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 (459,135 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
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Sep 5 2014, 01:03 PM
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.
I don't remember asking for a psychoanalysis on my alleged posting habits,which makes it clear some members argumentative nature gets the best of them and imo that's what is truly "tiresome".You didn't contribute anything to the topic with that response,It just serves as an unimaginative attempt at the assassination of my character,to be honest...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Theropod
 
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.

Those new materials are probably still under study before the publication. I don't know, at first when i looked at the restoration you posted, it's like a slap to the face you know. I thought the pic was from poor, unreliable source. But after digging the Internet for a while, it's actually not far from impossible imo. Spinosaurus is quite extreme for me, being very enlongated and slender even when compared to other Spinosauridae like Baryonyx for instance, the spiny things do exist in other Spinosauridae but nowhere near as pronounced as Spinosaurus. It makes me feel that Spinosaurus is the evolutionary extreme of Spinosauridae, the most specialized of them all.
Posted Image
Theropod with ridiculously short legs is not fer from truth anyway
Those are just my pure opinion about the short legs restoration. At least for now, we have no publication papers nor sources to discuss about the legs of the animal. For me, the short-legged Spinosaurus is not that hard to accept, if its legs are actually that short of course
Theropod
 
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.

You know that i'm not a bridge expert and i didn't actually discuss about bridge right ? What i really meant is you cannot put massive weight on sth that is not built to support that kind of weight. The same thing would happen to Spino, which we would discuss below
Theropod
 
But one is semi-aquatic, the other isn’t. One is quite cursorial for it’s size, the other isn’t.

Cau
 
In reference to the recent post on the differences in shape and size in the vertebrae of the great theropodi, a reader asked me this question :
"Habits more or less cursorie of Tyrannosaurus , on the one hand, and the style of life of at least partially water Spinosaurus other, not could in turn be correlated with the measurement of the vertebrae , in addition to the simple mass? "

The question can be broken down into:

Hypothesis:
a) Tyrannosaurus would adaptations sliders.
b) Spinosaurus would have aquatic adaptations.

Thesis:
c) The differences in their vertebrae would be related to differences in their adaptations.

We analyze the issue.
What are the main differences between the dorsal vertebrae of Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus ?
In Spinosaurus , the vertebrae are proportionally more elongated (in side view, are longer than high).
In Tyrannosaurus , the vertebrae are proportionally more squat (side view, are higher than long)

Posted Image
Cau
 
IF the argument (c) is correct, we should: 1) observe vertebrae short and stubby in bipedal reptiles sliders , and 2) observe elongated vertebrae in aquatic reptiles .

Let's check it!

In aquatic reptiles, the dorsal vertebrae are always blunt , shorter than high. So, Spinosaurus has NOT vertebrae from aquatic reptile, nor show any sign of aquatic adaptations!

Posted Image
Cau
 
And in reptiles bipedal cursors, for example, ornithomimidi and "elaphrosauri"?
In reptiles bipedal cursors, especially species with slender and gracile morphology (certainly not the graviportali), the vertebrae are longer than high, the exact opposite of aquatic reptiles. Tyrannosaurus did NOT vertebrae from the cursor.Thus, the argument (c) is shown to be incorrect for both Tyrannosaurus that for Spinosaurus . The differences in the proportions of the vertebrae of the two theropodi are NOT related to aquatic adaptations or sliders.

Posted Image
Cau
 
Irony of the situation, the vertebrae of Spinosaurus remember most of those sliders puny bipeds, while those of Tyrannosaurus reminiscent of those of most aquatic reptiles. But of course, I do not consider that the differences in the two theropodi are linked to any styles of aquatic life or cursory: they are simply inherited phylogenetic constraints (elongated ridges in the basal neotheropodi, such as spinosauridi, and shortened in tyrannosauroidi derivatives). What matters, however, is the difference in the total size, which is a function of the weight force discharged on the vertebrae, and which is easily explained by recognizing that Tyrannosaurus was more massive and Spinosaurus much more gracile.

Their vertebrates ARE NOT evolutionary adaptation for being semi-aquatic or cursorial
Theropod
 
One has hollow vertebrae, the other doesn’t.

