| 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 (459,129 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: | |
|---|---|
| theropod | Oct 3 2014, 11:26 PM Post #3781 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why wouldn’t it? Why would it resemble a giganotosaurine more than a plesiomorphic carcharodontosaur? The former’s proportionately huge skulls are obviously a derived trait, nobody knows whether it extends that far down the phylogenetic tree. Carcharodontosaurus is not necessarily more similar to Acrocanthosaurus in head-body proportions, but the possibility is very real, and that the latter is not a carcharodontosaurine isn’t really an argument imo. @blaze: My point is that I couldn’t find indication that suggested it was extraordinarily old, or larger than sue. seems you are right. The Theropod Database cites another paper, but that paper doesn”t give any measurements. My point exactly. None of these have even been properly published on. The sizes of F-rex and C-rex for example are based on nothing but unsubstantiated claims, typically by fanboys. No evidence has been brought forth that these are actually the claimed size. But MUCPv-95 is a 61cm long portion of dentary, that’s not exactly small. At that lenght it constitutes between 35% and 38% of skull lenght by my estimates. Jack Horner also claims there’s a 2.4m Spinosaurus skull that’s unpublished, wanna take that into account? We’ve found much more than 30, but of course we don’t know the size limit. We just come a lot closer than with any other giant theropod, because apart from T. rex there is not a single one known from anywhere near that many individuals. And, what’s pretty much unique for a giant theropod, in T. rex at least one specimen (FMNH PR 2081) is described as having an external fundamental system (Erickson et al. 2004). We can ignore it, it would still make it larger unless you are saying the average T. rex masses somewhere around 6.5-6.8t. That’s higher than two volumetric estimates for Sue actually (Paul 2011 and Stevens 2008). It remains pretty much the same size as initially described (about 12.5m), Hartman’s estimate is 12.4m. Nope, that is an unfounded claim. there is nothing to it to suggest it was more slender. Or about 10% more massive (going by Hartman’s estimate for MUCPv-95, not Coria & Calvo). Where? The word "old" in fact isn’t in the description paper a single time. Whether it’s particularly large or old is debatable, according to Myhrvold 2013 it’s quite rare for a dinosaur to preserve more or less fully grown individuals, with T. rex being among the few where we know them), but it’s probably not as large and old as sue, for which this actually has been noted. To cite Erickson et al. 2004: "At least one individual (exemplified by FMNH (The Field Museum) PR 2081), showed evidence for prolonged senescence in the form of conspicuously narrow pericortical growth-line spacing". Sue is the only particularly old individual here. here’s the description paper: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7901883_A_large_Cretaceous_theropod_from_Patagonia_Argentina_and_the_evolution_of_carcharodontosaurids/links/00b4952b85327604cc000000 And there’s this→, but it’s paywalled and not yet available online. The paratype of Tyrannotitan seems a tad smaller than Sue to me (by weight), based on comparison of its cranial and propodial remains to Giganotosaurus, but we’ll only have certainty if someone makes a volumetric estimate.
