| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM (459,132 Views) | |
| Wolf Eagle | Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM Post #1 |
![]()
M E G A P H Y S E T E R
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tyrannosaurus rex Tyrannosaurus is a genus of coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur. The species Tyrannosaurus rex (rex meaning "king" in Latin), commonly abbreviated to T. rex, is a fixture in popular culture. It lived throughout what is now western North America, with a much wider range than other tyrannosaurids. Fossils are found in a variety of rock formations dating to the Maastrichtian age of the upper Cretaceous Period, 67 to 65.5 million years ago.[1] It was among the last non-avian dinosaurs to exist before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Like other tyrannosaurids, Tyrannosaurus was a bipedal carnivore with a massive skull balanced by a long, heavy tail. Relative to the large and powerful hindlimbs, Tyrannosaurus forelimbs were small, though unusually powerful for their size, and bore two clawed digits. Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it was the largest known tyrannosaurid and one of the largest known land predators. By far the largest carnivore in its environment, Tyrannosaurus rex may have been an apex predator, preying upon hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, although some experts have suggested it was primarily a scavenger. The debate over Tyrannosaurus as apex predator or scavenger is among the longest running in paleontology. Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time; the largest complete specimen, FMNH PR2081 ("Sue"), measured 12.8 metres (42 ft) long, and was 4.0 metres (13.1 ft) tall at the hips. Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7.2 metric tons (7.9 short tons), to less than 4.5 metric tons (5.0 short tons), with most modern estimates ranging between 5.4 and 6.8 metric tons (6.0 and 7.5 short tons). Packard et al. (2009) tested dinosaur mass estimation procedures on elephants and concluded that dinosaur estimations are flawed and produce over-estimations; thus, the weight of Tyrannosaurus could be much less than usually estimated. Other estimations have concluded that the largest known Tyrannosaurus specimens had a weight exceeding 9 tonnes. ![]() Spinosaurus aegyptiacus Spinosaurus is a genus of theropod dinosaur which lived in what is now North Africa, from the lower Albian to lower Cenomanian stages of the Cretaceous period, about 112 to 97 million years ago. Spinosaurus may be the largest of all known carnivorous dinosaurs, even larger than Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus. Estimates published in 2005 and 2007 suggest that it was 12.6 to 18 metres (41 to 59 ft) in length and 7 to 20.9 tonnes (7.7 to 23.0 short tons) in weight. The skull of Spinosaurus was long and narrow like that of a modern crocodilian. Spinosaurus is thought to have eaten fish; evidence suggests that it lived both on land and in water like a modern crocodilian. The distinctive spines of Spinosaurus, which were long extensions of the vertebrae, grew to at least 1.65 meters (5.4 ft) long and were likely to have had skin connecting them, forming a sail-like structure, although some authors have suggested that the spines were covered in fat and formed a hump. Multiple functions have been put forward for this structure, including thermoregulation and display. Dal Sasso et al. (2005) assumed that Spinosaurus and Suchomimus had the same body proportions in relation to their skull lengths, and thereby calculated that Spinosaurus was 16 to 18 meters (52 to 59 ft) in length and 7 to 9 tonnes (7.7 to 9.9 short tons) in weight. The Dal Sasso et al. estimates were criticized because the skull length estimate was uncertain, and (assuming that body mass increases as the cube of body length) scaling Suchomimus which was 11 meters (36 ft) long and 3.8 tonnes (4.2 short tons) in mass to the range of estimated lengths of Spinosaurus would produce an estimated body mass of 11.7 to 16.7 tonnes (12.9 to 18.4 short tons).
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Teratophoneus | Sep 29 2014, 11:09 PM Post #3736 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Is this topic still alive? Wow. I think it's the topic in this section with the largest amount of pages. |
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Sep 30 2014, 02:54 AM Post #3737 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I also don't like the look of feathered dromaeosauridae, but that doesn't change the facts. |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Sep 30 2014, 07:13 PM Post #3738 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So, is this an accurate size representation of the new spino in comparison to the others? In the order of Giganotosaurus holotype, T.rex Sue and new Spino morph.![]() |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Sep 30 2014, 07:33 PM Post #3739 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The Giganotosaurus holotype should be longer than Sue, not shorter (and you can actually SEE the scalebars aren't the same lenght). Haven't checked the Spinosaurus' size, but based on the latest responses from Ibrahim et al. their leg proportions are most likely correct (and it's unlikely an adult would have proportionately longer legs). That sue skeletal also looks like the outdated version, whose legs are too long. Edited by theropod, Sep 30 2014, 07:35 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Fist of the North Shrimp | Sep 30 2014, 09:10 PM Post #3740 |
|
vá á orminum
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think the holotype of Giganotosaurus should be the same length as Sue, its somewhere between 12.2 and 12.4 meters. And the Spinosaurus is wrong, apart from what theropod said, there is more: -The chest is too deep -The cervicals are wrong. -The anterior Caudal is in reality a posterior dorsal. I am not neccesarily saying that there were no spines on the anterior caudals, but the dorsal is a true dorsal if you look at it and compare it to other dorsals, sacrals and caudals. |
![]() |
|
