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 (459,357 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:
TheROC
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Scott Hartman's skeletal, which is about 13 meters long, represents the Stromer holotype, as it directly says in the drawing.

Why then, when we know the holotype to be a subadult, are we simply scaling up a tiny bit using Hartman's skeletal to reach a 1.75 meter skull--which would yield a 14 meter size? Therrien & Henderson's paper were criticized for the weight and length estimates concurrently--as in, both at the same time, as it used other theropod proportions to reach its conclusion. Which again is off.

Besides this, how many times has the Horner statement of the 2.4 meter skull from a large partial dentary been posted now? Again, afterall, he's referred to it in interviews even a couple of years after the Dal Sasso findings, which means his personal findings were not related to it, as many initially thought.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Sep 7 2012, 11:49 PM
Quote:
 
you are totally agaisnt the ridiculous weight estimates produced by the hederson study, but yet you believe in the results of an unreliable metod for a type of theropod vastly different from those used in the regression equasion?

No, the length and the weight estimates use different FORMULA. The length estimates base on Henderson formular are quite close to the published length estimates, that makes it more plausible while the weight estimates are ridiculous because it's far to great for the published weight estimates
Quote:
 
and there is plenty of evidence for the 18m as I have already shown.

You haven't showed any evidences, you just showed other size scales base on outdate reconstruction and size scale from Fragilimus, those are not proof evidence. You regretted Hartman reconstruction and favoured other outdate reconstruction just because it gave Spinosaurus a larger size
Quote:
 
14m T. rex is rather a hypothetical maximum figure, that could at best have been attained by one individual (UCMP 137538)

UCMP 137538 is probably just a big toe specimen, UCMP 137538 toes are 20% bigger than Sue. So if you scale up from Sue, UCMP 137538 will be 15,36m and weighs ~ 14 tons, which is just too much for bipedal
Quote:
 
Haven't you read Fragilimus point here, why a 1,9m skull is more accurate than a 1,75m one?

You think i will believe that guy, he's definitely biased Spino fanboy. This scale tell everything
Posted Image

If T rex weighs 8 tons, how much is that Spino, 20 tons ?? 30 tons ?? => BIASED fanboy
you have simply not understood what this is about.

-a reconstruction isn´t outdated jsut because they shows spinosaurus at the same ratio as indicated by suchomimus, baryonyx and verious skeletals.
-since when is T. rex 8t? it´s 6t actually, and don´t forget that this spinosaurus looks heavier than it is.
-UCMP 137538 remains a bit mysterious, and imo it is most plausible that it is actually a typing error or a guess (that it is IV-2, not III-2), otherwise I guess it would have been appropriate to mention that it is far larger than any other T. rex yet found, but keeping the same ratio as sue (sue: 12,3m and IV-2 is 11,1cm and UCMP 137538 is 13cm) we get 14,4m at max. 20% is uprounded and pretty biased, it´s actually 17% that this toebone is longer than sues

Edit: oh, and it´s only one single phalanx, no toes, not even one toe, only one single bone.

-Don´t call him a spinosaurus fanboy, it is pretty obvious that he is a whole lot more objective than you. You rely on a flawed study that was criticised for the error prone metodology for an animal completely different from the theropods used as a base, and on one single skeletal. I was able to show you 3 skeletals all contradicting your claims that 18m is "totally outdated", I have shown you the ratios of other spinosaurs...
you think dal sasso is wrong, you think spinosaurus undeniably had a far larger head to body ratio than it´s relatives, you think the skeletals I showed you are flawed, you think fragillimus is a fanboy becasue he favours dal Sassos estimate, not to mention that that ridiculous Therrien & henderson study was the only publication that stated a lower lenght estimate. if there is a fanboy here, then it´s you.
PS: the T. rex is NOT too small, why don´t you just try it yourself?
Edited by theropod, Sep 8 2012, 01:49 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Sep 7 2012, 11:49 PM
Quote:
 
you are totally agaisnt the ridiculous weight estimates produced by the hederson study, but yet you believe in the results of an unreliable metod for a type of theropod vastly different from those used in the regression equasion?

No, the length and the weight estimates use different FORMULA. The length estimates base on Henderson formular are quite close to the published length estimates, that makes it more plausible while the weight estimates are ridiculous because it's far to great for the published weight estimates
Quote:
 
and there is plenty of evidence for the 18m as I have already shown.

You haven't showed any evidences, you just showed other size scales base on outdate reconstruction and size scale from Fragilimus, those are not proof evidence. You regretted Hartman reconstruction and favoured other outdate reconstruction just because it gave Spinosaurus a larger size
Quote:
 
14m T. rex is rather a hypothetical maximum figure, that could at best have been attained by one individual (UCMP 137538)

UCMP 137538 is probably just a big toe specimen, UCMP 137538 toes are 20% bigger than Sue. So if you scale up from Sue, UCMP 137538 will be 15,36m and weighs ~ 14 tons, which is just too much for bipedal
Quote:
 
Haven't you read Fragilimus point here, why a 1,9m skull is more accurate than a 1,75m one?

