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 (459,120 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:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I’m not grasping at straws at all (maybe you’d realize that had you read posts of mine that actually deal with the CONTENT of Ibrahim et al. 2014). The cherry picking is what you are doing. You were unwilling to accept Dal Sasso et al.’s conclusion, when that was the most up to date information. But now you fully embrace the new information, because to you it seems to support your views. What exactly makes this so different from previous revisions?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod, is there anything to suggest the model of ibrahim 2014 s innacurate? it appears you seem to think so, so i'm just curious.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Drift
Dec 22 2014, 10:58 PM
At long last, the spino fanboyism has died down due to the new (and actually accurate for a change) information on the animal. Hopefully, logic now dictates the choice as to who would win.
Eh, I still love the creature to death.

Logic pertaining to morphology already did have a big(ish) role in these matchups (spinosaurus against a large, macrophagous genus of theropod), but only to the extent where it was unaffected by size, specifically when the previous estimates for spinosaurus put it at approximately 10-12 tons max with a typical theropodan body structure (heavier than the greatest estimates for tyrannosaurus)

But now you are correct: with a supposed lack of terrestrial mobility and a definite lack of feeding characteristics adapted for hunting other dinosaurs, logically it would be at a disadvantage against a predator like tyrannosaurus, especially if they were the same size.
Edited by The Reptile, Dec 28 2014, 05:01 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The Reptile
Dec 28 2014, 04:41 AM
Drift
Dec 22 2014, 10:58 PM
At long last, the spino fanboyism has died down due to the new (and actually accurate for a change) information on the animal. Hopefully, logic now dictates the choice as to who would win.
Eh, I still love the creature to death.

But yes, spinosaurus has an even unlikelier chance of victory against any other theropod now, as no longer would it be nearly as mobile on land. And hasn't it even been estimated at only 7-10 tons roughly now at max as opposed to 10-12?

All of these factors along with the fact that it had little macrophagous characteristics make victory all the smaller. Yet, fanboys will return, don't think that they are extinct.
the range given by maganuco in his correspondence with a member on another foum was 6-7 tons
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Teratophoneus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ceratodromeus
Dec 28 2014, 04:54 AM
The Reptile
Dec 28 2014, 04:41 AM
Drift
Dec 22 2014, 10:58 PM
At long last, the spino fanboyism has died down due to the new (and actually accurate for a change) information on the animal. Hopefully, logic now dictates the choice as to who would win.
Eh, I still love the creature to death.

But yes, spinosaurus has an even unlikelier chance of victory against any other theropod now, as no longer would it be nearly as mobile on land. And hasn't it even been estimated at only 7-10 tons roughly now at max as opposed to 10-12?

All of these factors along with the fact that it had little macrophagous characteristics make victory all the smaller. Yet, fanboys will return, don't think that they are extinct.
the range given by maganuco in his correspondence with a member on another foum was 6-7 tons
6-7 tonnes, not 6-7 tons. Remember that italians use short tons.
Edited by Teratophoneus, Dec 28 2014, 09:10 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Teratophoneus
Dec 28 2014, 05:13 AM
Ceratodromeus
Dec 28 2014, 04:54 AM
The Reptile
Dec 28 2014, 04:41 AM
Drift
Dec 22 2014, 10:58 PM
At long last, the spino fanboyism has died down due to the new (and actually accurate for a change) information on the animal. Hopefully, logic now dictates the choice as to who would win.
Eh, I still love the creature to death.

But yes, spinosaurus has an even unlikelier chance of victory against any other theropod now, as no longer would it be nearly as mobile on land. And hasn't it even been estimated at only 7-10 tons roughly now at max as opposed to 10-12?

All of these factors along with the fact that it had little macrophagous characteristics make victory all the smaller. Yet, fanboys will return, don't think that they are extinct.
the range given by maganuco in his correspondence with a member on another foum was 6-7 tons
6-7 tonnes, not 6-7 tonne. Remember that italians use short tons.
right..i forgot about that one
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ceratodromeus
Dec 28 2014, 04:54 AM
The Reptile
Dec 28 2014, 04:41 AM
Drift
Dec 22 2014, 10:58 PM
At long last, the spino fanboyism has died down due to the new (and actually accurate for a change) information on the animal. Hopefully, logic now dictates the choice as to who would win.
Eh, I still love the creature to death.

