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 (459,144 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:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Feel free to do so! I’m looking forward to your picture!

And it isn’t really artwork yet, I’ll see what I can do about it…
Edited by theropod, May 3 2014, 06:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
If you have viewed these counter arguments and cannot pinpoint reason as to why they weren't "convincing",than situations such as this are what lead me to inquire if they had even been read at all.

Merely making a blanket statement (essentially,that anything against a spinosaur possessing the forelimb articulation/strength from monsters resurrected had no validity) while simultaneously creating the false dilemma "Spinosaurus had formidable looking forelimbs, therefore they clearly had to be combat efficient".Clearly isn't the best course of action imo when attempting to assert that another member is counterintuitive to the topic as well as "wasting time".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
you make absolutly no since. spinosaurs fore-arms were possibly the most robust out of all theropods while possessing the thickest and robust claws, yet you fail to think that they couldn't be combat capable even though they are most certainly able to do so?
what i might add is that theropods even with relativly short limbs are extreamly powerful

remember what Senter & Robins wrote on that matter in A. atokensis?
"Undoubtedly, the forelimbs were used during prey capture.
They are the stockiest known theropod forelimbs outside
Spinosauroidea, and their huge muscle scars suggest that
they were heavily muscled and therefore made to be used
in activity involving forces of high magnitude, such as
wrestling with large, violently struggling prey. Therefore,
after having initially seized prey orally, the forelimbs were
probably used next."

tell you what, come at me with a source that suggest why spinosaur arms where not able to do this, because right now, the idea sounds like crap. if you did read this thread, you would see that megalosauridea in general had among the most robust and deadliest forearms compared to many theropods.
Edited by spinosaurus rex, May 4 2014, 05:27 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
And before anyone asks how we're so sure it had such arms, let me just say one thing: phylogenetic bracketing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Yes,clearly i am the one who makes no sense...
Just to verify,I am not the one trying to spread this theory that since a Carcharodontosauridae with a completely different lifestyle in relation to a piscivorous animal.Had exceptional limb use for attainment of prey items after initial bite contact,which somehow in turn dictates this same exact behavior would apparently be exhibited in another animal just on the assumption that it's better equipped to do so?

Or you could provide a source of actual evidence rather than the personal claims that they were deadly (to anything other than a saw-fish freshly pulled from the rivers mouth).Again, trying to justify what one animal is capable of merely off of others accolades is a poor foundation to base any kind of debate on imo.Every one of them is different from the last down to their lifestyle,behavior,ect. So called "truths" about an animal we don't have enough remains of to even amass a general idea of average weights or heights,suddenly become irrefutable because it was said on the internet? Few here really sound assured with this stigma as if it really was some karate chopping twenty tonne beast.

Y'all need to retire this as your primary source for this junk
Primary source for this junk


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
i'm sorry, but you are the one sewing junk. animals will take up numeratial adaptations to suit its envirment, prey items, and defences. you are clearly refering to prey items as the only means to lable spinosaurus fighting capabilites as impared, wich is pointless because prey items alone don't influince an animals behavior torwards a threat and to defend themself.
you stateing that spinosaurus arms being impracticl is beyond me. and feel free to look at the post above yours to see why spinosaurus arms are likely no push over
and because you asked so nicely  :-*
Posted Image

edited: this is likely a better comparison
Edited by spinosaurus rex, May 4 2014, 07:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
If you have viewed these counter arguments and cannot pinpoint reason as to why they weren't "convincing",than situations such as this are what lead me to inquire if they had even been read at all.
Well, they have been, which in turn leaves me to inquire whether you have actually read my counterarguments, which do pinpoint the reasons.

in short:
Spinosaurus’ forelimbs were large and robust
• The muscle insertion point are large and robust, by inference they must have been very muscular
• The unguals they bear are also very large and robust, recurved and pointed–features consistent with varanids, birds of prey and carnosaurs, which all used their claws for predatory purposes
• Their range of motion, when inferred through phylogenetic bracketing from other theropods on which it was studied (e.g. Allosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus), makes them completely suitable for predatory use
• Their general proportions resemble the forelimbs of macrophagous theropods (e.g. Torvosaurus, Afrovenator…) that likely used them for prey capture
This shows that they were suited for being used for fighting, which in turn makes it very likely that they were. At least, the animal’s ability to use them in this manner should be out of the question.

You were the one to come to this thread and claim the forelimbs were "not a factor" without elaborating why.
I and others have already elaborated extensively (and am doing that right now actually!) on why they are, it’s your turn to write a rebuttal to these arguments now, so either do that or keep your opinion to yourself. Its a shame I have to be so repetitive, to anyone seriously attempting to read this thread and wondering why everything gets posted 5 times, I’m very sorry for that.

Quote:
 
Merely making a blanket statement (essentially,that anything against a spinosaur possessing the forelimb articulation/strength from monsters resurrected had no validity)
Please don’t be ridiculous, I have explicitely stated that the portrayal in documentaries (for the simplicity’s sake, it should be clear that includes monsters resurrected, even tough documentary is too nice a term to describe it).
Spinosaurus swiping or slashing at an opponent like a bear or cat is nothing short of laughable. Had you actually read a bit about theropod forelimb biomechanics, you’d certainly know that was not how they were used (and had you looked at any of my posts you××’d know I fully acknowledge that), which does not mean they were useless in a fight.

It is pointless to ridicule something by claiming it to derive from Mega Beasts, especially when everyone can see for themselves that it is not, and by no means comparable. It is not me who is making blanket statements on how these arms worked, I made explanations supported by evidence.

