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 (459,136 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:
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Hi i'm back. Sr for having left the forum for too long :P, i was very busy with study that i can't keep up with the forum. At least for now, i'm free but i may become idle in the next few days. So can somebody f****** summarize what i have missed since i left the forum (yes i mean you Theropod my friend ;) ).I'm here to kick some Spino fanboys asses (if there were any lol )
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Welcome back again Verdugo.
Edited by Ausar, Sep 4 2014, 04:00 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Sep 4 2014, 03:52 AM
Hi i'm back. Sr for having left the forum for too long :P, i was very busy with study that i can't keep up with the forum. At least for now, i'm free but i may become idle in the next few days. So can somebody f****** summarize what i have missed since i left the forum (yes i mean you Theropod my friend ;) ).I'm here to kick some Spino fanboys asses (if there were any lol )
This is nothing related to the discussion you missed (telling you about it is theropod's job anyway), but have you seen the new Spinosaurus reconstruction?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vodmeister
Member Avatar
Ultimate Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Long time no seeing Verdugo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hi Verdugo!
About the discussion (or at least this topic)? Not a whole lot.
Some contradictory size estimates (you’ll probably like Cau’s), people not agreeing about whom to believe aaaand some people categorically refusing to believe/discuss/accept anything that has to do with with Spinosaurus. that’s about it.

But I wouldn’t waste my time kicking fanboy asses on this topic, you’ll never finish I suppose.

In terms of other topics, I’m afraid there seems to have been a decline in people who consider crushing bites superior to slicing bites, but I think there’s still a slight bias there, and I do believe a strong decline in discussions on the subject since you last posted. Also, maybe it’s just me, but I’m getting the feeling that there are fewer people bringing up 50ft+ T. rex specimens now than there were a year ago.
Edited by theropod, Sep 4 2014, 06:25 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Oh, right, and there’s a hilariously poor photograph→ of what seems top be a hilariously poorly mounted→ Spinosaurus skeleton (in all likelyhood a composite) that’t pretty much inoversally agreed upon is biomechanically impossible–even by people who do envision Spinosaurus with short legs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Drift
Sep 4 2014, 03:08 AM
The Reptile
Sep 2 2014, 02:52 AM
Well I still think documentaries should be forgotten completely unless they accurately propose logical hypotheses of how prehistoric animals lived. We know that those 3 claims that you listed are most likely BS, but yet people still use those to support their bias
Which is whet drove me initially to respond to said comments in the first place, they were being used like imaginary soap boxes to std on while spewing troll slandered childish opinions not rooted in reality.
So you were responding to people using MR as a source?

Well still, that doesn't make your actions all THAT much more justified, because talking about baseless documentaries is still a poor choice
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Vodmeister
 
Long time no seeing Verdugo.

I thought you were banned :blink: . Thankfully, it wasn't a permanent ban, it's good to see old member back to the forum again :)
Theropod
 
Hi Verdugo!
About the discussion (or at least this topic)? Not a whole lot.
Some contradictory size estimates (you’ll probably like Cau’s), people not agreeing about whom to believe aaaand some people categorically refusing to believe/discuss/accept anything that has to do with with Spinosaurus. that’s about it.

About Spino's size: i don't know if you guys have seen this or not rolleyes
Posted Image
Side views (left) and posterior (right) of the dorsal vertebrae of Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus . In red, the size of a hypothetical specimen of Spinosaurus long isometrically 120% of the holotype. Metric scale = 15 cm.
Cau
 
