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 (459,156 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:
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
blaze
Mar 1 2014, 01:53 PM
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.
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 ;)

Quote:
 
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.

But of course, also very similar to Sue, who has legs barely any longer than those other specimens.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Mar 1 2014, 10:00 PM
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.
Why would prey matter, if that logic worked then all herbivores are defenseless because their prey are easy to kill.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hatzegopteryx
Mar 2 2014, 01:34 AM
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
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
blaze
Mar 1 2014, 06:01 PM
@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.
go look at my previous post with the size charts, i cited papers.....that support my theory.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Mar 1 2014, 05:38 PM
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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Carnosaur18
Mar 2 2014, 02:11 AM
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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Carnosaur18
Mar 2 2014, 02:14 AM
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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
man, i'm out. you guys just aren't very open to jackshit...so bye.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
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:

broly
 
Many of you who are interested in dinosaurs, may have seen people in forums and youtube who fuzz over the legend of the "14-15 meter Tyrannosaurus", and refer to the specimen "UCMP 137538". A 13-centimeter long pedal phalanx, which has been assumed to be a left pedal phalanx from comparisons with FMNH PR2081. That is a weak assumption, as the bone looks quite different from that of FMNH PR2081.

For starters, it may not even be a tyrannosaurid. It could have been a gigantic therizinosaur, since a herbivorous lifestyle isn't limited by the constraints of a carnivorous one, such as the need to run down prey.

But what if it turns out to be a tyrannosaurid? Then how large would it be?

The problem is, it's just a toe bone. It's placement in the foot isn't even really known. Even Amphicoelias fragillimus is known from better remains(A D9/D10 vertebra).

The giant sizes come from scaling it up from FMNH PR2081, and the fanboys seemingly only scale from that specimen. FMNH PR2081 isn't the only tyrannosaur specimen however. And Tyrannosaurus isn't the only tyrannosaur. For all we know, UCMP 137538 may actually be a Non-Tyrannosaurus tyrannosauroid.

It's assignment to Tyrannosaurus is only due to the assumption that Tyrannosaurus is the only large theropod living at North America at the Maastrichtian age, which is quite an almost-baseless assumption, considering that the vast majority of the dinosaurs are very likely undiscovered.

Even if it was a Tyrannosaurus, you should still stay away from those 14+ meter calculations. The Tyrannosaurus specimens show quite a lot of variation, The toe bones of BHI 3033(~10.9 meters, probably around 6 tonnes?), which is one of the smallest adult specimens, are quite close in size to those of FMNH PR2081.

UCMP 137538 may actually be smaller than FMNH PR2081(~12.3 meters, ~8 tonnes). But what if...

......
......

What if UCMP 137538 really had feet 20% larger than that of FMNH PR2081 like many fanboys claim? Well, you may still NOT get a ~14-meter Tyrannosaurus.

Posted Image
Skeletals by Scott Hartman

UCMP 137538 is scaled up from BHI 3033, assuming feet are 20% larger than that of FMNH PR2081. As you can see, it actually turned out a bit shorter than FMNH PR2081 in terms of length, but it's a tiny bit taller though. Their mass would be quite similar. Using Stan as a base, UCMP 137538 is FMNH PR2081-sized, not larger.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.