| 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 (459,143 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: | |
|---|---|
| Ausar | Jun 7 2014, 05:31 AM Post #3571 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spinosaurus could likely use its arms here. Megalosauroids (the superfamily spinosaurids are part of) had some of the most robust and strongest arms among theropods. Added to that, the likely huge claws at the tips of the fingers. I think they will be used like grappling hooks and bring its opponent closer to the jaws. Btw, those large claws will also cause nasty puncture wounds. |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Jun 7 2014, 04:31 PM Post #3572 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't know who would win. The weight of Spinosaurus is too much of a variable at this point. At the upper end of what I consider to be reasonable, then I would put my money Spinosaurus simply because of it's size (in large animals, size is one of the most useful weapons and defences possible). The lower end would put it at pretty much the same size as big Tyrannosaurus specimens, at which point I would favour Tyrannosaurus, as it is clearly more suited to killing something of comparable size to it than Spino was. And yes, I do believe Spinosaurus would have used it's arms where possible. Even Acrocanthosaurus is believed to have used it's forelimbs in prey capture, and the study that proposed even mentioned that spinosaurids have even more robustly constructed arms, and larger too. It wouldn't make any sense for them to have such huge forelimbs if they never used them. We see in other theropods what happens when forelimbs become less necessary - tyrannosaurids ended up with tiny arms because their jaws would have done all the work, whilst abelisaurids (e.g. Carnotaurus and Majungasaurus) were even more extreme than that. Now I doubt they used them like the wannabe boxers that certain documentaries portray them as, but for gripping, controlling or simply puncturing their prey/opponent, those arms would have been pretty effective. Something else to keep in mind is that, whilst Tyrannosaurus is the bulkier animal (wider ribcage), it would be Spinosaurus with the robustly constructed limbs - it is something all megalosauroids have in common (with megalosaroids encompassing both spinosaurids and megalosaurids). This doesn't follow over to it's vertebrae mind you. Again, at the upper weight range, Spinosaurus should, in theory, have been the stronger animal (size = strength for starters), which should give it an advantage when it comes to knocking over or controlling the opponent. Although I don't think there is any doubt that Tyrannosaurus would be the stronger at roughly equal sizes. I doubt the fin would have helped with stability. That said, between a fifth and a third of the length of each long spine would have served as muscle attachment, which is why only part of the spines are shaded grey in the chart I posted (grey intending to signify the ridge/sail), so I guess that the spines themselves would have helped with stability of sorts - but the ridge/sail itself wouldn't have, if that makes sense. As for stuff you learned as a kid... a lot of it is probably wrong, like really wrong. We've all been there, done that, so it's no big deal. I know some people might be extremely abrasive when correcting errors such as this, although I think most on this forum are alright in that regard. |
![]() |
|
| thesporerex | Jun 8 2014, 01:35 AM Post #3573 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I just looked at the difference in vertebrae and holy fucking shit, jesus christ there is a difference even at that size difference overall. |
![]() |
|
| TheLioness | Jun 8 2014, 02:06 AM Post #3574 |
![]()
~Lion-Tiger War Veteran~
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What an amazing reply. I appreciate it, very thorough. Thank you and hope to learn the truth about the big Dinosaurs, so that my kids will also have the right knowledge on them. |
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Jun 8 2014, 03:32 AM Post #3575 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This. There isn't much point in discussing a fight between these two as long as Spinosaurus' weight could be anything from 7 to 20 tons. 8 t T.Rex vs 12 t Spinosaurus I would say 50/50 with a slight favor for Tyrannosaurus. 8t T.Rex vs 16 t Spinosaurus (or even more) would be too much for T-Rex. |
![]() |
|
| Drift | Jun 8 2014, 03:55 AM Post #3576 |
|
High Spined Lizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Prior to seeing this response i couldn't recollect a time when any other has been as extensive as that post minus their own unintentionally biased assertions,there were a few bullets regarding the structurally reminiscent range of articulation in other megalosauridae i was not aware of.To be fair most of the reason in first few hundred or so replies was not factually based/rooted in sources.There was much talk of 'rearing up' combined with the snowballing effect which aided the further exacerbation of stressors surrounding any attempts at gaining logistical input.Which lead me to mimic the rhetoric in which i was so frustrated with from the start, by claiming they were 'Not a factor' was the shortest possible route to avoid the lengthy disarmament of each individual boasting it was in fact what sealed a victory.There were 3 you mentioned that were unknown to me that were not touched upon before which did shed some light on them being exceptionally designed in securing a struggling prey item.It's still a moot point however seeing as how far the shoulder joint is connected to the coracoid, rendering them useful only if any Tyrannosauridae were directly under them (maybe after sustaining a leg injury toppling it,only way i can imagine it working).We need not delve into the potential fatal injuries that would be ensured had there been any type of bite placement along one of them.