Whatever the mass of Spinosaurus , this mass had to generate a weight that the skeleton of the animal was able to sustain. No one is so foolish as to believe that Spinosaurus had a mass much greater than that which could sustain its skeleton.
So, what mass could support the skeleton of Spinosaurus ? Probably, a mass comparable to that for other theropodi with vertebrae of the same size were able to support. Indeed, the spine, and in particular the series of vertebral centers, is the axis of the body of each dinosaur. Increasing the mass must increase accordingly the strength and robustness of the series formed by the vertebral centers. For example, if Spinosaurus had vertebral centers with a size comparable to Tyrannosaurus , it is plausible that the two animals had masses comparable. If one of the two dinosaurs had vertebral smaller centers, it is reasonable that he had less mass. Caution: a difference of the length, the mass is proportional to the volume . Therefore, the mass that the vertebral column is able to support is proportional to the volume of the vertebral centers, rather than only to the length of the vertebrae.
If you follow this reasoning, then you will agree with me that we can get an idea of the mass of Spinosaurus by comparing the volume of the dorsal vertebral centers with other theropodi, in particular those of Tyrannosaurus .
The image below shows the dorsal vertebrae of the holotype of Spinosaurus compared to the same scale with those of the famous Tyrannosaurus "Sue" (images and dimensions taken from Stromer 1915 Brochu 2003). One sees immediately that the difference in the volume of the centers and neural arches is remarkable, and Tyrannosaurus is much more massive than Spinosaurus . The rear views (right) are emblematic: the vertebrae of Tyrannosaurus are huge if compared with those of Spinosaurus , and also the thickness of the neural spines (insertion site of ligaments epiassiali) shows that Tyrannosaurus had a much larger muscle mass, required to support a much higher mass. Someone at this point probably will quote the hypothesis that the specimen Milanese Spinosaurus has a linear dimension equal to approximately 120% of the holotype of Spinosaurus . I then estimated the size of his vertebrae assuming a linear increase of 120% from those olotipiche (NOTE: I have already explained in the past that the estimate of 120% for the sample Milanese might be excessive, but in this temporarily pretend that such an estimate the movable jaw is valid and isometrically to the vertebrae). The estimated size of the vertebrae of the specimen Milan is shown in silhouette in red. Also in this case, Spinosaurus explanation map appears much slimmer and lighter than Tyrannosaurus
I think that, at this point, anyone who wants to argue that an adult Spinosaurus was more massive and voluminous of an adult Tyrannosaurus must seriously question his ideas. Whatever the estimate of the mass of Tyrannosaurus preferred, in any case Spinosaurus was much more frail and lighter.

Posted Image
Cau
 
Similarly, if we compare the second cervical vertebra of the holotype of Spinosaurus with that of homologous nell'olotipo Baryonyx and "Sue", the size difference is evident. Even assuming the eventual "version 120%", the difference is obvious and can hardly be explained except by recognizing that Spinosaurus was much more frail than Tyrannosaurus .
These are the facts. Forget threads from "fanboy", forget any mathematical estimates, regression curves and estimates Allometric, forget the "skeletal reconstructions" here are the fossils directly, without forcing due to speculation or hypothesis or preferred methods. Anyone, no stranger to these speeches, observe if these images will not hesitate to say that the adult Spinosaurus , as one of theropodi larger linear (something that even I have never doubted), it was still much more gracile , slender and lighter than Tyrannosaurus adult.

I think Cau has said everything in my mind. Instead of trying to estimate the size of an extinct animal basing on more hypothesis than actual evidences, well here are the evidences, the fossils themselves ;). It's likely that Spinosaurus is a longer animal (since the vertebrate itself is longer) but when it comes to mass, there's no doubt T rex would be a more massive animal. Saying Spinosaurus being more massive than T rex is like a b**** slap in the face of these fossils.
Sr for bad English, i use Google translator :P , i myself don't know any Italian.
Theropod
 
Oh, right, and there’s a hilariously poor photograph→ of what seems top be a hilariously poorly mounted→ Spinosaurus skeleton (in all likelyhood a composite) that’t pretty much inoversally agreed upon is biomechanically impossible–even by people who do envision Spinosaurus with short legs.

Has the femur of Spino actually been found ? Are there any evidences to support the short legs hypothesis ?
A quarupedal Spino seems biomechanically impossible for me. Theropod wrist cannot be rotated to a perfect position for walking, there ain't f****** way a Theropod could walk on it forelimbs
Edited by Verdugo, Sep 4 2014, 12:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Exactly, and it seems almost impossible that the skeleton in question would be capable of balancing on two legs (or that the legs would even be able of carrying its weight)–and yet it’s in bipedal posture.
The only way this built would make sense would be for a quadruped, but without major changes in the built of the forelimb we are not going to get a quadrupedal theropod either.

I’m afraid I’ve already debated that subject far too long. To cut a long story short, I consider the above irrelevant. Citing Paul 2008 (again):
"The use of proximal limb bone diameters ([…]) to estimate the mass of extinct animals is inherently unreliable when applied to extinct forms whose anatomy does not closely match living forms ([…]). Body mass varies by a factor of 2 among animals of differing forms with the same leg element diameters because of greatly varying locomotory adaptions, anatomical configurations, tissue composition and safety factors. The use of bone diameters as the primary means of estimating mass is highly inappropriate because wide differences in mass-bone dimensions and in limb loading are suppressed."
The same problems noted here apply to vertebrae, i.e. in real life comparing centrum diameter among these is not any better than comparing centrum lenght or total lenght if one considers that you can apply all the highlighted problems here (they have different locomotory adaptions, one being semi aquatic, they have different anatomical configurations–well, I guess the difference between their vertebrae is obvious, they have different tissue composition, due to grave differences in pneumatisation, and they very likely have different savety factors considering their lifestyles are completely different).