Firstly, these do not reach the same lenght. Mapusaurus, Giganotosaurus, Spinosaurus and probably Carcharodontosaurus all clearly exceed it in that department. And why do you just believe that stuff about Mapusaurus being more slender without searching for evidence? Because as it turns out, there is none. Even bad evidence (i.e. dimensions of individual bones not directly linked to bulk). It was, to be frank, entirely made up. References: Coria, Rodolpho A.; Calvo, Jorge O.: New Specimen of Giganotosaurus carolinii (Coria & Salgado, 1995), supports it as the largest Theropod ever found. Gaia, Vol. 15 (1998); pp. 117-122 Coria, Rodolpho A.; Currie, Philip J.: A new carcharodontosaurid (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Argentina. Geodiversitas, Vol. 28 (2006); 1; pp. 71-118 Erickson, Gregory M.; Makovicky, Peter J.; Currie4, Philip J.; Norell, Mark A.; Yerby, Scott A.; Brochu6, Christopher A.: Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs. Vol. 430 (2004); pp. 772-775 Myhrvold, Nathan P.: Revisiting the Estimation of Dinosaur Growth Rates. PLoS ONE, Vol. 8 (2013); 12; pp. 1-24 Stevens, Kent A.; Larson, Peter; Wills, Eric D.; Anderson, Art: Rex, sit: digital Modeling of Tyrannosaurus rex at Rest. In: Larson, Peter; Carpenter, Kenneth: Tyrannosaurus rex the Tyrant King. Bloomington (2008); pp. 193-204 |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Oct 4 2014, 01:05 AM Post #3782 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
thanks for the paper! It does appear Tyrannotitans' paratype is smaller then 'sue'. Now, if you're implying that my statements are 'made up' i'd say that's a bit of baseless conjecture...and to bring evidence of this instead of just saying so.![]() Compared to other theropods, i would say Mapu is slenderly built. Especially whenit's compared to that Tyrannosaurus individual. Here it is with Shartman's Giganotosaurus ![]() http://dinonews.net/rubriq/docs/2006_coria_mapusaurus.pdf In the paper above, the following is stated: " MCF-PVPH-108.68 is a 1040 mm long tibia, which is 7% smaller than the tibia of Giganotosaurus, and represents an animal 9.8 m in length (Table 1). MCF-PVPH-108.202 is an 860 mm long fibula that is actually 2 cm longer than the fibula of the 12.2 m long Giganotosaurus(MUCPv-CH-1; Coria & Salgado 1995). The shafts of a scapula (MCF-PVPH-108.185) and a pubis (-108.145) have similar dimensions to the same regions in the holotype of Giganotosaurus, whose estimated length reaches the 12.2 m. These bones suggest the presence of at least one individual that is larger than the animal represented by the largest metatarsals, and increase the minimum number of individuals to nine" I'm not doubting the sheer size of Mapusaurus, i just doubt it was much bigger then the other Carcharodontosaurids, if not similar sized. Nor have i seen anything outside of A scientific article suggesting Mapusaurus Roseae was the largest of the Carcharodontosaurs. You cannot refute MOR 1126 by just saying "Well Jack Horner said..." because that just isn't logical. "Celeste" is based off of actual remains, and can be seen in the JP3dvd featurette "Montana: finding new dinosaurs". Horner suggested it was "Anywhere between 40-45 feet in length we don't know for sure..." and unfortunately that's true, but that field guess suggests it's sue sized or larger. Damn shame it hasn't been studied yet.. This BBC article is about 14 years old now, but if you doubt that MOR 1126 is a legitamate find, here you go! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/965609.stm And in The Tyrant King, Pete Larson has a small section on C-rex. http://books.google.com/books?id=5WH9RnfKco4C&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=C-rex+tyrannosaurus&source=bl&ots=074LU_ZHPy&sig=odkE-kbWFFWd1_AbA_QNPAmTI5Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eskuVLGqKM2kyATO2YKoDQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=C-rex%20tyrannosaurus&f=false As for your "no estimate has been published" for the large tyrannosaurs, the same can be said for Mapusaurus. Your estimates to be exact. your numbers have not been duplicating any study that i'm aware of, so, by your logic, we cannot take that. ![]() Compared to other theropods, i would say Mapu is slenderly built. Especially whenit's compared to that Tyrannosaurus individual. Here it is with Shartman's Giganotosaurus ![]() http://dinonews.net/rubriq/docs/2006_coria_mapusaurus.pdf In the paper above, the following is stated: " MCF-PVPH-108.68 is a 1040 mm long tibia, which is 7% smaller than the tibia of Giganotosaurus, and represents an animal 9.8 m in length (Table 1). MCF-PVPH-108.202 is an 860 mm long fibula that is actually 2 cm longer than the fibula of the 12.2 m long