When showcased in such works of fiction as this ![]() imo there isn't anything else as exceedingly accurate to emphasize the standpoint other aside from myself have on it.When the length and overall execution of capabilities is showcased in such a manner, overwrought sums up my take on the prerogative of making things a spectacle rather than factually informative entertainment.In real life there is no way due to placement of the animals skeletal structure that would have happened, and it's not beating a dead horse here to address that this is what started an entire decade of others furthering the fallacy seen above.(not to mention the list of inaccuracies in the anatomy of the animal) Which leads me to point out that it's necessary to do so,to rid this place of any diatribe formed to assassinate the character of any who oppose it and don't accept it as something based in reality.There's virtually no limit to which you must take with a grain of salt the feats seen in such works of CGI, trust me when i appoint that not many distinguish a difference of plausibility between M.R. or Planet Dinosaur.Seeing results that cater to core belief system = lashing out when something puts a damper on it in the ever so slightest of ways. I do appreciate how you do not root your claims on the grounds that a documentary showcased something lauded as fact (unlike many other),however at the same time this clashes with me since your thoughts on potential offensive capabilities regarding limb robusticity aren't playing down what was portrayed as ending a Carcharodontosaurus or tearing up Sarcosuchus with just few various areas of contact being made.As well as the degrees in which it was shown as being able to comfortably maneuver in. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 8 2014, 08:42 AM Post #3577 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is hard to believe how much of an influence the JP franchise has had on some people. More than a decade after JP3 was released, it still seems like there are those who just can’t seem to get over it… Again, that Jurassic park or Mega Beasts portrayed Spinosaurus using its forelimbs in an inaccurate fashion (which, unlike seemingly implied above, nobody here doubts in the slightest) does not mean in real life it did not use them. As Spinodontosaurus explained, it most certainly did, which you now even seem to agree with. Now I think he has done a very good job at describing how, so no need to repeat myself on that matter any further. Just don’t dismiss scientific facts as meaningless just because how they were misinterpreted in works of fiction makes you angry. It does with me too, for example it makes me very angry that Liopleurodon was portrayed as a 25m monster by BBC, but that does not mean I now go around saying Liopleurodon was an unicellular organism. And of course there are few things I find as hilarious as Monsters Resurrected and its Spinosaurus killing a Carcharodontosaurus with a pawswipe to the head, but that should not impair our perception of real science. Besides, what are those data about movement range in "other megalosaurs" you were referring to? I don’t recall any study ever being made on the range of movement in megalosaur forelimbs, what we need to know we infer from phylogenetic bracketing (carnosaurs-coelurosaurs-ceratosaurs). Edited by theropod, Jun 8 2014, 08:44 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| BoomerSooner | Jun 8 2014, 09:13 AM Post #3578 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't understand why the weight estimate for spino is so broad. Can someone explain that? |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Jun 8 2014, 06:06 PM Post #3579 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Although it's remains are quite poor, they do allow us to constrain the total body length quite well, and the general proportions of the head, neck, torso and tail. So length isn't much of issue, most rigorous restorations I know of place the type specimen at around 14 meters. The wildly varying weight range is because we don't know how wide it was, nor how much bigger than the type specimen was the biggest specimen (if at all). And width is important, it's what makes Tyrannosaurus weigh more than Giganotosaurus despite not being as long or as tall (see here), at least in those particular specimens. And unlike the length, we can't really constrain the width. For starters, the biggest rib doesn't seem to be even