I’m a bit disappointed though, Cau has made way more compelling posts than that which you could have cited. Check "what do you think of 18m Spinosaurus?". I’ll have to check, there might be something interesting I have not shared here yet, but I should take the time to update it first.
Edited by theropod, Sep 4 2014, 10:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Theropod
 
I’m a bit disappointed though, Cau has made way more compelling posts than that which you could have cited. Check "what do you think of 18m Spinosaurus?". I’ll have to check, there might be something interesting I have not shared here yet, but I should take the time to update it first.

Yup, this post from Cau is not a method of estimation but it's rather a demonstration. And i'm currently reading "What do you think of 18m Spinosaurus", i think Blaze is doing some work with scaling vertebrate based on materials from Cau's post. I remember having cited that post from Cau somewhere here, unless i remember incorrectly. Just so you know, allometric scaling is not the most accurate method to estimate an animal size. 2 people at the same size and weight may still be different in the size of hands, feet,... Get what i mean, this is for the same species, leave alone different species as we are doing.
But anyway, i'll try to find Cau's post on that subject if you are interested
Theropod
 
I’m afraid I’ve already debated that subject far too long. To cut a long story short, I consider the above irrelevant. Citing Paul 2008 (again):
"The use of proximal limb bone diameters ([…]) to estimate the mass of extinct animals is inherently unreliable when applied to extinct forms whose anatomy does not closely match living forms ([…]). Body mass varies by a factor of 2 among animals of differing forms with the same leg element diameters because of greatly varying locomotory adaptions, anatomical configurations, tissue composition and safety factors. The use of bone diameters as the primary means of estimating mass is highly inappropriate because wide differences in mass-bone dimensions and in limb loading are suppressed."
The same problems noted here apply to vertebrae, i.e. in real life comparing centrum diameter among these is not any better than comparing centrum lenght or total lenght if one considers that you can apply all the highlighted problems here (they have different locomotory adaptions, one being semi aquatic, they have different anatomical configurations–well, I guess the difference between their vertebrae is obvious, they have different tissue composition, due to grave differences in pneumatisation, and they very likely have different savety factors considering their lifestyles are completely different).

I think what Paul really meant is you cannot estimate the size of a dinosaur basing on modern animal. You can't just take your dog femur and scale it up to T-rex femur to get the size. Paul clearly didn't directly compare two specific animal T-rex and Spino.
This is what Paul said:
Posted Image

Cau replied to your excuse
Cau
 
In a previous post, I talked about the size of the dorsal vertebrae in large theropodi as indicators of body mass. Some critics had raised the objection that the great disparity between the centers of the dorsal displacement of Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus was not linked to differences in mass, but rather a "different locomotor habits." That argument drew in dance, inappropriately , an alleged cursorialità of Tyrannosaurus compared to a possible "semi-aquatic nature" of Spinosaurus . However, that link is unfounded, given that there are no logical reasons why a difference of locomotor adaptation in these theropodi of comparable size should produce differences so gross and marked in their vertebrae.
I hope that none of you still want to argue that these differences are due to locomotor adaptations, or that Tyrannosaurus is "abnormal" for some unknown reason, ad hoc . Since I have never been hypothesized adaptations sliders in carcharodontosauridi, this hypothesis to the vertebrae of Tyrannosaurus is falsified. Therefore, the mass difference between Tyrannosaurus and Tyrannotitan (theropodi graviportali and massive), on the one hand, and Spinosaurus (a taxon much more gracile), on the other hand, is the most plausible explanation of these huge difference in size.

Assuming that Spinosaurus is still a Theropod, still walks on two leg, still balances with its tail, the differences shouldn't be that significant. It's hard to think that two Theropod having such dramastically different locomotory adaptions that yield huge differences in in their vertebrate, unless you're trying to argue that Spinosaurus wasn't a Theropod at all, it may have been a quarupedalism or a crocodilian species. Vertebrates are meant for muscles attachment, for supporting the animal weight, there ain't f****** way an animal with such less robust vertebrate being more massive (in term of mass) than an animal with much more robust one (as long as they're not so dramastically different). You cannot put a freaking tank on a bamboo bridge, right ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
So, did you actually see the ridiculously short legged Spinosaurus reconstruction? Sorry for repeating this, I got no reply last time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Sep 5 2014, 02:03 AM
So, did you actually see the ridiculously short legged Spinosaurus reconstruction? Sorry for repeating this, I got no reply last time.
Nah, it's me that have to say sr because i didn't reply to you.
I think it's pretty obvious that without any fossils/materials about the legs, that Spinosaurus reconstruction seems invalid to me. Have you guys found anything about Spino's legs ? I have been lost in touch for quite a while and now i'm trying to get everything back
I believe until now, Hartman's Spino seems to be the best one. Cau also approves this, but he thinks it's still too bulky for his taste. Of course, i'll back up whatever i said in my post, just give me some times :)
Edited by Verdugo, Sep 5 2014, 02:46 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It’s supposedly based on new material, that’s the point about it, isn’t it? But those legs and pelvis simply don’t look as if they belong to the rest of the animal, so unless it was found in articulation (which would require an extremely complete specimen for such a large animal), they probably are not part of the same individual as the rest.