Giganotosaurus(MUCPv-CH-1; Coria & Salgado 1995). The shafts of a scapula (MCF-PVPH-108.185) and a pubis (-108.145) have similar dimensions to the same regions in the holotype of Giganotosaurus, whose estimated length reaches the 12.2 m. These bones suggest the presence of at least one individual that is larger than the animal represented by the largest metatarsals, and increase the minimum number of individuals to nine" I'm not doubting the sheer size of Mapusaurus, i just doubt it was much bigger then the other Carcharodontosaurids, if not similar sized. Nor have i seen anything outside of A scientific article suggesting Mapusaurus Roseae was the largest of the Carcharodontosaurs. You cannot refute MOR 1126 by just saying "Well Jack Horner said..." because that just isn't logical. "Celeste" is based off of actual remains, and can be seen in the JP3dvd featurette "Montana: finding new dinosaurs". Horner suggested it was "Anywhere between 40-45 feet in length we don't know for sure..." and unfortunately that's true, but that field guess suggests it's sue sized or larger. Damn shame it hasn't been studied yet.. This BBC article is about 14 years old now, but if you doubt that MOR 1126 is a legitamate find, here you go! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/965609.stm And in The Tyrant King, Pete Larson has a small section on C-rex. http://books.google.com/books?id=5WH9RnfKco4C&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=C-rex+tyrannosaurus&source=bl&ots=074LU_ZHPy&sig=odkE-kbWFFWd1_AbA_QNPAmTI5Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eskuVLGqKM2kyATO2YKoDQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=C-rex%20tyrannosaurus&f=false As for your "no estimate has been published" for the large tyrannosaurs, the same can be said for Mapusaurus. Your estimates to be exact. your numbers have not been duplicating any study that i'm aware of, so, by your logic, we cannot take that. Edited by Ceratodromeus, Oct 4 2014, 01:46 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Oct 4 2014, 02:26 AM Post #3783 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Because Carcharodontosaurus is a derived carcharodontosaurine, just like Giganotosaurus or Mapusaurus. And Acrocanthosaurus is not. Edited by MysteryMeat, Oct 4 2014, 02:27 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 4 2014, 05:11 AM Post #3784 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@MysteryMeat: What carcharodontosaurines are more basal than it in your opinion? Actually, none. Carcharodontosaurinae are the descendants of the most recent common ancestor of Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus. Based on the analysis in Canale et al. (2014), Carcharodontosaurus is at the base while the the Mapusaurus+Giganotosaurus+Tyrannotitan clade is moderately well supported as its sister taxon. The next more basal taxa that are included are Shaochilong, and then Acrocanthosaurus. Furthermore than Concavenator also has a proportionately small head suggests it’s the basal condition. @Carnosaur18: Your image is not showing up. Then I suggest you take a close look at what I wrote and see whether I claimed that to be the case, because as a matter of facts, I did not. I just made a little demonstration, because some people are so fixed on comparing the largest known specimens and for Mapusaurus there are published comparative size figures for these. There are much more specimens of Mapusaurus than there are of Giganotosaurus, and it has not been examined which of them are juveniles/subadults (though I ). So it’s probably save to say Giganotosaurus is similar in size. But alas, people keep ignoring that with T. rex, so I guess by that logic Mapusaurus would have to be bigger. This is just to demonstrate you that there are carcharodontosaur specimens this size. I’m not passing judgement on which carcharodontosaurid is the biggest yet. And I consider field guesses irrelevant, all the more if they are in the "JP3 featurette" actually. I’m wondering what that featurette says about Spinosaurus… I did not write "no estimate has been published", I wrote that they are not properly published. C-rex simply continues to lack any rigorous description bringing evidence for the extraordinary size claimed in newspapers (as has been the case previously, with MOR 008–where it turned out wrong). If it was so huge, one would expect that to have made it into the literature by now, seeing as how keep everybody is on finding T. rex specimens bigger than sue. Until that’s the case, Sue remains the largest. But that’s just on the edges of the event, It will have little impact on T. rex’ average size simply not being so huge, despite being actually known from fully grown adults unlike other theropods. Reference: Canale, Juan I.; Novas, Fernando E.; Pol Diego: Osteology and phylogenetic relationships of Tyrannotitan chubutensis Novas, de Valais, Vickers-Rich and Rich, 2005 (Theropoda: Carcharodontosauridae) from the Lower Cretaceous of Patagonia, Argentina. Historical Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology, published online (2014); pp. 1-32 |