Cau
 
Would require a very detailed post (and it is said that then do not materialize, depending on the weather). In short, there are relations between the degree of pneumatization, the shape and size of the vertebrae.
is not true that the coelurosauri taxa are more tires, or better, the maximum degree of pneumatization is also reached in carcharodontosauridi and partly in abelisauroidi. Furthermore, it is not linked to the dimensions: birds and oviraptorosauri are more pneumatizzati of ornithomimidi and tyrannosauridi. And it's not tied to the size of the mass, since the measurements show that the reduction in the mass of the vertebrae is so limited as to not be an advantage, especially for large taxa. Finally, since the vertebrae of Spinosaurus have been lost, we can not analyze them to know how much air they were inside (which is what matters in the eventual reduction of mass). Baryonyx use as a reference is not wise, since they have different degrees of laminations and pneumatizzazioni, so it might not be a good analogue.
Briefly, the differences in pneumatization are not a valid reason to explain the differences in the vertebrae. Also in this case, the simplest explanation is the most probable: differnza of different size and robustness.

Theropod
 
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…

I'm sure Blaze are talikng about allometric scaling for by comparing Spinosaurus vertebrate to Baryonyx vertebrate in the thread involving that "18m Spino". But it's not what we are discussing so forget it
Theropod
 
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.

6,1 tonnes for T-rex is still outdated anyway, the most accurate weight estimation for Sue until now is 9,5 tonnes by Hutchinson
Theropod
 
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).

What Paul said is true, however he spoke that in a very generic way while Cau directly put two specific Theropod (T-rex and Spino) together for better research and examination

Seriously, all you have is Paul quote in a very generic way, don't you have anything better to back yourself up ?
Edited by Verdugo, Sep 5 2014, 11:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Since summer 2014 was predicted as time of appearance for the new publication, does anybody actually have a more precise date now? I am sure the legs will get assessed there.

@Drift
Honestly, what Spinodontosaurus said is far from a psychoanalysis. Only his first sentence looked a bit like this. His message was simply that he is tired of you always criticizing MR even though everyone here knows that it is crap.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I found some interesting posts yesterday in the dml in the thread on the news of Dreadnoughtus.

don ohmes
 
One even-bigger-than-T-rex theropod, coming up!


don ohmes
 
Overheard in the theater of the mind -- "One even-bigger-than-T-rex theropod, coming right up!


Ben Creisler
 
Note that there are a couple of new teaser reconstructed thumbnail images of Spinosaurus on the "Lost Giant of the Cretaceous" website (the head and neck mainly)--the thumbnail of the full skeleton is gone. Next week expect Spinosaurnado!




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I’ve got no problem with short legs (even though those in the mount seem too extreme if one looks at other short-legged animals) like the ones you see on Hartman’s Majungasaurus or Torvosaurus, they would actually make sense.
The problem is that the preliminary pictures that were released (which basically means the poor photograph of the mount and the back-half life restoration that seemed to be part of a poster) don’t just show very short legs, but also very gracile and cursorial ones, exactly what one would NOT expect the legs of a giant, short-legged animal to look like, but exactly what one would expect from the legs of a smaller one. That is not to say the adult animal’s legs could not still be rather short mind you, just way more robust and with a way longer femur (and larger hip), as would be expected from a large creature.

Ichthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs have nothing to do with it.
Ichthyosaurs have more, but shorter vertebrae than theropods, and they fulfill a different purpose.
These are animals about as far from theropods as a diapsid can be. They are also about as far from either Spinosaurus or T. rex as anything can be in terms of ecology.
And besides, it’s the diameter that’s the point here, not the shape. Actually I’d be far more inclined to accept Cau’s suggestion if Spinosaurus’ vertebrae were the same shape as those of T. rex, but they are not, not even close.
Ichthyosaurs seem to have proportionately smaller vertebrae than T. rex. The largest known ichthyosaur centra have a diameter of 22cm, based on Temnodontosaurus burgundiae that would suggest a 15-16m animal, which implies a weight several times that of any known theropod, even though their centra would appear similar to those of Sue or smaller. The same applies to other animals. Based on regressions (Gottfried et al. 1996, Caillet et al. 1985) for great white sharks, the largest vertebral centrum being 30cm in diameter (as is the case in sue’s posteriormost dorsal) would suggest a ~17.5m animal.
So if you consider those examples relevant in some way, you’d definitely have to consider that too–they do not help your point at all.

