| 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 (459,142 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: | |
|---|---|
| theropod | Jun 20 2014, 12:21 AM Post #3586 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spinosaurus’ teeth are not sharp in the slightest. |
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Jun 20 2014, 04:28 AM Post #3587 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Point-wise, they sure were; and were potentially the most finely-pointed among all theropod groups. But in terms of edges, they possessed thick edges (they were round in cross-section; conical structures in general) that completely lacked any sort of serrations/carination (so tyrannosaurids possessed sharper teeth IN THAT REGARD, but certainly not the former). According to the Google definition: Sharp- having an edge or point that is able to cut or pierce something. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 21 2014, 09:06 PM Post #3588 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You where the one who claimed that Spinosaurus’ teeth where "much sharper". Depending on the dictionary, yes, sharp can refer to a point as well. But either way teeth lacking edges alltogether will hardly be "much sharper" overall. |
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Jun 23 2014, 06:20 AM Post #3589 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tyrannosaurus did not have very sharp teeth in either regard though. The ability for them to kill depends on their 1. strength, and 2. combination with the creature's powerful bite force. They were serrated and at least partially laterally compressed, yes, but spinosaurus' dentition were, quite simply, finely-pointed conical structures that did not rely much on powerful biting |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 23 2014, 07:24 AM Post #3590 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Because they weren’t required to do so, which is due to its lack of a need for a particularly damaging bite. Tyrannosaurus’ teeth are blunt-edged, but even a blunt edge is way sharper than no edge at all. Added to that, its not as if they had no pointed tips in their own regard. On the whole, Tyrannosaurus obviously posessed the sharper teeth, even though they likely required more force as far as mere puncturing is concerned, due to their lower slenderness. |
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Jun 23 2014, 11:12 AM Post #3591 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tyrannosaurid teeth were still very blunt and dull, both in terms of edge robusticity and point: http://www.arizonaskiesmeteorites.com/Dinosaur_Fossils_For_Sale/T_rex_fossils_Tyrannosaurus_rex/Fossil_T_rex_Tooth_2/IMG_9483.jpg |
![]() |
|
| Drift | Jun 28 2014, 03:09 AM Post #3592 |
|
High Spined Lizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's called sensationalism, when you exaggerate some aspect just to get more people interested in the subject at hand.In my decade or so of encountering these abysmal jp3 fans i've seen a trend that continues, none of them know particularly anything about prehistoric life.They just insist upon somthing false portrayed in a movie that had jack horner as a supervisor for all the inaccuracies allowed to be shown.To get back on topic seeing s how this one veered of course into idle chat (as just about 90% of the threads on this place tend to do) and say more often than not Tyrannosaurus would win.Not saying spino wouldn't,or couldn't win but it was just less likely. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 29 2014, 12:38 AM Post #3593 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The real reason isn’t as much sensationalism as it is normal fluctuation of estimates. But if you look more closely you’ll be able to see that has good reasons. An animal with very little material known, and even less still existing, naturally creates problems to estimate. First of all, there is variation in the method, such as isometric scaling, use of regression equations or others. And then, there is variation in nomenclatural regards, e.g. some people decided to not consider MSNM v 4047 a Spinosaurus any more, which, of course, greatly affects the sizes you get for the taxon. You’ll see that certain estimates can be filtered out rather easily (e.g. Therrien&Henderson 2008), and that others can be improved (e.g. Dal Sasso et al 2005). In the end, part of it breaks down to one’s personal attitudes, but that doesn’t automatically mean it is sensationalism or fanboyism (otherwise, one would also have to call the people who made the lowest estimates "haters"). |
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Jun 29 2014, 01:18 AM Post #3594 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This is one of the reasons why I tend to stray away from size estimates (and as such tend to get a lot of them wrong...), because they can never seem to remain constant and there is always intense debating about certain scaling methods, proportions, etc. I find it wise to simply use ranges for estimations, because numbers (even in terms of MYA) confuse me. |
![]() |
|
| Drift | Jul 1 2014, 04:37 AM Post #3595 |
|
High Spined Lizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, that's true most of the time i agree on that which is why i find it illogical to favor an animal still shrouded in mystery. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jul 1 2014, 09:57 PM Post #3596 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But you would favour something OVER an animal still shrouded in mystery? That’s the exact same problem! |
![]() |
|
| Drift | Jul 3 2014, 04:01 AM Post #3597 |
|
High Spined Lizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No problem, it's among the rather common misconceptions about this animal currently being accepted as written in stone facts. |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Jul 3 2014, 07:47 AM Post #3598 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No it isn't, by far the most frequently quoted size estimate is that from Dal Sasso et al. (2005), which was 16 - 18 meters and 7 - 9 tonnes. Just because one study essentially treated it as a giant tyrannosaurid and thus obtained ludicrously large weight estimates doesn't effect the value or validity of other estimates. And... the post you replied to was posted nearly a month ago in response to this post by me, it wasn't directed at you at all. The comment I linked to probably addresses whatever kind of vague side-step you take to try and discredit every Spinosaurus size estimate ever, so you should probably read it. Maybe twice. The fluctuating size estimates are more down to different methodology than anything else; even Sue - an almost fully complete Tyrannosaurus specimen - has seen her weight estimates fluctuate by nearly 75% over the years. Edited by Spinodontosaurus, Jul 3 2014, 07:49 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Teratophoneus | Jul 3 2014, 08:38 AM Post #3599 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What about a draw? I mean, both were huge, Spinosaurus was larger, Tyrannosaurus was very sturdily built...that's a draw to me. |
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Jul 3 2014, 08:45 AM Post #3600 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yea, didn't think about a draw... The only problem is that tyrannosaurus would not have either the correct and ideal morphology suited for taking down an animal THAT much larger than itself, and it would probably not be capable of dealing any damage to spinosaurus' spinal cord (which is probably how tyrannosaurids would have killed larger animals primarily, aside from possibly violent thrashing/shaking maneuvers) simply because of the height advantage of the latter animal. I am still favoring spinosaurus |
![]() |
|
| 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