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 (459,124 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:
Tyrant
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Sir that would mean that you give up on the argument and that you agree with me if you have no evidence to disagree with me.


Uh no. You clearly don't understand how a debate works. The one making the claim has to present the evidence, while the one disagreeing isn't obligated to do so. I have seen no evidence suggesting spinosaurus, an animal primarily designed to hunt fish that were smaller than itself could pull down an animal as large as tyrannosaurus.

Quote:
 
Yes also I am over 70% certain that other sauropods could trample each other under their weight.


How is that relevant?

Quote:
 
There is evidence supporting that they would be used as meat hooks all over fish are large.


Really? Six to eight ton fish. You have evidence that spinosaurus hunted t.rex sized fish?

Quote:
 
They are walking now so yeah thats the evidence I can give.


What...The...F uck?

When did I ever deny the fact that spinosaurus could walk? Seriously when?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggly Mimus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Sir are you willing to listen or are you willing to be a frustrated and immature and choose not to understand.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Disagreeing with a claim doesn't require evidence? BS. It constitutes a claim itself, therefore it also requires evidence. Otherwise, if I claimed that Tyrannosaurus was able to walk I'd be the one obliged to bring egidence, but not whoever diasagrees with it.

What you are debating is just who of you is making the more exceptional claim, and therefore requires the stronger arguments.

Now I personally fail to see what's so extraordinary about spinosaaurus being able to use its forelimbs as meathooks to pull something down, but I'd also like to see this statement supported by actual evidence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggly Mimus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Recent analysis of its teeth and skeleton have suggested that Spinosaurus may have been a semi-aquatic animal, spending most of its time either wading or swimming to catch large fish (sharks included), as well as crocodiles and anything else it could capture. Its strong forearms would aid in swimming and the strong claws would hook, kill and help dismembering large prey. http://listverse.com/
A coelacanth could get up to a size of 198 pounds today which could have been far more in prehistoric times.http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/coelacanth/
Now if you include current you could get those puppies easily swimming faster then 20 mph if you add the weight and how fast it slams into the arms. That spinosaurus could have had a great arm strength.
Is that good enough?
Edited by Jiggly Mimus, Nov 14 2014, 08:24 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrant
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Sir are you willing to listen or are you willing to be a frustrated and immature and choose not to understand.


Lol. You're the one who has twisted my words to the point where you actually acted as if I denied the fact that spinosaurus could walk on land.

Quote:
 
Disagreeing with a claim doesn't require evidence? BS. It constitutes a claim itself, therefore it also requires evidence.


When the other side also lacks evidence, yes. I don't see why the one who is skeptical of someone else's assertion is the one required to bring the evidence.

Quote:
 
Now I personally fail to see what's so extraordinary about spinosaaurus being able to use its forelimbs as meathooks to pull something down, but I'd also like to see this statement supported by actual evidence.


Pull down? As in pull down to the ground, as a lion would pull down a wild beast?.

Quote:
 
Recent analysis of its teeth and skeleton have suggested that Spinosaurus may have been a semi-aquatic animal, spending most of its time either wading or swimming to catch large fish (sharks included), as well as crocodiles and anything else it could capture. Its strong forearms would aid in swimming and the strong claws would hook, kill and help dismembering large prey. http://listverse.com/


I know this. It's precisely why I favor tyrannosaurus over spinosaurus.

Quote:
 
A coelacanth could get up to a size of 198 pounds today which could have been far more in prehistoric times.http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/coelacanth/


Okay. I hope you realize that while that fish may be big, it is nowhere near as heavy or strong as a tyrannosaurus would be.

Quote:
 
Now if you include current you could get those puppies easily swimming faster then 20 mph if you add the weight and how fast it slams into the arms. That spinosaurus could have had a great arm strength.


Again, you're either twisting my points or misinterpreting them in a severely dramatic fashion. I never said that spinosaurus's arms were weak, I said that they weren't strong enough to pull down a tyrannosaurus or be a major factor in a fight between them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
258 pages.

Nothing even close to an agreement.

RIP.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggly Mimus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Why could it not sauropods did it with there wait why couldn't spino?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jiggly Aegypticus
Nov 14 2014, 12:09 PM
Why could it not sauropods did it with there wait why couldn't spino?
first off, sauropods don't have fingers. secondly, their forelimbs are (obviously) morphilogically dissimilar to those of theropods. columnar legs really aren't suited for aiding in food gathering in the spinosaurus has been hypothesized to catch fish. the coelocanths and miscellaneous fish it hunted -- along with small dinosaurs -- weigh a minute fraction of what T. rex weighed. i don't think it's going to be dragging the tyrannosaur to the ground
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggly Mimus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
You are missunderstanding me I dont want it to be pulled down by the arms alone. I want it to be pulled down enough for the head to bite and land a blow to it and maybe rip at it
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Scientifically, sauropods do have phalanges, but they do not protrude like in theropods or primates. They are like elephants; their exterior feet were likely supported by thick padding.

Quote:
 
why is that? There is no evidence to support that. the Spinosaurus with those arms and the new analysis of its body is saying that it would walk on its front legs therefore they would be strong I don't see any of the points you are making sorry...

Except the thing you are forgetting is that increased robusticity/size proportional to body size would make forearm use on land a much more forgettable idea. Simply because balance would be far too much of a hinderance.

The forearms of all theropods really were not that well suited for killing at all, especially when they were reduced like in abelisaurids or tyrannosaurids. Even if they were enhanced to be capable of supporting the weight of the animal in spinosaurus, consider the fact that the creature would be practically unable to move due to weaker hind limbs and balance tipping forward like a seesaw. And are you completely forgetting about the fact that its jaws and teeth were designed first and foremost for gripping fish? If the forearms were more locomotory, then the jaws would have provided even a greater function in grabbing fish, just like modern crocodiles whose limbs have been reduced to complete irrelevance when hunting (and the Indian gharial cannot even high-walk!)
Edited by The Reptile, Nov 14 2014, 02:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggly Mimus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Then the claws on it were irrelevant. Nature tends to get rid of things with no point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrant
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
^Or they evolved for a non combative purpose, like catching fish.

By the way, I am not claiming that a spinosaurus couldn't use its arms in a fight just that they aren't going to be a significant factor.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quite possible that they did, but that isn't an argument to suggest they were ineffective weapons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggly Mimus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
In roman times they used spears and nets. Both of witch were originally intended for fishing. These claws with a good swipe would have done a lot of damage. I am thinking no the arms weren't for grappling. I was saying it was to basically pull it down just enough (i know that sounds counter intuitive) to get a good bit in there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
This battle would be fought with jaws, not claws. I don't think they would play a major role.
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.