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 (459,117 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:
Deleted User
Deleted User

I'd that how it could have looked!!!!!????
Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Arctic wolf
May 15 2015, 01:47 AM
Hello theropod.

Who do you think would win? And can you post a scale.
At similar sizes, which seems to be the current state of things, Tyrannosaurus has the clear advantage, even though Spinosaurus would still be a formidable opponent.

At the moment I can’t. I’d prefer to wait until the osteological monograph is published to make an accurate size estimate for MSNM v4740.

@spinodontosaurus:
Have you considered fleshing out the ridge more in the pelvic and anterior caudal region, to act as a counterweight for the anterior torso and neck? And I think the nuchal ligaments should be further down the spine (or originate that far dorsally, but follow the neck’s curvature more closely), making the neck a little more slender. Like this is seems hard to imagine the animal still being able to lower its head.

Here’s a comparison between different versions: http://hyrotrioskjan.deviantart.com/art/Mr-Weird-483489664

As Cau clarified in this comment: http://comments.deviantart.com/1/483489664/3609211970
"[…] it does not follow what I meant in my post (sorry, probably due to another bad google-translation). I meant a series of ligaments running along the inner margin of the "U-shaped" curved made by the cervical and dorsal neural spines with, eventually, a "jump" at the cervicodorsal transition. This produces a more bird-like neck, not a bovid-like."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggly Mimus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Quite frankly I think it would make sense if it had that fat as it could have been storage but thats just me...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What fat?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggly Mimus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
It seems pudgier. In that drawing, like there would be some fat there, again just my opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
May 15 2015, 01:28 AM
bone crusher
May 15 2015, 12:17 AM
Spino weight
So, the National Geographic Museum puts Spinosaurus at 50ft and 7.5 tons. That's 1-1.5 tons lighter than Sue depends on which source you refer to. When are we gonna update the OP with the latest info?
Correction: Actually 7.5t is between 2 and 1.4t heavier or 0.9 to 2t lighter than sue, depending on which of these sources you refer to (all of course being volumetric estimations):

Hartman, Scott (2013): Mass estimates: North vs South redux. http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/mass-estimates-north-vs-south-redux772013 (accessed 04 January 2015)
Hutchinson, John R.; Bates, Karl T.; Molnar, Julia; Allen, Vivian; Makovicky, Peter J. (2011): A Computational Analysis of Limb and Body Dimensions in Tyrannosaurus rex with Implications for Locomotion, Ontogeny, and Growth. PLoS ONE, Vol. 6 (10) pp. 1-20
Paul, Gregory S. (2011): Tyrannosaurus, the Lean Killing Machine. Comment on PLoS ONE, Vol. 6 (10) pp. 1-20
Stevens, Kent A.; Larson, Peter; Wills, Eric D.; Anderson, Art (2008): Rex, sit: Digital Modeling of Tyrannosaurus rex at Rest. In: Larson, Peter; Carpenter, Kenneth: Tyrannosaurus rex the Tyrant King. Bloomington pp. 193-204

Though it should be pointed out that the only scientific estimate to (albeit inofficially) accompany the new paper was 6-7t, which means that most likely FMNH PR 2081 is heavier by a few hundred kilograms, although one could argue that to be negligible on a species level.

As for your question, I’ve got doubts as to whether it will ever be updated.
If you wanna look for the latest sources involving GDI analysis on Sue then Hutchinson gives 9 tons while Hartman gives 8.4tons, so yeah I'm not wrong by that nature.Sure 900kg is 100kg shy of a ton but that's close enough to be a ton and far from the fewhundred kilograms you mentioned earlier. As a species sure we might well find Spinos equal or bigger than Sue but in a fight like you said the awkward quadrupedal posture is gonna ruin the fish eater's day hard.
Edited by bone crusher, May 15 2015, 11:22 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Why are you wanting to use the largest specimen of T. rex, when we have animals like the holotype that would represent an 'average'(or something close to it) individual?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@Bone crusher. Look at the sources I posted, please. I'm of the opinion that Hartman's GDI is the most accurate of these, at least volumetrically, but if you want to include others you have to use all of them.
Hutchinson et al.'s estimate was 9.5t, not 9. Paul's (similarly recent) estimmate was posted in the comment section. We all know Hartmman's estimate. And Stevens et al. made a model to evaluate COM position and the mechanics involved in sitting and getting up, stating their model for stan at 4.4t to be 80% the mass of an equivalent one for sue.

