| 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: |
| Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM (459,156 Views) | |
| Wolf Eagle | Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM Post #1 |
![]()
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. ![]() 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).
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Spinodontosaurus | Mar 2 2014, 12:47 AM Post #3376 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There is a phalanx attributed to MOR 1126 in Longrich et al. - the T. rex Cannibalism paper, Figure 2. There is a scale bar with it too, which is nice, I seem to recall it being ~5% larger than that of Sue. Which is a lot more believable than 10% larger, and given this is just a toe bone measurement for all we know 'Celeste' could just have had big feet like Stan. BTW you mixed up Scott Hartman's length estimates for CM 9380 and AMNH 5027 ![]()
But of course, also very similar to Sue, who has legs barely any longer than those other specimens. |
![]() |
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Mar 2 2014, 01:34 AM Post #3377 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Carnosaur18 stop mentioning the specimens under 14m, they don't support your argument at all they only support mine that you can't prove 14m. And those fragmentary specimens are STILL IMPOSSIBLE to scale |
![]() |
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Mar 2 2014, 01:37 AM Post #3378 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why would prey matter, if that logic worked then all herbivores are defenseless because their prey are easy to kill. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Mar 2 2014, 02:11 AM Post #3379 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
i'm saying it's possible, with so many approaching that size,it's entirely possible. There's a lack of scientific material on C.Rex and F. Rex, so i cannot provide you any of that sort. Y'all seem keen on just debunking every thing i state, even when i back it up with some papers..Wat i've said in previous posts is my theory. And i backed it with those two papers, but "oh no you're wrong and i'm right" seems to be the basis of this bloody site. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Mar 2 2014, 02:12 AM Post #3380 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
go look at my previous post with the size charts, i cited papers.....that support my theory. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Mar 2 2014, 02:14 AM Post #3381 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
XD you obviously didn't read the piece about thomas, Who at age 17 was around the standard size for a tyrannosaurus.....With the growth rate these animals go through, he could have grown over forty feet long, i'd say 43ish(before you ask, go look at my previous post). So a 14 meter Tyrannosaurus? possible. |
![]() |
|
| spinosaurus rex | Mar 2 2014, 02:16 AM Post #3382 |
![]()
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
i would take you for granted if you were to post a study that actually shows evidence of a 14 meter tyrannosaurus. you have posted growth rates of tyrannosaurs. no actual evidence of a tyrannosaurus that size. do you atleast have a study inclines only to the possibilities of a 14 meter tyrannosaurus. so far, it seems like 13 meters is just as possible |
![]() |
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Mar 2 2014, 02:19 AM Post #3383 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The possibility card doesn't help your case, it could happen but we don't have a confirmed 14 metre specimen so stop trying to shove a baseless concept down our throats. And no-one here is saying "I'm right you're wrong", I'm debunking your claims with common sense/logic/phylosophy because you aren't making theories you are using baseless speculation in your favour. |
![]() |
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Mar 2 2014, 02:23 AM Post #3384 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Provide me some more articles about the specimen with more evidence and convincing ones instead of just showing an image to use against SEVERAL other factors that place you as a lowly credible person, e.g. posting someone's inaccurate interpretation that has no relevance whatsoever. |
![]() |
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Mar 2 2014, 02:27 AM Post #3385 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Our largest specimen with an official length figure is FMNH PR 2081, at "only" ~12.27 metres (which is usually rounded up to ~12.3), while those "freak" specimens above 14 metres have unconfirmed lengths. UCMP 137538 is only known from its metatarsals, and we know that it could pretty much be a specimen with big feet like BHI 3033; Seeing as BHI 3033 has large feet, it actually shows how specimen remains vary a lot in size, so UCMP 137538 could have been just a bit longer than FMNH PR 2081.
Edited by Hatzegopteryx, Mar 2 2014, 02:31 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Mar 2 2014, 02:46 AM Post #3386 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
man, i'm out. you guys just aren't very open to jackshit...so bye. |
![]() |
|
| spinosaurus rex | Mar 2 2014, 02:51 AM Post #3387 |
![]()
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
i am open minded. just not openminded to claims that haven't been proven. i'm actually waiting for you to post decent evidence or a study for fragmentary specimens only being about 9% complete being concluded as 14 meters. |
![]() |
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Mar 2 2014, 02:51 AM Post #3388 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We aren't open minded to baseless speculation, that's just it. You also might be interested in this post Broly made in his CF blog:
As he said, UCMP 137538 has different metatarsals than those of FMNH PR 2081, and we don't know, exactly, where those bones were placed, and he also used BHI 3033 to scale UCMP 137538 under certain conditions ("what if..."). Edited by Hatzegopteryx, Mar 2 2014, 02:54 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Mar 2 2014, 04:25 AM Post #3389 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh for godness sake! Again that growth rate debate? It’s beyond pointless. Yes, you can claim that certain T. rex specimens still had a bit more to grow. You can claim that in more or less every dinosaur specimen save for certain few, the vast majority is not fully grown! But you also have to figure in that if a specimen is bigger than normal for its size, that doesn’t have to mean it would have been bigger than normal when older (even when extrapolating hypothetical sizes for not fully mature specimens!). In fact, that’s absolutely no evidence at all. If a specimen that’s 16 years old is as big as another specimen that’s 25 years old, obviously the two did not grow the same way, otherwise the younger specimen would be smaller. accordingly, how can you claim they would have continued to grow the same way? It makes absolutely no sense discussing this when comparing dinosaurs. It’s best to simply compare sexually mature individuals among them, specimens as they are preserved on the fossil record, not mythical predictions on the future of those in alternate timelines. Period. And where do those claims about the size of LACM 7509/150167 come from? I’ve checked the entry in in the specimen list of Larsson 2008, and no measurements are given. But if you want, go on speculating on how big immature specimens may have got, which will likely result in 14m Tyrannosaurs, but also 16m Carcharodontosaurs and 20m Spinosaurs, simply keep in mind that is a fun speculation but not actually of scientific relevance, or of any relevance to comparing T. rex to Spinosaurus! And "so many T. rex specimens approaching 14m"? You must be kidding me. There’s one SINGLE ISOLATED TOEBONE that theoretically could have come from such a freak, and an isolated phalany, not even accounting for individual variation, which is of course very great, holds the problems of correct assignment, which was only very tentative in the paper that described it. Notwithstanding that, the largest known individual is sue, and typical T. rex are 11.3-11.8m long, with varying degree of bulkiness. You should use a typical T. rex to compare it to Spinosaurus, not a particularly large one. EDIT: bye! Edited by theropod, Mar 2 2014, 04:32 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Mar 2 2014, 04:27 AM Post #3390 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
He said bye, so we should also say bye. I am sure he will not learn, so this has no point. |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:23 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)



![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)









2:23 AM Jul 14