That evidence was not taken from a documentary (in fact, unlike some other people, I avoid taking evidence from documentaries, a rule I have only broken on one occasion, and there it was with good reasons), neither was it "that documentary shows Spinosaurus with useable forelimbs, so they cannot have been usable in reality!", which seems to be yours.
Look at the evidence yourself, then you’ll see it.

Quote:
 
while simultaneously creating the false dilemma "Spinosaurus had formidable looking forelimbs, therefore they clearly had to be combat efficient".
Lol I cannot help but notice a pattern in the type of argument you are posting in this thread. You always seem to raise doubts without actually looking into stuff.

Spinosaurian forelimbs didn’t just look formidable, they are the most robust, among the longest and among those with the longest claws of all theropods. I have already posted an extrapolation as to what concrete influences this has on the dimensions of those in Spinosaurus. The deltopectoral crest is gigantic and the whole osteology is tremendously robust (one could almost confuse the ulna of Baryonyx for a humerus), the claws are recurved and pointed, with robust flexor tubercles. Overall large arms+robust bones+huge muscle attachments+huge claws showing all the signs of a raptorial predator.

Now please, try to infer something from that. If you have problems, we can surely find you some good works on the principles of studying functional morphology. Because believe it or not, looking at stuff is actually how it works, otherwise, we couldn’t tell that T. rex used its jaws for biting either.

Refusing to use the morphology of an extinct animal’s structures to conclude about its capabilities is plain silly, if that is your attitude, I really don’t know what you are even doing in this section of the forum, and why the hell you have an Acrocanthosaurus in your signature…
Edited by theropod, May 5 2014, 01:15 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thesporerex
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Drift, why would Spinosaurus evolve such a useless device if it wasn't going to use it to hunt and fight? Evolution doesn't evolve such useless structures, and if it wasn't sole purpose was to fight why WOULDN'T Spinosaurus use it. Animals are smart they can figure out new ways to fight and hunt. And you haven't given us a solid claim or evidence to why it wouldn't use it or why it wouldn't be so effective. You ask for evidence to why they are deadly but you haven't given us any reason to doubt it because you are not showing any sources. Its common sense that if an animal had gigantic hooked claws that its ancestors used it to kill things and hunt. Why in gods name would it NOT do it. You maybe thinking "What about Deinocheirus or Therizinosaurus?", Well maybe because they are herbivores? They don't need to hunt if they are herbivores obviously. And considering they're arms aren't as robust and the claws are not as combatly effective as Spinosaurus. Greg Paul noted that the claws of Deinocherius are not good for killing prey, but are likely good defensive weapons. Same could be Said for Therizinosaurus. Why do you even doubt they were combatly effective anyway Drift?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
vegetarian
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
50/50
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheLioness
Member Avatar
~Lion-Tiger War Veteran~
[ *  *  * ]
I'd say 50/50 till I read more, however in Jurassic park I wanted the trex to win, so out my own bias, slight favor for rex.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vodmeister
Member Avatar
Ultimate Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
If Spino really did reach 20 tonnes, then its size advantage is too great for Rex to overcome IMO.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheLioness
Member Avatar
~Lion-Tiger War Veteran~
[ *  *  * ]
Yeah I just read that, many different size variations. It would be a mismatch at those weights.

Is this chart accurate or is there better ones out there.
Posted Image

or this one
http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/050/1/5/tyrannosaurus_rex_vs_spinosaurus_by_sameerprehistorica-d5rvqpd.jpg

Did they ever meet in the wild in the past?

Also may we use the awesome rex from king kong and the dino from dinosaur?
Posted Image

lol

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I doubt a biped can reach 20 tonnes.....just sayin'.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Vodmeister
Jun 6 2014, 02:35 PM
If Spino really did reach 20 tonnes, then its size advantage is too great for Rex to overcome IMO.
I think, personally, that specimen MSNM V4047 would have weighed in the region of 8 - 12 tonnes. 20 tonnes just simply isn't feasible - even if you were to scale up Tyrannosaurus to the same length it wouldn't weight that much, at only 17 tonnes, and Tyrannosaurus had hugely wide torso's by theropod standards.
Sue - the biggest Tyrannosaurus known - weighed 8.4 tonnes by Scott Hartman's estimate btw.




@TheLioness, that scale chart isn't accurate, not even close I'm afraid. The Jurassic Park 3 'Spinosaurus' is completely unlike a real Spinosaurus.

As for a scale chart;
Posted Image
Funnily enough the size difference between the two is almost the same as on that JP3 chart, but the proportions are accurate this time around.

And to answer your question, no they did not meet in real life. Tyrannosaurus lived across North America, Spinosaurus North Africa, and seperated by about 30 million years.
There were other giant theropods alongside Spinosaurus though - the carcharodontosaurid Carcharodontosaurus was just as big as Tyrannosaurus (a little longer and taller, but not heavier), and then there is the ceratosaur Bahariasaurus, although it probably wasn't quite that big.
Edited by Spinodontosaurus, Jun 6 2014, 10:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheLioness
Member Avatar
~Lion-Tiger War Veteran~
[ *  *  * ]
Who do you think would win and why? I'm interested in Dinosaurs, have been since I was very young, however its been awhile since I've learned much about them, so much new has been discovered I'm sure.

Thanks for the chart. From the chart we can clearly see the difference in bone thickness in the arms, however did the spino use its arms? The trex also has a advantage in the skull, seems like he could produce more force with his bite and the teeth seem deadlier.

By your knowledge and from the picture there, which animal seems sturdier? If one were to fall first who do you think would? IMO seems the trex has a lower center of gravity, a possibility for more stability, however I do not know if the spinos fin also helped the animal be sturdy in and out of the water?
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.