Some of these are obviously too low. Others are too high. But the point is that all of these meet the criterium of being fairly recent volumetric estimations, and yet for some reason you chose to arbitrarily take into account only the higher end.
Edited by theropod, May 15 2015, 03:36 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Well Theropod I don't necessarily focus on just the highest figure, after all I still prefer the most reliable and accurate one. Yes I also favor Hartman's since he's mostly likely the one got the most accurate proportion. So Spino's weight from two latest sources based on its new form is 6-7 tons and 7.5 tons respectively, they're still lower than Sue's anywhere from 900kg to 1.4 tons if we're using Hartman's 8.4 tons figure for Sue.
Remember I'm not disputing the difference for species but rather just the individuals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
And it’s the species that are relevant here, not the specimens. Otherwise the matchup would be titled as follows:
FMNH PR 2081 (replace with different specimen should a bigger T. rex ever be found) vs MSNM v4047

Another thing that is of note though is that this shows how even volumetric estimates from credible sources vary quite a bit. Consider what this might mean for the mass of Spinosaurus.
Also, keep in mind Hartman’s T. rex should probably be less dense (0.913 is as dense as Acrocanthosaurus, T. rex is far more pneumatised), which applies to his Giganotosaurus too in all likelyhood (they stay similar), but not to Spinosaurus (whose pneumatic features are limited to the neck, while its leg bones are extraordinarily dense).
Edited by theropod, May 16 2015, 12:03 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Why should we use such are large sue measurement? You use it cause it's such a large estimate. I've seen some estimates as low as 6 tons and some around 7 tons, I will go for 7 tons.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The only reason this topic is almost three hundred pages long is needless idle off-topic conversation.We came to a consensus less than ten pages back,the new information undoubtedly shows us this is a lopsided fight in favor of one contender.Not even the addition of all the "two cents" in the world from members here would change this outcome.If it's difficult to fathom that Spinosaurus isn't what it was assumed to be in 2005 i suggest re-reading the new information until it sinks in.Why is this dead horse of a topic still being beaten with such tenacity? If anyone has qualms about anything regarding Spinosaurus why not post your thoughts in the animals species profile? This topic has "versus" in it,pitting two creatures against one another.Substantial information tells us the most probable outcome the majority of the time,I genuinely ask why continue to try and gain leverage where there is none to be gained? My post is now aiding in the off-topic bull$hit however at least i'm addressing the problem at hand.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
I agree Drift, this fight is well and truly over in favor of T.rex as soon as the new findings were announced. Just to put more salt on the wound, even the guy who's directly examining the specimen himself claimed that the largest T.rex specimens are still heavier. I think this debate is a wrap, my my has it come a long way.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
May 16 2015, 12:02 AM
And it’s the species that are relevant here, not the specimens. Otherwise the matchup would be titled as follows:
FMNH PR 2081 (replace with different specimen should a bigger T. rex ever be found) vs MSNM v4047

Another thing that is of note though is that this shows how even volumetric estimates from credible sources vary quite a bit. Consider what this might mean for the mass of Spinosaurus.
Also, keep in mind Hartman’s T. rex should probably be less dense (0.913 is as dense as Acrocanthosaurus, T. rex is far more pneumatised), which applies to his Giganotosaurus too in all likelyhood (they stay similar), but not to Spinosaurus (whose pneumatic features are limited to the neck, while its leg bones are extraordinarily dense).
That's not even what i meant. Sue is the largest known specimen. In these kinds of matches, don't we use an "average" individual? Of course this is easier because we have so many more specimens of tyrannosaurus, for example individuals like the holotype that would represent a far more typical Tyrannosaurus individual.
Don't the vast majority of known tyrannosaurus specimens fall into range of this new spinosaurus weight estimate anyway?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@theropod

Why use Paul's estimate? he hasn't updated his T. rex skeletals in 8 years, the image he posted in the plosone comment even puts in evidence that the scaling in his Sue is wrong, everything but the hips and legs is too small, similar to Hartman's old mistake.
Edited by blaze, May 16 2015, 03:31 AM.
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.