Tyrannosaurs are very cursorial animals. Not sure how the fact that much smaller animals have more elongated vertebrae disproves that, it’s well documented in the literature (Paul 2008, Holtz 2004, Holtz lecture notes). I guess that Spinosaurus was less cursorial doesn’t require a lot of arguing.

Stromer himself explicitely stated the dorsal vertebrae of Spinosaurus are not hollow, it’s a fact. Also, I’ve already read all that, you are telling me nothing new.

6.1t for Sue may not be accurate, no (although it is not the lowest volumetric estimate there is and certainly no worse than the 9.5t one). But it’s still Paul’s most recent estimate, as opposed to the ones you and Cau cited, which have been completely overhauled.

Quote:
 
You know that i'm not a bridge expert and i didn't actually discuss about bridge right ? What i really meant is you cannot put massive weight on sth that is not built to support that kind of weight. The same thing would happen to Spino, which we would discuss below
I’m well aware of that. The point is that the method you use to determine whether something is built to support that kind of weight or not is very simplistic, just like your analogy.
Both use a single factor, vertebral diameter or building material, and then generalize from that without actually testing the hypothesis.


Edited by theropod, Sep 14 2014, 02:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The Spinosaurus from NatGeo seems to be the same as the one from Dinosauri in Carne e Ossa(Hope thats the right spelling. Obviously Cau seems to know most about the upcoming research. But of course he wont tell anything, he isnt James Kirkland.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Theropod
 
Ichthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs have nothing to do with it.
Ichthyosaurs have more, but shorter vertebrae than theropods, and they fulfill a different purpose.
These are animals about as far from theropods as a diapsid can be. They are also about as far from either Spinosaurus or T. rex as anything can be in terms of ecology.
And besides, it’s the diameter that’s the point here, not the shape. Actually I’d be far more inclined to accept Cau’s suggestion if Spinosaurus’ vertebrae were the same shape as those of T. rex, but they are not, not even close.
Ichthyosaurs seem to have proportionately smaller vertebrae than T. rex. The largest known ichthyosaur centra have a diameter of 22cm, based on Temnodontosaurus burgundiae that would suggest a 15-16m animal, which implies a weight several times that of any known theropod, even though their centra would appear similar to those of Sue or smaller. The same applies to other animals. Based on regressions (Gottfried et al. 1996, Caillet et al. 1985) for great white sharks, the largest vertebral centrum being 30cm in diameter (as is the case in sue’s posteriormost dorsal) would suggest a ~17.5m animal.
So if you consider those examples relevant in some way, you’d definitely have to consider that too–they do not help your point at all.

Tyrannosaurs are very cursorial animals. Not sure how the fact that much smaller animals have more elongated vertebrae disproves that, it’s well documented in the literature (Paul 2008, Holtz 2004, Holtz lecture notes). I guess that Spinosaurus was less cursorial doesn’t require a lot of arguing.

Stromer himself explicitely stated the dorsal vertebrae of Spinosaurus are not hollow, it’s a fact. Also, I’ve already read all that, you are telling me nothing new.

Dude, WTF are you even talking about ??? :huh: :huh: :huh:
You completely misunderstood me and Cau. Next time, read somebody posts carefully before deciding to make such such irrelevant replies
I used Google translator to translate Italian to English. Yes, i know it's not the best translator in the world, some parts may be a little bit hard to understand or not even make sense at all. But there's nothing i can do, i know no Italian
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You say I completely misunderstood the information in question, and that my reply was irrelevant, so could you point out how?
I know as little Italian as you do, and I think it isn’t a prerequisite for scientific discussions (albeit certainly helpful)–given that google translator is sufficient for understanding the meaning of Cau’s posts that is what’s actually irrelevant. If you think it is not, then you shouldn”t be discussing his hypotheses at all.

What am I even talking about? The passage you quoted contains several things.
• Why the comparison of vertebral proportions with Ichthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs is irrelevant–it’s the vertebral diameter compared to the body size that was the point, not the lenght/width ratio. Ichthyosaur vertebrae are so short because an ichthyosaur has so many of them. Also, these animals live in a near-weightless environment all the time, their vertebral function is different from either theropod.
• Why the fact that the vertebrae of Elaphrosaurus and Gallimimus are more elongated than Tyrannosaurus’ does not mean Tyrannosaurus wasn’t cursorial itself. That it is is really beyond obvious and has been published on quite intensively.
• Why Baryonyx is of absolutely no importance regarding the axial pneumaticity of Spinosaurus–because there are published data on Spinosaurus itself, notably that its dorsal centra are solid bone.