You think i will believe that guy, he's definitely biased Spino fanboy. This scale tell everything
Posted Image

If T rex weighs 8 tons, how much is that Spino, 20 tons ?? 30 tons ?? => BIASED fanboy
Tell me what's wrong in my scale. Don't just complain because rex looks small. The Spino has a 1.95 meter skull, which is very likely based on the size of the preserved portion of MSNM V4047, and has a head to body ratio of 1/9.9 which falls well into the ratio seen or estimated for all other Spinosaurids. And that spino would probably weigh around 18 tons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Unfortunately a big problem in paleontology is that almost every initial estimate for size has be exaggerated. Look at Sue she was 12.8 m and now she's 12.3 m, same with Giganotosaurus it was initially estimated at 15 m but now the holotype is smaller than Sue. This also happened to Argentinosaurus, Mapusaurus, Bruhathkayosaurus, and there are plenty of other examples out there. See the estimates for these great sizes are based on very fragmented remains and paleontologists get excited and over estimate the size. When more remains are found the estimate usually turns out to be wrong.

Don't be surprised when more remains are found and giants like Spinosaurus, Amphicoelias, Ceratopsipes(Which is just a footprint!), and all of these other very fragmented dinosaurs all turn out to be smaller than initially estimated.


I think member Gecko made a rather good point here
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
and a useless one nevertheless. What do you think should we do now, just assume that every newer or more fragmentary find will necessarily get downsized and thus state it looses?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Don't forget that many species were also found to be larger than fist estimated.

Brachiosaurus-75 feet and 30 tons subadult------> 90 feet and 45 tons
Apatosaurs- 70 feet and 19 tons subadult--------> 95-100 feet and 50 tons
Diplodocus c.- 89 feet and 12 tons subadult-------> 115 feet and 25 tons
Alamosaurus- 50 feet and ~15 tons juvenile-------> 110-120 feet 80-100 tons
Mamenchisaurus c.-70 feet and 15 tons --------> 115 feet and 60 tons
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
-a reconstruction isn´t outdated jsut because they shows spinosaurus at the same ratio as indicated by suchomimus, baryonyx and verious skeletals.

That reconstruction is certainly biased, the legs are way tooooo long. Spinosauridae has proportionately shorter legs than T rex so while this Spinosaurus appear to have proportionately much longer legs than T rex. Because biased fanboy want Spino to be bigger and taller !!
Quote:
 
-since when is T. rex 8t? it´s 6t actually, and don´t forget that this spinosaurus looks heavier than it is.

T rex average is 7 tons but large one like Sue and MOR 008 can weigh up to 8 tons. Ask @Jinfengopteryx for more informations
Quote:
 
Tell me what's wrong in my scale. Don't just complain because rex looks small. The Spino has a 1.95 meter skull, which is very likely based on the size of the preserved portion of MSNM V4047, and has a head to body ratio of 1/9.9 which falls well into the ratio seen or estimated for all other Spinosaurids. And that spino would probably weigh around 18 tons.

Where do you get that 1,95m skull from ??. Show me some proof evidences for that claim
Spinosaurus has proportionately bigger head relative to its body than Suchomimus, Spinosaurus head to body ratio should be higher than 1/9,9
BTW, you should use different Spinosaurus reconstruction to scale
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Sep 8 2012, 01:58 AM
Quote:
 
-a reconstruction isn´t outdated jsut because they shows spinosaurus at the same ratio as indicated by suchomimus, baryonyx and verious skeletals.

That reconstruction is certainly biased, the legs are way tooooo long. Spinosauridae has proportionately shorter legs than T rex so while this Spinosaurus appear to have proportionately much longer legs than T rex. Because biased fanboy want Spino to be bigger and taller !!
Quote:
 
-since when is T. rex 8t? it´s 6t actually, and don´t forget that this spinosaurus looks heavier than it is.

T rex average is 7 tons but large one like Sue and MOR 008 can weigh up to 8 tons. Ask @Jinfengopteryx for more informations
Quote:
 
Tell me what's wrong in my scale. Don't just complain because rex looks small. The Spino has a 1.95 meter skull, which is very likely based on the size of the preserved portion of MSNM V4047, and has a head to body ratio of 1/9.9 which falls well into the ratio seen or estimated for all other Spinosaurids. And that spino would probably weigh around 18 tons.

