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 (459,116 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
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
And why use Hutchinson et al.’s models? Has sue’s mount been significantly updated in the last 8 years?

That’s what I mean.

@Ceratodromeus:Yes, absolutely. That along with what I wrote. the average T. rex is certainly well below 7t, probably around 6.

@bone crusher: Emphasis on "the largest specimens".

@drift: There’s this thing called scientific honesty. I couldn’t care less what you or anyone else thinks of the outcome of this fight, not even what I think myself. If there’s something scientifically relevant to be pointed out, I’ll do so. If the outcome of the topic question is clear, that won’t keep me from discussing claims posted here, even if they do not affect my opinion regarding the outcome. If you are so annoyed by this thread not having died out yet, then don’t post in it! It’s that simple.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Everything pertaining the "scientifically relevant" in regards to this topic has undoubtedly been stated already a multitude of times.Which is what was referenced by my two cents reference/beating a dead horse.We have reached the conclusion,The topic was created for that very purpose and now it's just a breeding ground for mindless dribble.The expertly crafted veil of "addressing assertions that need to be scientifically analyzed" doesn't hide one's apparent disdain for the clear outcome they wish to subtly refute at any given opportunity imo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Lol you yourself just posted in order to subtly express your own "apparent disdain" for me pointing out the facts. If you look at my posts you'll notice I've been rather explicit. Again, if you don't want to "beat a dead horse" then the best thing for you to do would be to simply shut up and leave me in peace.
Or, you discuss zoology for a change, instead of just hypocritically criticising everyone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
theropod
May 16 2015, 12:02 AM
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)

I'm not really too keen on revisiting this discussion, seeing as we spent a rather large amount of time on it over a year ago, but this stance really is not supported by the only volumetric study to directly compare them.

We also do not know the density Ibrahim et al. assumed for their unofficial 6-7 tonne Spinosaurus estimate.

Quote:
 
And why use Hutchinson et al.’s models? Has sue’s mount been significantly updated in the last 8 years?

No, but then it doesn't need to be updated because it is accurate. The only point of contention would be the ribcage, but I'm under the impression that it simply isn't practical (or perhaps even possible) to accurately mount the ribs.

Paul's skeletal on the other hand is simply inaccurate.



Drift
 
Everything pertaining the "scientifically relevant" in regards to this topic has undoubtedly been stated already a multitude of times.

As has your tirade about why this threads needs to die. Doesn't stop you from reposting it every month or so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Wow you sound so mean. Why?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
^I'm going to assume that that isn't aimed at me, given that our comments were posted within a few seconds of one another.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
No, we don't know the density assumed in Maganuco's estimate (nor anything elsee about it for that matter) the point, though, is that it seems that for both T. rex and Giganotosaurus this should be corrected downwards, while foor Spinosaurus it shouldn't in all likelyhood (because even the same density as water would appear ro be a legit assumption at thiis point).

T.rex (especially sue) and Giganotosaurines being both more pneumatic than Acrocanthosaurus is an osteological fact. The absolute density of the latter is debatable, but Bates et al.'s densities are already higher than Hutchinson et al.'s.

As you wrote, the ribcage is still inaccurate (though there's also noticeably less spine curvature than in skeletals). That remains the case, despite there being reasons for it. What you wrote is probably correct, Brochu left a comment about that on the study IIRC. It just doesn't change anything, I wouldn't consider the mount anyy better than Paul's skeletal (both suffering from different types of problem). We can't just selectively ignore only certain estimates with known errors aand include others.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
One thing are problems with articulation (what we see in the mount) and another is wrong scaling which is what we see in Paul's skeletal, until he updates it to the proper proportions his mass estimate should be ignored.

