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 (459,358 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
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I have used that calculation, but here the skull seems larger than 1,2m.

spinosaurus: >16m!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I have used that calculation, but here the skull seems larger than 1,2m.

The skull looks like 1,3m i think, each square is equal to 1m. But Suchomimus in the size scale is also slightly longer than 11m. If you want to see the picture clearer, just click right mouse at the picture and then click "open in new tab" to see a bigger picture
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Verdugo
Sep 7 2012, 02:07 AM
Quote:
 
I have used that calculation, but here the skull seems larger than 1,2m.

The skull looks like 1,3m i think, each square is equal to 1m. But Suchomimus in the size scale is also slightly longer than 11m. If you want to see the picture clearer, just click right mouse at the picture and then click "open in new tab" to see a bigger picture
If you're talking about my scale, the animals are scaled correctly to each other but the meter grid is off do to a mistake on my part. I'll have fixed versions up in a minute.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The real question is how does rex even bite an animal as large as Spinosaurus, its gape wasn't wide enough to get more than a scrap of skin, off of most parts of the body.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It can not, but it can at the neck and skull.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Sep 7 2012, 02:42 AM
The real question is how does rex even bite an animal as large as Spinosaurus, its gape wasn't wide enough to get more than a scrap of skin, off of most parts of the body.
Posted Image

Base on this scale, Rex would likely to crush Spino skull and neck, that's how it can kill Spino
The best contender againts T rex should be Carcharrodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus rather than Spinosaurus. Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus bite is absolutely NASTY !!
Edited by Verdugo, Sep 7 2012, 02:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
yes, and based on this scale spinosaurus is at a very small estimate. stop always using this depiction to judge the outcome, it is not necessarily true
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Sep 7 2012, 06:42 PM
yes, and based on this scale spinosaurus is at a very small estimate. stop always using this depiction to judge the outcome, it is not necessarily true
It's not a very small estimate, it's based on 1,75m skull, the largest specimens we have for Spinosaurus. And the body length are both based on Harman reconstruction and François Therrien and Donald Henderson formula, while yours 18m Spino are based on Dal Sasso (which is older than both Hartman and Henderson) and biased fanboys
A 14,5m 8,7 tons Spinosaurus sounds most PLAUSIBLE, it's already been heavier, longer than Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus and T rex which is very extremely EXTREME for a bipedal
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
it sounds more plausible to you, nevertheless it´s biased to use it instead of the maximum size when comparing it to large T. rex specimens.

you are totally agaisnt the ridiculous weight estimates produced by the hederson study, but yet you believe in the results of an unreliable metod for a type of theropod vastly different from those used in the regression equasion? Scott hartmans skeletal represents what HE imagines this animal to look like, and there is plenty of evidence for the 18m as I have already shown.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
This isn't maximum though is it? Its avg vs avg. 14m t rex vs a 15~16 m spinosaurus not a 18m one
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
14m T. rex is rather a hypothetical maximum figure, that could at best have been attained by one individual (UCMP 137538), than average, as far as I know T. rex average was rather 11-12m and the confirmed largest specimen remains sue.
Edited by theropod, Sep 7 2012, 08:15 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I know, I made a mistake on that part.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@Verdugo
Haven't you read Fragilimus point here, why a 1,9m skull is more accurate than a 1,75m one?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
you are totally agaisnt the ridiculous weight estimates produced by the hederson study, but yet you believe in the results of an unreliable metod for a type of theropod vastly different from those used in the regression equasion?

No, the length and the weight estimates use different FORMULA. The length estimates base on Henderson formular are quite close to the published length estimates, that makes it more plausible while the weight estimates are ridiculous because it's far to great for the published weight estimates
Quote:
 
and there is plenty of evidence for the 18m as I have already shown.

You haven't showed any evidences, you just showed other size scales base on outdate reconstruction and size scale from Fragilimus, those are not proof evidence. You regretted Hartman reconstruction and favoured other outdate reconstruction just because it gave Spinosaurus a larger size
Quote:
 
14m T. rex is rather a hypothetical maximum figure, that could at best have been attained by one individual (UCMP 137538)

UCMP 137538 is probably just a big toe specimen, UCMP 137538 toes are 20% bigger than Sue. So if you scale up from Sue, UCMP 137538 will be 15,36m and weighs ~ 14 tons, which is just too much for bipedal
Quote:
 
Haven't you read Fragilimus point here, why a 1,9m skull is more accurate than a 1,75m one?

You think i will believe that guy, he's definitely biased Spino fanboy. This scale tell everything
Posted Image

If T rex weighs 8 tons, how much is that Spino, 20 tons ?? 30 tons ?? => BIASED fanboy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What if we forget about maximum sizes and go for subadult vs subadult? the 14m Spinosaurus vs a 10m T. rex? :P
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.