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 (459,147 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:
thesporerex
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Edit that, A grappling tool in the sense but its not the way you think it is. It doesn't grapple like other dinosaurs or animals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
We don’t exactly know Spinosaurus’ brachial range of motion, but we have no reason to suspect it did not "grapple like other dinosaurs"–just with a greater reach and power, due to its overally larger and more robust arms of course.

We are not talking about a cat or bear here, I think everybody knows that. Large theropods are most comparable to birds of prey and monitor lizards as regards forelimb function (but in BOPs that applies to the hindlimb). The curved claws are like giant pegs or hooks, connected to very robust, relatively inflexible forelimbs.

Not well-suited for the relatively acrobatic swiping and slashing movements observable in mammal carnivores, which are associated with a purpose in locomotion. But perfect for gripping and puncturing and resisting huge loads, associated with the giant size of these animals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retic
Member Avatar
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
thesporerex
Apr 26 2014, 11:57 PM
Something applying 2 tonnes of force would break almost anything dude...
i don't think so. tyrannosaurus had to fight other members of its species ( which could also bite much harder than spinosaurus ), so i don't think the bite of spinosaurus will be enough to kill tyrannosaurus.

TheMechaBaryonyx789
 
A bite force of 2 tons could easily cause serious damage to an 8 ton animal such as Tyrannosaurus. Also since when did Spinosaurus' teeth have no serrations?
you once said that spinosaurus had a skull similar to a false gharial, right? show me an instance where a false gharial killed something similar in size to itself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinosaurus does not have a skull similar to a false gharial. Its snout is comparable in width (in relative terms of course) but far deeper.
And the false gharial is an excellent example of how bite force isn’t very relevant–because false gharials produce respectable ones-in fact we get more than 1.2t for a 1t specimen based on Erickson et al. 2012, and the maximum values measured for T. schlegelii were among the highest in the whole study.
Unless we want to scale up its bite force based on false gharials (which would result in bite forces easily as high as, or higher than, that of T. rex!), it may not be so wise to always use them as an argument.
Spinosaurus has a few small things in common–conical teeth and an elongated snout–but there are many differences, which essentially mean predator-prey ratios cannot be just projected from one onto the other.
Spinosaurids may have been crocodile-mimics, that doesn’t mean they are also functional crocodile analogues.

Not sure, do they kill conspecifics, like other crocodilians do? At least I know they kill humans and deer, they are not limited to small fish.
Anyway, I don’t think Tomistoma has the option of killing a similar-sized animal by slamming it to the ground, puncturing its lung with its claws, or by stepping onto it.

Also that Tyrannosaurus "has to fight other members of its species" isn’t an argument proving that Spinosaurus’ bite would be incapable of causing damage on it. that’s like saying "a wolf has to fight other wolves, so why should a cougar be able to harm it?".

In certain reagions, Spinosaurus’ bite could be very dangerous. In others, not that much.
Edited by theropod, Apr 28 2014, 02:48 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retic
Member Avatar
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Apr 28 2014, 02:42 AM
Spinosaurus does not have a skull similar to a false gharial. Its snout is comparable in width (in relative terms of course) but far deeper.
And the false gharial is an excellent example of how bite force isn’t very relevant–because false gharials produce respectable ones-in fact we get more than 1.2t for a 1t specimen based on Erickson et al. 2012, and the maximum values measured for T. schlegelii were among the highest in the whole study.
Unless we want to scale up its bite force based on false gharials (which would result in bite forces easily as high as, or higher than, that of T. rex!), it may not be so wise to always use them as an argument.
Spinosaurus has a few small things in common–conical teeth and an elongated snout–but there are many differences, which essentially mean predator-prey ratios cannot be just projected from one onto the other.
Spinosaurids may have been crocodile-mimics, that doesn’t mean they are also functional crocodile analogues.

Not sure, do they kill conspecifics, like other crocodilians do? At least I know they kill humans and deer, they are not limited to small fish.
Anyway, I don’t think Tomistoma has the option of killing a similar-sized animal by slamming it to the ground, puncturing its lung with its claws, or by stepping onto it.

Also that Tyrannosaurus "has to fight other members of its species" isn’t an argument proving that Spinosaurus’ bite would be incapable of causing damage on it. that’s like saying "a wolf has to fight other wolves, so why should a cougar be able to harm it?".