![]() |
|
| Fist of the North Shrimp | Oct 4 2014, 05:37 AM Post #3785 |
|
vá á orminum
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This thread is not about Carcharodontosaurines, maybe you could take the discussion to the appropriate threads. About that 2.5 Meter Spino skull, its obviously from a fully marine Spinosaurid of the latest Cretaceous. Edited by Fist of the North Shrimp, Oct 4 2014, 05:51 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Sarcoimperator | Oct 4 2014, 05:43 AM Post #3786 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What?! |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 4 2014, 05:48 AM Post #3787 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
He’s joking. @carnosaur18: He’s right, when you respond please just do that in one of the threads that deal with the size of carcharodontosaurs? Edited by theropod, Oct 4 2014, 06:09 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Fist of the North Shrimp | Oct 4 2014, 05:51 AM Post #3788 |
|
vá á orminum
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sure?
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 4 2014, 06:16 AM Post #3789 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I’m sure a 2.5m Latest Cretaceous spinosaur skull would have been quite the sensation in the news. But what gave you away is that you wrote "that 2.5 Meter Spino skull", when I was referencing a supposedly 2.4m Horner claimed based on remains in a private collection somewhere. I think it was TheROC who posted the info. But as I already explained, I think spectacular undescribed specimens only known from dubious reports in interviews/newspapers/documentaries just aren’t trustworthy. False reports are just too common with those. We already had that with the T. rex skull that was even on exhibition, but not rigorously reconstructed and thus too large. |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Oct 4 2014, 12:16 PM Post #3790 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I guess this fight is a wrap then, T.Rex would have most certainly dominate Spino more often than not for being heavier, much taller, faster (on land), more robust design and of course a far stronger bite for a quick kill. Spino has just lost its biggest advantage, size and now it's even much shorter which would render the huge claws useless for delivering slashes for neck wound, unless I'm missing something here, but is there anything significant on Spino's side that would still keep it in the game? I think more interesting fights would be Spino vs Sarcosuchus or Deinosuchus. Edited by bone crusher, Oct 4 2014, 12:17 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| blaze | Oct 4 2014, 02:28 PM Post #3791 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
F-rex and C-rex are very very likely fully prepared already, The Tyrant King book (from 2008) reports what is known of them and F-rex was used in an histological analysis a decade ago (Horner and Padian, 2004). That we don't get any mention of them is probably because Horner was dead wrong in his on the field guess, if they are not bigger than Sue then these rather fragmentary specimens are of little interest and that might explain why no one mentions them.
Edited by blaze, Oct 4 2014, 02:30 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Sarcoimperator | Oct 4 2014, 04:20 PM Post #3792 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh, thank God
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 4 2014, 06:40 PM Post #3793 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^It’s not that a fully aquatic Maastrichtian spinosaur with a 2.5m skull wouldn’t be cool, it just doesn’t exist… I think I’ll wait for the monograph, then maybe I can have another go with the skull. |
![]() |
|
| genao87 | Oct 6 2014, 12:16 AM Post #3794 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
so Spino now looks like a croc and also it was only 7 tons?? Edited by genao87, Oct 6 2014, 12:16 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Sarcoimperator | Oct 6 2014, 12:42 AM Post #3795 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Looks like it. It still seems to have been the longesst theropod at about 15 meters, but other giant theropods like tyrannosaurus and giganotosaurus were much more robust according to the new findings. |
![]() |
|
| 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