| 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 (459,141 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: | |
|---|---|
| Teratophoneus | Jul 3 2014, 08:52 AM Post #3601 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Didn't Spinosaurus have short legs? If it was so, then, it wouldn't be much taller.
Edited by Teratophoneus, Jul 3 2014, 08:52 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Jul 3 2014, 08:59 AM Post #3602 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Leg length is only one factor. Depending on how exactly spinosaurus grew (which is unknown, as we have very few specimens to work with and even very few fossils aside from a few rostra, neural spines, and a lot of teeth), it would most likely be much taller simply given its advantage length and weight-wise. Also note that the creature's dorsal spines would be very difficult to bite (simply because the actual spinal cord itself is located within the base of the vertebrae, not the heightened piece). |
![]() |
|
| Teratophoneus | Jul 3 2014, 09:06 AM Post #3603 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spinosaurus could simply have a long tail, couldn't it? |
![]() |
|
| Sarcoimperator | Jul 3 2014, 04:41 PM Post #3604 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is correct. It could also have a really short tail. We have got one or two tail vertebrae from it so we really don't know. Tail length of course wouldn't be a factor in a fight nor would it change its weight much. Here is an article in which you can see different possibilities: http://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2012/aug/29/dinosaurs-fossils Edited by Sarcoimperator, Jul 3 2014, 05:27 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Jul 4 2014, 12:35 AM Post #3605 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A tail is a given in any dinosaur, long or not. In spinosaurus I would personally expect to see a moderately-lengthened tail, but not excessive or whip-like by any means. Tail length is determined by the creature's adaptations and proportions- where diplodocids and other similar sauropods utilized them as weapons (and they sure would be very crippling BTW), but does that make them tall animals? Take note that spinosaurus was a bipedal creature with heightened vertebrae, so naturally being simply much larger than tyrannosaurus would in fact make it taller (at least I am pretty sure. I am bad at sizes and numbers) |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jul 4 2014, 12:41 AM Post #3606 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We’ve all read that claim, but it has been years now and nobody ever came up with any evidence. Since some of the reconstructions floating around seem plain hilarious, I wouldn’t give too much credential to them. Spinosaurus certainly didn’t have particularly long legs relative to body size, but its sheer size would likely still have made it taller. |
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Jul 4 2014, 12:43 AM Post #3607 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is still possible that its leg length was proportionally inferior to that of tyrannosaurus however (which was, according to many, ideally-adapted for speed). But given the size advantage of the megalosaur, its legs being longer at maximum sizes is definitely credible |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jul 4 2014, 12:50 AM Post #3608 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wasn't there some allometry that made larger animals have proportionally shorter legs? In the scaling thread, they said something about length having little impact on support, so it makes sense. |
![]() |
|
| Drift | Jul 4 2014, 09:12 AM Post #3609 |
|
High Spined Lizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If there was a consensus (among highly revered peers in this field) that agreed this it was sound and definitive enough for publication.Yes, then i would accept it but for the most part it is nothing more than individualistic speculation that this is 'truth'.As i've stated before agreeing/forwarding a theory and taking it to heart simultaneously cause faults in the legitimacy of anything said after,I choose not to do the same and revert to this tactic and bring up the Tyrannosaur specimens that were reported as reaching fifty feet. I see these creatures for what they are, not what i want them to be.In my opinion it's why these mythic lengths are held on to for dear life in threads like this, if the reality sets in that it's average length was not fifty feet leveling out at twenty tonnes.It would seems a rather grim outcome would set in,seeing something so often referred to as a capable combatant in the mind of those who wish it to be true,sullied with annoying things such as factually solid evidence that rob the one saving grace of their argument...."it was bigger so by default it wins".Well if you choose to pick the ludicrous sizes portrayed in JP3,M.R.,Or planet dinosaur than be my guest.It's the only thing keeping this decade old,tired topic alive.The few that cannot conceive a smaller dinosaur than what they believe it should be, Know that its fabled size is the only thing to look forward to boasting about due to alleged greater length.If reason someday sets in and they see the overwhelming amount of advantages tyrannosaurs has,than this "debate" shall be no more. In no way does this dictate i am "side-stepping" what you are categorizing as "fact" which i addressed above,Spinosaurus main killing apparatus is just not up to par with other therapods when it comes to taking things down equal in size or larger.It's dentition is suited for anything aquatic and would be outmatched by the other terrestrial predators it shared its habitat with which is why i heavily favor Tyrannosaurs here. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jul 4 2014, 09:45 PM Post #3610 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think larger animals tend to have proportionately shorter legs, but primarily, they tend to have relatively shorter tibiae and metatarsals as they reduce cursoriality. No tyrannosaur specimens have even been reported as coming anywhere close to that lenght in scientific publication. Spinosaurus IS generally accepted to have been the biggest theropod, estimates above 16m have been published in peer-reviewed papers, cited and produced on scientific sites and in books etc. And whether you like it or not, the context of the animal’s size is very important for that point. Tyrannosaurus’ killing apparatus was also not made to kill larger prey, but that of Spinosaurus was actually made to kill smaller creatures. besides the bite, I don’t actually see much in terms of advantages for T. rex. Being smaller would mean being more agile of course, but that doesn’t make up for a size deficiency in terrestrial animals. But I guess by your logic I could demand you to find me several scientists who litterally stated "T. rex’ killing apparatus was more formidable than that of Spinosaurus’", after all whatever other people argue is irrelevant by default (or do you make a difference with your own arguments?). btw let’s have a look at this:
