on that single measurements, it could be anything between 11.3 to 11.9m.

Samson, same as Scotty.

MOR 1126 (C-rex), supposed 10% bigger than Sue is Horner's in the field guess, known from a prearticular, a surungular, 20 fragmentary ribs, a chevron and 3
partial vertebrae, 9% complete by bone count (Larson 2008), classified under XL (extra large) class in the supporting information of Horner et al. (2011), actual
measurements unknown.

MOR 1152 (F-rex), known from a leg (whole leg?) a pelvis, some ribs, some dorsal vertebrae, all heavily eroded, a metatarsal, 7 caudals and 4 chevrons, 8%
complete by bone count (Larson 2008), classified under XL (extra large) class in the supporting information of Horner et al. (2011), actual measurements unknown


For comparison, MOR 555 is classified as large in Horner et al. (2011), is possible that MOR 1126 and MOR 1152 are Sue sized, if they were bigger than Sue, Horner
would have already made it public by now, they were excavated 13 years ago and preparation was complete at least 6 years ago, in fact Horner and Padian (2004)
use cross sections of several limb bones of F-rex in their T. rex growth study and never is it mentioned it being of exceptionally big size.

Now into the growth of Thomas, we already established that it was 96% the size of B-rex, which the soft tissue findings say it was already an adult. B-rex was
estimated to be 19 years old by Erickson et al. (2006) and according to them, the source of that table that you have posted several times, the end of the rapid
growth phase of T. rex occurs between 16 and 20 years of age, citing Schweitzer et al. (2005). Of course, this is according to their growth curve which is not
definitive nor is the only one, Horner and Padian (2004) estimate a younger age for the end of rapid growth, between 15 to 18 years old, they also estimate the age
of B-rex at 18 years old (standard deviation of 2 years) and estimate that its phase of rapid growth had already ended for at least 2 years before it died, they also
estimate MOR 555 to be 14 years old (standard deviation of 2 years), 6 years younger than what Erickson et al. (2006) estimates it at, and that it had already
stopped actively growing for 2 or 3 years, note the great size disparity between this two specimens (femur length of ~115cm vs 128cm), based on the disparate
results and the different estimates of age between several studies you can't accurately know right now, how much, if anything, would have Thomas grown had it died
later than it did, what if it had already stopped actively growing? from where is that 17 years of age? neither Horner and Padian (2004) nor Erickson et al. (2006)
mention it and I am not aware of any other study of this sort, can you cite it?

btw MOR 008 was neither very young nor very large, ridiculous claims by the MOR based on a badly reconstructed skull notwithstanding, Erickson et al. (2006)
estimate its age at 22 years and based on its cranial measurements (from Larson 2008) none of which are bigger than those of Stan or MOR 555, it was rather "normal" sized.

Quote:
 
you should know i study extensively in the realm of tyrannosaurs, and other theropods.

With all due respect but I have yet to see you post with citations to back up you words, nor you corrected any of the bad information of that "guest post" you posted
earlier (I'm not saying that is your opinion though) nor where you very rigorous on your data gathering of those length estimates of T. rex specimens nor where you
cautious in engaging in the speculation of Thomas' "adult size", do you have a library of pdfs of paleontology papers at least? if you study them extensively I would
expect you to have one and have been less careless in your previous posts, anyway, none of this I say I meant it with the intention of being rude, so I'll give you the
welcome to the forum, I see you are relatively new and I had not really seen you post before. edit, I have actually, I just didn't remember, welcome anyway, I didn't do it before.
yeah, i actually have a few PDFs....sited a few earlier....too disturbed by the lack of scientific discussion by the other two members to post them though
Those PDFs do not show any bloody evidence of a 14 metre long Tyrannosaurus specimen. They only provide information about the growth rate of Tyrannosaurus. While the growth rate seems particularly large, we just CANNOT speculate that certain Tyrannosaurus specimens would of grown to gargantuan sizes at adulthood.

You're the one who brought up a fictional fight scenario from another forum to use in this scientific discussion, so I very much doubt they are the ones causing lack of scientific debate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@Carnosaur18
Yeah, I also looked up other earlier posts, your username didn't stuck in my head sorry, anyway, I feel that we should cite them if we can, people can dismiss you if the only thing one is showing is ones own word, so making clear that what you are saying is actually said in a scientific paper does help.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Oh good grief, are you guys still debating about this one? I guess you guys wan't to get it to 300, but anyway. I just find dinosaurs quite boring, I would rather have a fact than a speculation or a guess, don't take any offense to that please. And Blaze, I just want to say I'm sorry for calling you a pathetic debater on the loch ness monster thread. I didn't mean it, and I said it out of the heat of anger. I apologize.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Apology accepted Canadianwildlife, no problem. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Hatzegopteryx
Mar 1 2014, 09:55 AM
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Feb 25 2014, 07:48 PM
Some guys might disagree but in my opinion comparing prey items can be quite helpful.
In a fight to the death, one of the most important deciding factors is skill. The better your skills are, the better fighter you are. One of the best ways to try to get a picture of the fighting skills of an extinct predatory animal is to look at its prey. Predators evolve to hunt prey. If a theropod can kill a mighty ceratopsian with three horns on its face, its an indicator of the effectiveness of its weaponry in a fight. In other words you must be strong to kill something that's strong.
The bull analogy is poor one. Because prey items fight with their predators, not with the plants. A buffalo for example is a good fighter because he needs to fight off prides of hungry lions. On other words the effectiveness of a plant eater's weaponry is reveled when he fights off a powerful predator.
I don't think comparing prey is useful, even more when prey are unarmed. hose also aren't UFC fighters, they are different individuals of species that never dealt with eachother, so "skill" isn't that much of a thing.
Hate to disagree but skill and experience are very important. And comparing prey items gives you an idea of what they bring to the fight. But that's just my opinion.
Edit: i'm finally leaving this debate. I don't think there's anything more to discuss.
Edited by Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex, Mar 1 2014, 10:15 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.