Regarding the differences I was referring to, that depends on the tank and the bridge in question. I’m sure it would be possible to build a bridge from bamboo that could withstand a tank crossing it, but it would take some very serious engineering.

the rest of the argument does not work. I could also say "assuming it is still a vertebrate the differences can’t be that large" or "assuming it’s still an eukariote, they can’t be that large", but that has no empirical basis, it’s a feely argument (well, the whole thing is a feely argument à la "this thing’s vertabra is soooo much bigger, I cannot imagine that this thing would not also be soooo much bigger in life", that’s the reason I consider this part irrelevant.¹). it’s even quite comical considering theropods are a much more diverse clade than mammalis and nobody would seriously try to extrapolate a hypopotamus from a siberian tiger even though both are mammals and both are quadrupeds.
The only relevant functional similarity between T. rex and Spinosaurus is that they both (probably, although the new reconstruction would suggest that that’d be impossible) walked on two legs. But one is semi-aquatic, the other isn’t. One is quite cursorial for it’s size, the other isn’t. One has giant, elongated spinous processes on it’s back, the other doesn’t. One has hollow vertebrae, the other doesn’t.

Also, I’m not saying the Spinosaurus holotype was heavier than sue, but if its dentary wasn’t downright puny in proportion to the rest of it’s skull, MSNM v 4047 was far larger.

Not sure what allometric scaling has to do with it, nobody here is using it. You might be confusing this with a topic involving otodontid sharks…
But what you write next is interesting. you acknowledge that even animals of the same species vary in their proportions. So how about animals that are only distantly related (like T. rex and Spinosaurus)? Doesn’t comparing their bone dimensions directly represent a good step towards maximizing the error in the estimate?

Your quote from Paul is outdated. He more recently (recently as in 2009) estimated Spinosaurus at 10t in weight, compared to 6.1 at maximum for T. rex.
Cau doesn’t seem to be aware of that, neither does he seem to be aware of the quote I posted. For some reason Cau denies that differences in locomotor adaptions has an impact on an animal’s osteology. Since I’ve already posted a quote from a scientist saying the exact opposite (unless you deny that vertebrae play a role in locomotion that is), please forgive me for not buying this whole thing. In fact, I haven’t seen any evidence for a good correlation between vertebral diameter and body mass at all.

Of course Paul was referring to comparisons between extant and extinct species, but it’s the same principle; distantly related and very different animals. He was also referring to propodials as a basis of estimates, and yet it is obviously applicable to vertebrae as well. Just as limb bone diameters vary significantly in animals of the same size, those of vertebrae probably do too (the burden of proof would rest on the person making the opposite claim).

¹That’s despite me considering the rib part valid, at least as a working basis for now. Just that spinosaurus still turns out significantly larger under this assumption, just narrow chested.
Edited by theropod, Sep 5 2014, 03:32 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The Reptile
Sep 4 2014, 08:11 AM
Drift
Sep 4 2014, 03:08 AM
The Reptile
Sep 2 2014, 02:52 AM
Well I still think documentaries should be forgotten completely unless they accurately propose logical hypotheses of how prehistoric animals lived. We know that those 3 claims that you listed are most likely BS, but yet people still use those to support their bias
Which is whet drove me initially to respond to said comments in the first place, they were being used like imaginary soap boxes to std on while spewing troll slandered childish opinions not rooted in reality.
So you were responding to people using MR as a source?

Well still, that doesn't make your actions all THAT much more justified, because talking about baseless documentaries is still a poor choice
Discrediting a sham of a documentary each time it's used as a reference point is a poor choice? Seeing as how this is relatively all subjective,i'm not sure anyone is in the position to say for certain whet yields the most "honorable merit" among the prehistoric message boards.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Drift
Sep 5 2014, 01:00 PM
Discrediting a sham of a documentary each time it's used as a reference point is a poor choice?
You don't require for someone to bring it up for you to go off on a rant about it, you do that of your own volition. If you don't have an offending comment to respond to, you just quote an irrelevant one from a few pages back instead.

It does get tiresome.
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.