Fallacy 1: Argument from authority Fallacy 2: Ignoring the principle of parsimony and dismissing evidence you regard as weak as worthless Fallacy 3: writing something totally unrelated to the topic at hand; comparing scientific publications that were not merely peer reviewed but based on actual, verifyable material and documented methods to claims made by fanboys in youtube comments. Fallacy 4: Argument from personal grudge and dismissing of estimates without proposing alternatives. Also, again a completely unnecessary reference to inaccurate documentaries for no reason at all. Fallacy 5: Claiming someone to categorize something as a fact, apparently without understanding the meaning of the word fact. Edited by theropod, Sep 3 2014, 09:28 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| vegetarian | Jul 4 2014, 10:15 PM Post #3611 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
spinosaurus |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jul 4 2014, 11:14 PM Post #3612 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@vegetarian: Please stop posting scenes from Monsters Resurrected all over the place, it’s so inaccurate it doesn’t even deserve to be called a documentary. You are likely one of the reasons for @Drift’s irrational aversion against science that has to do with Spinosaurus’ size and ecology… Edited by theropod, Jul 7 2014, 08:43 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Jul 4 2014, 11:23 PM Post #3613 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You are definitely right about JP3, where the spinosaurus was considerably smaller than the maximum estimates for the real specimens found! It sure was a monster in that movie, but it was only a tad larger than tyrannosaurus whereas in reality it would have nearly dwarfed tyrannosaurus if any of the 17-18 meter/11-12 ton estimates are accurate.
Aside from arm length/overall power, I do agree that tyrannosaurus is clearly the advantageous animal morphologically (at least for taking down other dinosaurs, which, as theropod stated, were not really THAT huge- the reason why many favor spinosaurus here). At parity, tyrannosaurus would be the considerably bulkier and more robust animal that could efficiently crush the megalosaur's spine with ease.
Exactly! Which is why having a size advantage is extremely beneficial for it! Any reasonably-sized vertebrate would have been a very possible prey item for spinosaurus, simply because its sheer size, power, and feeding (jaws/dentition) factors alone would not restrict it in taking such animals. |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Jul 6 2014, 01:04 AM Post #3614 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You may think this is morally high standpoint or something, but I already pointed out that such a consensus still doesn't exist for the most completely and probably most heavily studied Tyrannosaurus specimen - Sue. If you are going to demand a heavy consensus on Spinosaurus, this is an important point to consider, but you seemingly failed to do so. Besides, only 3 recent publications deal with Spinosaurus' size - Dal Sasso et al. (2005), Therrein and Henderson (2007), and Paul (2010) - and they all agree that Spinosaurus is probably the largest known theropod. The only authority who is seemingly questioning that at this time is Andrea Cau. Most of the length differences between these can be explained by different neck and tail lengths - two body segments that, as you yourself pointed out a few pages back, are kinda irrelevant when discussing actual size. Paul's is 14 meters, Dal Sasso's is 16 meters (the recon itself, not their published estimate of 16 - 18 meters), and Henderson's is 15 meters. You can chuck Scott Hartman's 14 meter sand 15.6 meters for the two different specimens into there too. The different weight estimates stemming from these length estimates are as a result of different methodology, therefore your ire should be directed at our current failure to find a consensus on an accurate way to estimate a theropods weight, rather than at a single theropods disparate estimates. Dal Sasso et al. used the method from Seebacher (2001) to estimate their 7 - 9 tonnes. Greg Paul calculated his 10 tonnes directly from his skeletal reconstruction. Therrein and Henderson used the Square-Cube Law to scale up Seebacher's estimate for Suchomimus to the lengths estimated in Dal Sasso et al., and got 11.7 tonnes. Their regression equation proceeded to treat it like a giant tyrannosaurid, hence their enormous 20 tonne estimate afterwards. Most "fan-made" estimates are in the 7 - 12 tonne range that is created from the above 'official' sources, many of them based on Scott Hartman's length estimates (he hasn't yet estimated it's weight). So there you go, publications are independently reaching a consensus, that Spinosaurus was probably the largest known theropod, with them estimating lengths of 14 - 16 meters and weights of 7 - 12 tonnes when excluding obvious erroneous results. You may note the dates I listed earlier are quite old, it's not like I'm showing you anything revolutionary here... time to stop plugging your ears.
"I am not sidestepping" >Proceed to place words in others' mouths >Proceed to address a point that was never mentioned in the first place See the problem here? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jul 6 2014, 03:30 AM Post #3615 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That was a really neat rebuttal, but you realise it won’t get through to him? At least all previous attempts by several people have been consistently ignored. |
![]() |
|
| 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