But yes, spinosaurus has an even unlikelier chance of victory against any other theropod now, as no longer would it be nearly as mobile on land. And hasn't it even been estimated at only 7-10 tons roughly now at max as opposed to 10-12?

All of these factors along with the fact that it had little macrophagous characteristics make victory all the smaller. Yet, fanboys will return, don't think that they are extinct.
the range given by maganuco in his correspondence with a member on another foum was 6-7 tons
Well it would still be at a major disadvantage, because they were of roughly the same size (with perhaps tyrannosaurus being even larger). Even if it was at its previous size estimate of 10-12 tons, it would still be far less capable of killing its opponent than tyrannosaurus (which could possibly crush the spinosaurus' skull in fact)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@ceratodromeus: That wasn’t my point.
For the record, I don’t think it’s more inaccurate than previous reconstructions, and like reconstructions before it has added new material, meaning it does base on more data overall. It also isn’t free of problems (for example the crossscaling of all the patchworked material, such as the forelimbs, neck vertebrae and skull, and the positions assigned to vertebrae, which are what caused the double-humped sail restricted to the back and sacrum and the seemingly undersized tail), no matter what’s on @drift’s agenda.

What makes one pretty angry is if someone argues against previous findings without having any evidence and as soon as this one is out accepts it as an absolute truth, as if somehow it was magically apparent that this one is accurate and others weren’t.
Edited by theropod, Dec 28 2014, 06:57 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daspletosaurus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
I just watched the 2014 documentary "Bigger then T Rex" and I thought it was pretty informative. I'm not going to argue with people and over previous posts, but putting all the iffy calculations, and scaling, and mix matching to fill in the gaps, etc... aside, I think we now have a far better look at what Spinosaurus actually looked like and how it functioned then in previous years. If Spinosaurus new posture is accurate, (and in my opinion it is. Please remember thats just my opinion) then like Ibrahim stated this would be the first ("tentative") information found and gathered of an actual aquatic "Dinosaur"!
Edited by Daspletosaurus, Dec 28 2014, 07:40 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Sizes are almost always going to be ambiguous with restricted evidence on extinct creatures. Unlike modern sauropsids, which can be weighed, non-avian dinosaurs are no longer existent and as such we can only use calculation (which may or may not be accurate) to determine the length of the creature in life. And this further complicates the factor of mass, as the bone material is not an accurate determiner of total mass in life, as other bodily tissues including musculature and organs were present.

But the general shape of an extinct animal is much easier to study, even if remains are limited.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vodmeister
Member Avatar
Ultimate Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Even in 2015, I still haven't actually voted in this poll, despite it being the biggest interspecific conflict match-up on this forum.

I'm such a rebel.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Vodmeister
Jan 15 2015, 02:51 AM
Even in 2015, I still haven't actually voted in this poll, despite it being the biggest interspecific conflict match-up on this forum.

I'm such a rebel.
Because of you I just voted.

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus 3 (33.3%)
Tyrannosaurus rex 6 (66.7%)
Total Votes: 9

wtf? 9 votes total?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Jan 15 2015, 03:38 AM
Vodmeister
Jan 15 2015, 02:51 AM
Even in 2015, I still haven't actually voted in this poll, despite it being the biggest interspecific conflict match-up on this forum.

I'm such a rebel.
Because of you I just voted.

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus 3 (33.3%)
Tyrannosaurus rex 6 (66.7%)
Total Votes: 9

wtf? 9 votes total?
The t-rex is up 45 votes to 32 against the spino in the portal polls.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Creeper
Member Avatar
Carboniferous Arthropod

Vodmeister
Jan 15 2015, 02:51 AM
Even in 2015, I still haven't actually voted in this poll, despite it being the biggest interspecific conflict match-up on this forum.

I'm such a rebel.
wow something bigger than lion vs tiger!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Jan 15 2015, 03:38 AM
Vodmeister
Jan 15 2015, 02:51 AM
Even in 2015, I still haven't actually voted in this poll, despite it being the biggest interspecific conflict match-up on this forum.

I'm such a rebel.
Because of you I just voted.

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus 3 (33.3%)
Tyrannosaurus rex 6 (66.7%)
Total Votes: 9

wtf? 9 votes total?
this poll was re-set i believe. the one on the portal shows earlier voting results, though.
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.