In certain reagions, Spinosaurus’ bite could be very dangerous. In others, not that much.
bite force might not be very relevant, but having serrated teeth is. tyrannosaurus not only has a strong bite, but it has serrations. i'm not saying spinosaurus can't kill tyrannosaurus, just that it will be highly unlikely that it will be killing it with its bite. your wolf and cougar example doesn't make sense since cougars have been known to kill large prey such as moose with their bite, while spinosaurus has the adaptations (in terms of biting) of an animal that hunts fish and dinosaurs significantly smaller than itself, such as a slender snout and conical teeth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
tyrannosaurus serrations were insignifigant compared to the tooth as a whole. the serrations were reduced in size due to the fact tyrannosaurus rellied on power to kill it's prey, not reciving lacerations.
and i wouldn't underestimate spinosaurus detition. thier second to being the largest tooth of any terrestrial land animal excluding tusks. serrations or no serrations, the proportionally large teeth of spinosaurus were design to impale and punture animals. and those large teeth going around the neck of almost any animal similar in size is bound to leave undesirable wounds and damage to veins, arteries,etc. i honestly think spinosarus wasn't that heavily impared to hunt sizeable prey items.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
retic
Apr 28 2014, 12:33 AM
thesporerex
Apr 26 2014, 11:57 PM
Something applying 2 tonnes of force would break almost anything dude...
i don't think so. tyrannosaurus had to fight other members of its species ( which could also bite much harder than spinosaurus ), so i don't think the bite of spinosaurus will be enough to kill tyrannosaurus.

TheMechaBaryonyx789
 
A bite force of 2 tons could easily cause serious damage to an 8 ton animal such as Tyrannosaurus. Also since when did Spinosaurus' teeth have no serrations?
you once said that spinosaurus had a skull similar to a false gharial, right? show me an instance where a false gharial killed something similar in size to itself.
I said that Spinosaurus' skull was similar to fresh-water crocodiles, not a false-gharial. Fresh-water crocodiles are perfectly capable of killing animals of similar size.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thesporerex
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Both Analogies don't really work. Why can't it have a unqiue physiology? But I do have to say if its similar to anything of today false-gharial. Just far more robust than false-gharial and everything theropod said above.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
retic
Apr 28 2014, 08:19 AM
theropod
Apr 28 2014, 02:42 AM
Spinosaurus does not have a skull similar to a false gharial. Its snout is comparable in width (in relative terms of course) but far deeper.
And the false gharial is an excellent example of how bite force isn’t very relevant–because false gharials produce respectable ones-in fact we get more than 1.2t for a 1t specimen based on Erickson et al. 2012, and the maximum values measured for T. schlegelii were among the highest in the whole study.
Unless we want to scale up its bite force based on false gharials (which would result in bite forces easily as high as, or higher than, that of T. rex!), it may not be so wise to always use them as an argument.
Spinosaurus has a few small things in common–conical teeth and an elongated snout–but there are many differences, which essentially mean predator-prey ratios cannot be just projected from one onto the other.
Spinosaurids may have been crocodile-mimics, that doesn’t mean they are also functional crocodile analogues.

Not sure, do they kill conspecifics, like other crocodilians do? At least I know they kill humans and deer, they are not limited to small fish.
Anyway, I don’t think Tomistoma has the option of killing a similar-sized animal by slamming it to the ground, puncturing its lung with its claws, or by stepping onto it.

Also that Tyrannosaurus "has to fight other members of its species" isn’t an argument proving that Spinosaurus’ bite would be incapable of causing damage on it. that’s like saying "a wolf has to fight other wolves, so why should a cougar be able to harm it?".

In certain reagions, Spinosaurus’ bite could be very dangerous. In others, not that much.
bite force might not be very relevant, but having serrated teeth is. tyrannosaurus not only has a strong bite, but it has serrations. i'm not saying spinosaurus can't kill tyrannosaurus, just that it will be highly unlikely that it will be killing it with its bite. your wolf and cougar example doesn't make sense since cougars have been known to kill large prey such as moose with their bite, while spinosaurus has the adaptations (in terms of biting) of an animal that hunts fish and dinosaurs significantly smaller than itself, such as a slender snout and conical teeth.
T. rex serrations (again): They don’t act like normal serrations, their function is more similar to an unserrated blade (a fairly blunt one that is). Source→

• I agree it is unlikely it will be doing it with its bite, most likely it will use its sheer size, strenght and its forelimbs (although I think it will also use its jaws, but as gripping tools).