What exactly was so irrelevant about that?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I think Caus main point is that Spinosaurus vertebrae do not indicate an aquatic animal, and this is what Verdugo wants to argue, too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I know that, spinosaurids are not considered semi-aquatic due to osteological correlates (neither do I think any direct osteological correlates for amphibious habits have been identified for non-avian theropods. Not surprising since they are a very diverse group and as far as we know there are only very few semi-aquatic members. Hippos also aren’t really adapted for life in water, they don’t even swim, but yet they spend the entire day in water).
I consider them semi-aquatic due to oxygen isotope analysis (Amiot et al 2010) showing greater similarity to turtles and crocodilians as opposed to terrestrial theropods.




http://sourcedb.cas.cn/sourcedb_igg_cas/cn/zjrck/200907/W020120622356922971023.pdf
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
So now people are talking about spinosaurus' vertebrae being evidence of a primarily aquatic lifestyle? Really???
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
MantisShrimp
 
I think Caus main point is that Spinosaurus vertebrae do not indicate an aquatic animal, and this is what Verdugo wants to argue, too.

Yes, yes that what i really meant. Thank you MantisShrimp

@Theropod: No you still misunderstood Cau and me. Why is it even so hard for you to understand ?
Yes, we acknowledge that Spino is semi-aquatic and T-rex is cursorial (for its size), those are not what we are discussing about
What Cau really meant is some critics argue that using vertebrate to indicate their size is incorrect because one animal is semi-aquatic while the other is cursorial. The differences in their vertebrate are probably just evolutionary adaptations for their different life style .
And Cau replied to those critics by using Ichthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs as an example for aquatic animals, Gallimimus and Elaphrosaurus as an example for cursorial animals. If Spinosaurus vertebrates were evolutionary adaptations for its aquatic life style, then it's supposed to be short and robust like Ichthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs, instead of being long and slender. Therefore, Spinosaurus vertebrates are NOT evolutionary adaptations for its life style . The same conclusion for T-rex
The Reptile
 
So now people are talking about spinosaurus' vertebrae being evidence of a primarily aquatic lifestyle? Really???

No we aren't. @Theropod just misunderstood
Edited by Verdugo, Sep 6 2014, 05:24 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, it seems I did 't misunderstand it.
As I already wrote, ichthyosaurs and plesiosars are simply not a relevant analogy. These are, again, animals with vastly different relationships and lifestyle. And yet, as I wrote earlier, at least ichthyosaurs do seem to have had proportionately smaller vertebrae. Their vertebral proportions (which are simply a result of having a different number of vertebrae along with a very different body shape, not with aquatic habits) were not the point, their size was.
It would have to be demonstrated that semi-aquatic habits have no influence on relative vertebral diameter. And if fully aquatic animals like Ichthyosaurs (or sharks, or whales…) were really a relevant analogy, then that already seems to be falsified, as these do appear to have proportionately smaller centra than Tyrannosaurus.

Given you accept that T. rex was cursorial and Spinosaurus was semi-aquatic, there can really be no doubt that this represents a relevant difference, among others completely opposed to the notion that if you know their relative vertebral diameters, you know their relative body masses.
Edited by theropod, Sep 8 2014, 07:17 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Sorry if this sounds a bit stupid, but I had a discussion with one of the few decent posters on topix who assumed that Spinosaurus could, as a fish-catcher, have an edge in reflexes. What do you think? I believe this is highly speculative because Spinosaurus' fishes were probably not that fast and a technique that consisted of restraining and killing larger ones would be more likely than killing swift ones with a quick bite.

P.S. Three words that mean fast in one sentence, nice!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Not necessarily reflexes/reactions (I also don’t think its lifetstyle is a very good indicator, animals that are very fast at performing a certain motion can be quite clumsy in other regards), but likely striking speed. One would conclude that pretty much by default though, considering it’s skull is certainly much less massive.
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.