Should we take into account Hartman's old Sue too? or Henderson's 10 tonne GDI of an scaled up 12m axial length Paul skeletal? according to Paul's scaling his Sue is only 10.2m long, which is also supported by Henderson's GDI (12/10.2= 1.1765 -> 1.1765^3 = 1.6283 -> 1.6283*6.1t = 9.9t)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DarkGricer
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
May 16 2015, 02:23 AM
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.
The problem is that you'r only looking on one side of the fight. On land, T.rex wins quite obviously. But bring the fight to the water and Spinosaurus is gonna wreck T.rex. It's better to call this a tie or a draw, in my opinion. Whoever is in their element is gonna destroy whoever isn't.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, that is pretty much Pauls estimate, just misscaled. If someone had used Hartman's skeletal, but scaled it 20% too long, I wouldn't include that either. I don't remember whether Hartman's old estimate based on aa GDI, but in any case it has been revised.
Edited by theropod, May 16 2015, 03:15 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
As has your tirade about why this threads needs to die. Doesn't stop you from reposting it every month or so.


Quote:
 
tirade


Quote:
 
tirade


No clue how my statement gave you this impression.

Quote:
 
I genuinely ask why continue to try and gain leverage where there is none to be gained?


^ None seems to bring up my authentic state of curiosity in regards to a ten year old topic.(brought into existence via an inaccurate movie sequence which long ago was deemed unscientifically sound ).Far from a tirade.Also might want to see

Quote:
 
My post is now aiding in the off-topic bull$hit however at least i'm addressing the problem at hand


I wish to see a thread,filled with such a gigantic volume of disinformation and logic fallacy it could fill a swimming pool,come to a definite end.

Quote:
 
If anyone has qualms about anything regarding Spinosaurus why not post your thoughts in the animals species profile?


It's popular here to find a sop box to stand on,so others can better hear their opinion.I'm just trying to analyze the situation,Try to understand the utter lack of a reason for the continuation.If new postures and bone density is inaccurate in your opinion why not post it in the topic specifically dedicated to this animal?This topic right now is not dedicated to Spinosaurus,It was dedicated to weighing the pros and cons of the physical abilities of two animals and determining which would be the victor if they fought.We have come to the conclusion,we have the answer,it's apparently a grimace inducing one to quite a few by the looks of these responses to my initial statement saying there's no point to beat the dead horse.
Which brings me to the next point, the soap box.Why post an opinion in a topic (specifically made entirely for something you want to express said opinion about aka the species profile for Spinosaurus) that has only forty four thousand views,When you could post an opinion in a topic (specifically made for half of the topic you wish to express your opinion on with a completely different intended purpose) that has over two hundred thousand views? This seems to be the logic here,if there is any other sensible answers to this genuine query,by all means enlighten me and cure me of the uncertainty i have regarding the purpose of supporting this topics needless longevity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
One thing I noticed from the comparison of these two animal's skeletons is that all the individual bones of T.rex bar the spines and arms are so much bigger and stouter than the corresponding ones in Spino. And this is only the lateral view, the top down view could be even more drastic in favor of the T.Rex. Which leads me to think Sue could be easily1.5 to 2 tons heavier if not more.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mantis Religiosa
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
spinosaurus has the size, length, and speed to defeat a t-rex, its only the jaw shape that is specified for eating large fish that would not help. t-rex 60-40
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genao87
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
People who are against Spino just whole heartly accept the new studies downgrading him to 6-7 tons.....just because there T. Rex has a shot now at beating Spino...even though it has the same holes just like the Spino studies of the past...though I have to say that the others from what Hartman and others mentioned has more backing for a LARGE Spinosaurus.

Edited by genao87, Jun 19 2015, 11:00 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Mantis Religiosa
Jun 9 2015, 10:54 PM
spinosaurus has the size, length, and speed to defeat a t-rex, its only the jaw shape that is specified for eating large fish that would not help. t-rex 60-40
Spino no longer has the weight advantage, it has the length but what the hell could that help you in a fight especially when you're so elongated and slim? And speed? It's now arguably the slowest theropod on land not to mention in a fight.
It's over guys, Spino is no longer the monster it once was, tho a 6-7 tons beast like itself is still intimidating to most other theropod except the bigger specimens of T Rex.
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.