• Yes, a cougar does kill large animals. But if it was just a fossil rostrum and the cat family was poorly known as a whole, would we know that? Its jaws are pretty tiny and it has a set of conical teeth in front. Chances are that cats would also be considered primarily piscivorous.
Cougars rely strongly on behavioural adaptions when killing large animals–they place a bite to the throat, nape or skull to kill it, much unlike animals with jaws built to be damaging (theropods, wolves, hyaenas, sharks, monitor lizards).
Regarding functional anatomy, spinosaurus would have had the same capability. Of course, it’s doubtful whether its brain was sophisticated enough for these kinds of attack methods. Hence what I wrote, in certain places, Spinosaurus’ jaws could be very dangerous.

Considering it likely has the longest (and thickest) tooth of any theropod in its jaw, it is not inconceivable it would have managed to pierce deep enough to puncture the spinal chord with a bite, and it certainly wouldn’t be beyond those jaw’s capabilities to clamp down on a windpipe.
Edited by theropod, Apr 28 2014, 08:19 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Drift
Apr 24 2014, 02:16 PM
I'll have to nod with Hatzegopteryx since it's mouth was too specialized for a specific prey to be detrimental to this carnivore.There have been numerous explanations as to why the arms are not a factor here & i'm not a big fan of repeating information that's been possibly (purposely) overlooked.


theropod
Apr 26 2014, 08:44 PM
Not sure what kind of "overlooked information" you are referring to. How the arms could not be a factor is beyond me.


Just to clear any confusion brought about due to my post,this seemed like the right thing to do.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What seemed like the right thing to do? You realise that in the time you used for being deliberately vague, you could also have simply explained your reasoning?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retic
Member Avatar
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Apr 28 2014, 04:11 PM
retic
Apr 28 2014, 12:33 AM
thesporerex
Apr 26 2014, 11:57 PM
Something applying 2 tonnes of force would break almost anything dude...
i don't think so. tyrannosaurus had to fight other members of its species ( which could also bite much harder than spinosaurus ), so i don't think the bite of spinosaurus will be enough to kill tyrannosaurus.

TheMechaBaryonyx789
 
A bite force of 2 tons could easily cause serious damage to an 8 ton animal such as Tyrannosaurus. Also since when did Spinosaurus' teeth have no serrations?
you once said that spinosaurus had a skull similar to a false gharial, right? show me an instance where a false gharial killed something similar in size to itself.
I said that Spinosaurus' skull was similar to fresh-water crocodiles, not a false-gharial. Fresh-water crocodiles are perfectly capable of killing animals of similar size.
when have fresh water crocodiles killed animals of similar size?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retic
Member Avatar
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
anyway, currently my opinion on this match up is that if spinosaurus is significantly larger, then i will favor it, though if it is similar in size to tyrannosaurus, then t.rex wins.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Apr 28 2014, 08:10 PM
T. rex serrations (again): They don’t act like normal serrations, their function is more similar to an unserrated blade (a fairly blunt one that is). Source→
I never thought there'd actually be a paper that supports the bacteria theory (so I guess the documentaries can at least say there's a paper)…
In the other hand, the ora venom is more recent knowledge, while that's a two decade old paper.
I know that I go off topic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retic
Member Avatar
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
spinosaurus rex
Apr 28 2014, 10:45 AM
tyrannosaurus serrations were insignifigant compared to the tooth as a whole. the serrations were reduced in size due to the fact tyrannosaurus rellied on power to kill it's prey, not reciving lacerations.
and i wouldn't underestimate spinosaurus detition. thier second to being the largest tooth of any terrestrial land animal excluding tusks. serrations or no serrations, the proportionally large teeth of spinosaurus were design to impale and punture animals. and those large teeth going around the neck of almost any animal similar in size is bound to leave undesirable wounds and damage to veins, arteries,etc. i honestly think spinosarus wasn't that heavily impared to hunt sizeable prey items.
define sizable?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.