Where do you get that 1,95m skull from ??. Show me some proof evidences for that claim
Spinosaurus has proportionately bigger head relative to its body than Suchomimus, Spinosaurus head to body ratio should be higher than 1/9,9
BTW, you should use different Spinosaurus reconstruction to scale
There is no proof that Spinosaurids had short legs. And the spino in my pic has legs that are proportionally the same length as T-rex's. There is no evidence that Spinosaurus would have a larger head to body ratio than other Spinosaurs. A more robust skull, yes, but not longer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
That reconstruction is certainly biased, the legs are way tooooo long. Spinosauridae has proportionately shorter legs than T rex so while this Spinosaurus appear to have proportionately much longer legs than T rex. Because biased fanboy want Spino to be bigger and taller !!

there is no real evidence for the size of spinosaurus legs, and T. rex fanboys are much worse than spino fanboys

Quote:
 
T rex average is 7 tons but large one like Sue and MOR 008 can weigh up to 8 tons. Ask @Jinfengopteryx for more informations


T. rex average is much smaller than that, and Sue was estimated at 6,1t by greg paul and 6,4t by scott hartman. that´s it, those figures are more made up than anything else

Quote:
 
Where do you get that 1,95m skull from ??. Show me some proof evidences for that claim
Spinosaurus has proportionately bigger head relative to its body than Suchomimus, Spinosaurus head to body ratio should be higher than 1/9,9
BTW, you should use different Spinosaurus reconstruction to scale

He reconstructed it himself. Spinosaurus doesn´t "have proportionately bigger head relative to its body than Suchomimus", that is mere speculation by you.
when will you lear that not every reconstruction about which you think it is not likely is inaccurate?
Edited by theropod, Sep 8 2012, 02:11 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
theropod
Sep 8 2012, 01:38 AM
you have simply not understood what this is about.

-a reconstruction isn´t outdated jsut because they shows spinosaurus at the same ratio as indicated by suchomimus, baryonyx and verious skeletals.
-since when is T. rex 8t? it´s 6t actually, and don´t forget that this spinosaurus looks heavier than it is.
-UCMP 137538 remains a bit mysterious, and imo it is most plausible that it is actually a typing error or a guess (that it is IV-2, not III-2), otherwise I guess it would have been appropriate to mention that it is far larger than any other T. rex yet found, but keeping the same ratio as sue (sue: 12,3m and IV-2 is 11,1cm and UCMP 137538 is 13cm) we get 14,4m at max. 20% is uprounded and pretty biased, it´s actually 17% that this toebone is longer than sues

Edit: oh, and it´s only one single phalanx, no toes, not even one toe, only one single bone.

-Don´t call him a spinosaurus fanboy, it is pretty obvious that he is a whole lot more objective than you. You rely on a flawed study that was criticised for the error prone metodology for an animal completely different from the theropods used as a base, and on one single skeletal. I was able to show you 3 skeletals all contradicting your claims that 18m is "totally outdated", I have shown you the ratios of other spinosaurs...
you think dal sasso is wrong, you think spinosaurus undeniably had a far larger head to body ratio than it´s relatives, you think the skeletals I showed you are flawed, you think fragillimus is a fanboy becasue he favours dal Sassos estimate, not to mention that that ridiculous Therrien & henderson study was the only publication that stated a lower lenght estimate. if there is a fanboy here, then it´s you.
PS: the T. rex is NOT too small, why don´t you just try it yourself?
That's the problem, you and Fragillimus335 doing the same thing with the skull that he's doing with the UCMP 137538 toe. Scaling up and getting some giant size. It's not fair for you to do it but when he does it it's not true.

Also about the 2.4 m Spinosaurus Skull, it holds just as much weight as C-Rex or UCMP. They're all word of mouth and in fact both C-Rex and the Spinosaur skull come from Horner but yet only the Spinosaurus skull is counted as being that big.

Like mikeBRZ said in the other thread use conservatives vs conservatives, or if you're going to use liberal, then use liberal vs liberal.
Edited by Gecko, Sep 8 2012, 02:23 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Here you go.


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I´m not believing in that 2,4m Spinosaurus skull, I don´t really trust videos concerning jurassic park, nor do I trust his claims about C- rex (which even IF it was really larger, what horner revised himself If I´m remembering some posts correctly, was not all that large as claimed, as those 14m estimates based on 12,8m sue.)

No, we are not doing the same as with UCMP 137538. we have one rostrum, it can´t be confused with another rostrum of the same animal to make it smaller or larger, and there is only one serious estimate for it. 1,95 by fragillimus is just another view on the possible size of this specimen, and if you ask me, I rather believe the picture in Dal Sassos paper than the figure, because comparing it to fragillimus 1,95m reoconstruction I can´t see how it could be so short.
well, then, how do you want to use conservatives vs conservatives? We have compelte T. rex specimens, so are they conservative or liberal? if we compare the only adult spinosaurus specimen to the largest confirmed T. rex and don´t use the most conservative estimate nor the most liberal for spinosaurus, that should be just fine, don´t you think so?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't have much faith in the 2.4 meter skull either, the 1.75-1.95 meter one we have know is big enough.

Posted Image

Another ~ 1.95 meter reconstruction by me, drawn based on other Spinosaurids.
Edited by Fragillimus335, Sep 8 2012, 02:37 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Sep 8 2012, 02:26 AM
Here you go.


Posted Image
Seems like I have to draw a new spinosaurus skull and update my comparison of theropod skulls...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Sep 8 2012, 02:35 AM
I don't have much faith in the 2.4 meter skull either, the 1.75-1.95 meter one we have know is big enough.
totally. for me the 2,4m skull is the equivalent to C-rex or UCMP 137538 (really being IV-2 I mean)
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.