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 (459,138 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:
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The Reptile
Jul 18 2014, 12:27 AM
If I remembered exactly where I found them. The point being though is that these estimates of exact MYA always seems to change, as does size a lot. A lot of those dinosaur websites that post BS for kids tend to just go with what one source says, and thus it causes confusion
It causes confusion when the kids later find out that spino *gasp* isn't the herculean reptilian terminator of the ancient world that jp3 portrayed it as.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Oh just get over it, allright?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Hatzegopteryx
Jul 10 2014, 06:08 AM
"Slapping" behaviour in spinosaurids is just overrated generally...
Pretty sure i viewed a car door being smashed on Monsters Resurrected, not saying it was definitely the cause of this embellishment but it certainly helped "fan the flames".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Drift
Aug 1 2014, 05:21 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Jul 10 2014, 06:08 AM
"Slapping" behaviour in spinosaurids is just overrated generally...
Pretty sure i viewed a car door being smashed on Monsters Resurrected, not saying it was definitely the cause of this embellishment but it certainly helped "fan the flames".
yes, you viewed that. But that was a hydrolic arm, used to fuel that theoretical fire; making Spinosaurus' strength ever so apparent and in fact, over exaggerated. I do not know why we consistantly refer to that 'documentary' as any sort of evidence of anything
Edited by Ceratodromeus, Aug 1 2014, 01:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
I don't understand what we are arguing about here...

Talking about sources and information, yes, there are inaccuracies in MR. Just as how there are inaccuracies in many other sources (some of the authors thinking so highly of themselves that their sheer arrogance/ignorance makes them refuse to fact-check anything with more trustworthy and scientific sources and papers). Trust me, I know of one site at least which does not even fact-check any of its information (much of it is BS, and there are so many stupid theories discussed. And it as well does not only use very few sources for its information but often USES SOURCES THAT ARE KNOWN TO BE VERY FALSE FREQUENTLY as opposed to any true papers or scientific sites or books) and even proposes dinosaur weights down to the single pound (example- 256 pounds).

The point being that you are going to find fallacies in really every source, but some of them take that to a whole new level
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The Reptile
Aug 2 2014, 12:00 AM
I don't understand what we are arguing about here...

Talking about sources and information, yes, there are inaccuracies in MR. Just as how there are inaccuracies in many other sources (some of the authors thinking so highly of themselves that their sheer arrogance/ignorance makes them refuse to fact-check anything with more trustworthy and scientific sources and papers). Trust me, I know of one site at least which does not even fact-check any of its information (much of it is BS, and there are so many stupid theories discussed. And it as well does not only use very few sources for its information but often USES SOURCES THAT ARE KNOWN TO BE VERY FALSE FREQUENTLY as opposed to any true papers or scientific sites or books) and even proposes dinosaur weights down to the single pound (example- 256 pounds).

The point being that you are going to find fallacies in really every source, but some of them take that to a whole new level
Agreed, Monsters R. would definitely have to fall under this categorization imo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don’t get the point either. It’s not as if Monsters Resurrected had any relevance, and yet every single one of drift’s posts seems to be about it…

The point obviously cannot be just that it’s inaccurate, since we all know that (and, as the reptile pointed out, it’s nothing extraordinary, despite being such a disgrace for a documentary). It’s as if it being inaccurate meant something to us, or proved something, which it does not.

For example; yes, I’m really confident Spinosaurus was not running around disemboweling Sarcosuchi and slapping Carcharodontosauri (or cars), but when did anyone claim it did? Pretty much everyone here is fully aware of that fact. The real capabilities of spinosaurus’ forelimbs were undeniably very different from the popular portrayals (popular in the eyes of youtubers and fanboys, not anyone you would take seriously). They were impressive nevertheless, and the facts are, reality and science give a f*** about what they were portrayed in some TV program for self proclaimed dinosaur fans who probably don’t even acknowledge that dinosaurs were feathered.
Edited by theropod, Aug 2 2014, 06:24 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
I really don't see why people need to bring it up here anyway. If it is inaccurate, why even mention it unless someone decided to support it in their argument?

Most of us already realize that it is not the most accurate source of info, but even then is it worth stressing yourself out about it? It at least accurately described spinosaurus' MORPHOLOGY, but the thing that drove people to bash it was just its way of inaccurately portraying their functions. Example- like how they used spinosaurus' obviously unusual piscivory-adapted features to claim that it was a ruthless sauropod-hunter. That part never really made sense to me. I think we should just ignore some of its theories and just focus on what we already know (morphology, general size, prey type, etc)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The Reptile
Aug 2 2014, 06:53 AM
I really don't see why people need to bring it up here anyway. If it is inaccurate, why even mention it unless someone decided to support it in their argument?

Most of us already realize that it is not the most accurate source of info, but even then is it worth stressing yourself out about it? It at least accurately described spinosaurus' MORPHOLOGY, but the thing that drove people to bash it was just its way of inaccurately portraying their functions . Example- like how they used spinosaurus' obviously unusual piscivory-adapted features to claim that it was a ruthless sauropod-hunter. That part never really made sense to me. I think we should just ignore some of its theories and just focus on what we already know (morphology, general size, prey type, etc)
The same can be said for Jp3,since those who are informed who know every single topic on the internet filled with the rhetoric i'm accustomed to seeing was kick started by the greedy hollywood train wreck.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well Jurassic Park is meant to be for entertainment; POPCORN ENTERTAINMENT like the Marvel movies. It is not supposed to be taken seriously in terms of how the animals were portrayed. Yes, there were obvious inaccuracies in spinosaurus (yea, its snout was slender, but it was NOT a brutal macropredator most likely that killed by snapping an animal's neck) and velociraptor (more like a featherless deinonychus in the first two films, shortly evolving into a partially feathered deinonychus for the third installment), among a few others.

Don't take it to heart
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
THANK YOU!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Drift
Aug 1 2014, 05:21 AM
Pretty sure i viewed a car door being smashed on Monsters Resurrected
Seriously dude.

are u new or something
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@Drift
To be honest, I could also quote the dinosaurs.about page about Spinosaurus and tell why it is wrong. This would have just as much relevance to this debate as what you wrote.

@Hatzegopteryx
Ironically, he already commented on the very first page of this thread.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
I know he's not new, you can tell I was kidding from the way I said that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I know that you know this, I was not correcting you, I just found it ironic.
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.