be the same one that is figured in these plates, or if it is I can't get them to match neither Scott Hartman's skeletal, or Greg Paul's. And another is how the rib itself articulate with the vertebrae. Do they stick out horizontally, 45 degrees or what? And then there is the fact that, if you go extremely simple and just use the size of the vertebrae centra themselves as a direct proxy for size, Tyrannosaurus has much bigger vertebrae (albeit not as long), and so would be expected to be the bigger animal. That 20 tonne figure from Therrein and Henderson (2007) was a direct result of them essentially treating Spinosaurus as a gigantic tyrannosaurid, all of the other (numerous) issues with that study notwithstanding. Edited by Spinodontosaurus, Jun 8 2014, 06:08 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| BoomerSooner | Jun 9 2014, 01:03 AM Post #3580 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thank you. I thought 20 tonnes sounded fishy. |
![]() |
|
| TheROC | Jun 9 2014, 01:15 AM Post #3581 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Seriously, when is Hartman's weight estimate coming through? And Paul Sereno hinted at new Spinosaurus remains that would change how it is constructed and confirm that it is the largest theropod. The cynic in me doesn't expect that information to surface to the public for another few years. Paleontology seems to operate so much slower than other fields of science. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 9 2014, 01:19 AM Post #3582 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That’s because palaeontology is an expensive and complex field. It takes a lot of time to excavate, preparate and study large fossils. It’s still better to take their time and do a proper description later than to make some sort of preliminary field-note now and consider the job done. |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Jun 10 2014, 06:05 AM Post #3583 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I get the need to have information as soon as possible, but when things are rushed we just end up with situations like Suchomimus and Giganotosaurus, where we still don't have a remotely adequate description of their remains despite being known for well over a decade. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 10 2014, 06:30 AM Post #3584 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
NO!!! every time I’m reminded of that it makes me so sad
|
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Jun 19 2014, 11:59 PM Post #3585 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The spinosaurus could most definitely use its arms; they were quite long and served a huge purpose unlike those of tyrannosaurids (which have been described as being certainly strong, but they would serve little purpose aside from POTENTIALLY aiding in killing by grasping an opponent, but they were for the most part rudimentary and almost useless). Tyrannosaurus has the immediate advantage in terms of bite strength and skull robusticity- it was highly adaptive to crush hefty materials such as ankylosaur osteoderms and bones. But its teeth being deadlier is opinionated; spinosaurus' teeth were much sharper and more slender (they were much better designed for causing deep piercing wounds), and were still yet very strong (they were designed for gripping fish, so naturally they would need to be very strong to prevent breaking. If the rather thick, conical, and unserrated shape is indicative of this sort of strength already, think about the logic). Although tyrannosaurus' teeth were carinated and recurved, they were still not very efficient at cutting, as they were still quite thick in cross-section as opposed to the dentition of many other predatory theropods. They were designed for torsional feeding and crushing, while those of spinosaurus were designed for penetrating the hides of powerful fish- so their functions were completely different and each had their benefits and disadvantages. And by sturdier are you talking about which animal would have a lesser chance of falling over (in terms of balance and gravity)? Spinosaurus' enlarged spinal column (not a fin at all) would have made it far easier for it to tumble to the ground (note that it was not going to be chasing down prey in the sense of tyrannosaurid predation), so I'll go with tyrannosaurus being advantageous for this aspect |
![]() |
|
| 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