| Teratophoneus | Sep 30 2014, 09:14 PM Post #3741 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Giganotosaurus holotype is too small, it was as long as or very marginally longer than 'Sue'. Plus, the scalebars don't like equals. Edit: outspeeded by theropod Edited by Teratophoneus, Sep 30 2014, 09:15 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 1 2014, 01:40 AM Post #3742 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually it’s a good deal to small, it should be a little longer than sue based on Hartman’s own scaling, it is considerably shorter in that scale, and it’s neck isn’t even as strongly S-curved, meaning its standing lenght should look even bigger. The scalebars are all different in size even though they are all supposed to be 1m in lenght. That of Spinosaurus is 63px, that of T. rex 66px and that of Giganotosaurus 65px (probably misscaled). I’m not really surprised T. rex’ scalebar ended up the biggest, but in the Spinosaurus skeletal I measured its rostrum and the scalebar was off by quite a bit anyway, FMNHP PR 2081 is an outdated version and MUCPv-Ch1may be too. @mantis: Hartman’s Giganotosaurus is 12.4m as he wrote himself, if it was shorter, its tail would be proportionally shorter. If anything, it might be longer. I’ve measured it axially at 12.56m, wherein femur lenght and dentary depth were consistent with the scalebar (the former he appears to interpret as maximum lenght of the femur btw). I always got measurements consistent with Hartman’s and other people’s so far, and I checked it thoroughly, but I may still be off in some regard. But I definitely tend towards 12.4m, not less. The other caudals Ibrahim et al. figure in their skeletal could be pretty far posterior for all we know, Headden already commented on that. Element "i" might not even be a single vertebra, so I’m not sure what traits of it look so typically dorsal to you. Whether the chest is to deep depends on whether the reconstruction in Ibrahim et al. is correct (after all the ribst mostly seem to be just fragments or "modeled after Baryonyx, Suchomimus and Ichthyovenator"–just much shorter) and how much bulkier the adult specimen (this unattributed skeletal’s author whose deviantart-name I unfortunately forgot obviously intended it to represent the adult). Obviously it was released before the paper came out, so it could not possibly have included all the data from it, but we should avait further discussion on how good the composite reconstruction really is. Edited by theropod, Oct 1 2014, 01:45 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Fist of the North Shrimp | Oct 1 2014, 05:15 AM Post #3743 |
|
vá á orminum
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Theropod, As much as I think that Scott does top notch work, it is only a single estimate, and Currie measured a mount at 12.2 meters, so we have 2 pretty good data points that fall within 2% of each other. The length difference between Sue and Giganotosaurus should be negligible. Of course you are right that when using Scotts(I did not realise it was his as I presumed they would be original works like the Spinosaurus). reconstruction one should use his data. The centrum of element I is clearly a dorsal, it dies not look like something that would fit behind the Sacrum. And the process and arch do not look like something that would fit on a Caudal. I also think we should give Stromer more credit, as he was the one who described the material. Of we had done the same with Spinosaurus B before, we would have had a much clearer picture already. The chest is clearly to deep, of the ribs are pointing straight down. We already have drawings of the original ribs and they are pretty small. I think its an artifact of scaling up the pelvis. Edited by Fist of the North Shrimp, Oct 1 2014, 05:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| blaze | Oct 1 2014, 05:44 AM Post #3744 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^The mount of Sue was physically measured in 2001 at 12.01m, about the same deviation from the actual axial length to what we see between Currie's measurement and Hartman's estimate. Yes Sue and Giga's type specimen are essentially the same axial length but Tyrannosaurus has a more s-shaped neck which means that it's "straight-line" length should be less than Giganotosaurus, but not by any big amount, perhaps 30cm or so. As other's have mentioned that size chart is wrong for several reasons including using an outdated skeletal by Scott Hartman and that Spinosaurus skeletal is inaccurate, Ibrahim et al have responded with higher resolution images of their 3d skeleton and clarifications of how they measured them, the tiny limbs are real, of course we can still argue about their scaling of the full torso and the neck but it wouldn't make such a drastic difference. |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Oct 1 2014, 06:16 AM Post #3745 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So the legs are as small as Ibrahim et al. (2014) have displayed (sorry for not understanding up to speed)?
Edited by Ausar, Oct 1 2014, 06:17 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Oct 1 2014, 06:36 AM Post #3746 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It was on WWD? I don't remember that... But as for its new body posture, I am actually digging it a lot. It is really neat to see a large, quadrupedal (more likely this than bipedalism on land) carnivorous dinosaur (albeit piscivorous) for once!
Obviously... |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Oct 1 2014, 06:43 AM Post #3747 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It wasn't in WWD. As for quadrupedalism, I'm still not certain on that. Not sure if anyone here responded to it yet, but Andrea Cau did suggest something other than quadrupedalism (hard to imagine in a theropod). |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Oct 1 2014, 07:19 AM Post #3748 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@Ausar Yes, check Mark Witton's blog (link Edited by blaze, Oct 1 2014, 07:45 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Teratophoneus | Oct 1 2014, 07:39 AM Post #3749 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I thought it died. It's very old. |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Oct 1 2014, 07:18 PM Post #3750 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
OK thanks for the heads up guys, will work on those later. http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.it/2014/09/spinosaurus-revolution-final-episode.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8 Here we have the latest from Cau on Spino's length and weight. So it appears it's 14-15m max and roughly 6-7 tonnes, quite a bit lighter than Sue. I do agree with him on the weight tho as it seems Sue is much wider and have bigger more robust corresponding bones. The idea of a 20 metric ton spino with this skeleton design is simply way too ridiculous. Edited by bone crusher, Oct 1 2014, 07:19 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:23 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)



![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)








2:23 AM Jul 14