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 (459,113 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
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I did say it's a possibility, who knows how much more growth headroom a 20 or 28 year old t rex would had assuming it lived in ideal condition. A single analysis from MOR 1125 is not nearly enough to conclude anything.
This was not "a single analysis from MOR 1125", it was an analysis of several T. rex specimens. Maybe you should read the paper…

How are those ideal conditions you are talking about in any way useful to us? We are not going to breed T. rex in captivity! And how come all I always see you do is talking about vague possibilities given certain assumptions under which it could not be ruled out that there were bigger T. rex specimens…but I never see you apply the same arguments to other theropods, for which they apply much more. The facts are, the sampling is already biased towards the tyrannosaur in this regard.
Yes, this possibility exists, in fact it is bordering certainty that there were rexes bigger than sue, but I have no idea how many, and no idea how much bigger (and on both I won’t speculate, because they are frankly irrelevant).
But it is several times more likely still that there were Apinosaurus specimens bigger than MSNM v4047, Giganotosaurus specimens bigger than MUCPv-95, Carcharodontosaurus specimens bigger than SGM DIN 1 etc.
Why are you always talking about the former, but never about the latter?

Quote:
 
You can randomly find an old man of 5.5 ft tall
Sure, if you search long enough you can even find an 80cm man in a population as large as the human one. That’s another irrelevant argument, I think you don’t get the comparison I was trying to make.

You yourself were arguing based on a few specimens. I was making a counterargument using a study (likewise based on a few specimens), just to point out how unscientific and pointless those speculations actually are, given that they require assumptions about growth for which there is no evidence.

Quote:
 
but you can't possibly determine a healthy population of 6ft+ male without seeing them for yourself first.
And if you look at the whole human population, you’ll find that 6ft+ is by no means the average.

Quote:
 
It's way too soon or foolish to give a weight range of upper or lower bound to t rex based on the very limited and different aged samples that we have.

Then why do you keep trying? I’m not the one who tries to establish such a thing as an "upper or lower bound". if you see me using such concepts at all for T. rex, it will probably be to refute biased argumentation like comparing a single specimen to T. rex and using Sue’s size as the latter’s representative (then I tend to point out it is no more valid to use sue than to use B-rex). Both upper and lower bounds of the species’ size are not really known, and only vaguely approximated in our record of this animal (how closely is directly related to the sample size, the bigger the sample, the more exceptional the specimens you can expect to have knowledge of). The point is, they are even less well-known in other theropods.

Quote:
 
Size wise, MOR 1125 has corresponding bones larger than Sue's (8-12% bigger?) if that still hasn't changed it would strongly imply a Sue sized rex or bigger.
As already pointed out the aforementioned specimen has a femur 107cm long, are you saying that of sue is less than a metre long? That’s my point, you probably meant to write MOR 1126 (for which, of course, there is equally little evidence of being as small as B-rex as there is of it being as large as sue, let alone larger), but you are all the time only looking at the bigger end of the T. rex population. Why?

Quote:
 
MOR 980 Peck's rex is said to be much more hulking than CM 9380 which is mounted right next to it, so certainly a big rex.
"Is said" when, where, by whom and based on what?

Quote:
 
While the holotype itself is 11.9m long and that's definitely approaching Sue's size 12.3m.
Approaching. Nevertheless you always make your arguments based on sue”s size, but this, which we all can agree is a large specimen, to the point were you say it is "approaching Sue’s size" is probably about 10% less massive than sue based on simple scaling.

Quote:
 
Scotty rex is another 12m t rex so it's in the same ball park.
Once more, where is the evidence? Saying it is does not make it true.

Quote:
 
Mor 980 on the far right vs CM 9380 on the left.
http://dinosours.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/img_2602.jpg
There is literally too much forced perspective in that picture to say anything about their size (and it is obviously making CM 9380 look bigger, not the reverse), your point?

Quote:
 
Well Hartman puts Stan at 10.9m while both AMNH and CM 9380 are roughly 11.9m, huge difference.
That appears to be a typo. Both the length you can measure from the skeletal, and the image description on deviantart point to 11.3m.
Btw Scott Hartman stated he still needed to update Peck’s rex below his big T. rex comparison, so we might see a skeletal some day.
Edited by theropod, Jun 30 2015, 01:35 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Theropod I can clarify with you that I have no bias towards t rex, what speculative size estimate made for the t rex also applies for others too. So I'm not ruling out the plausibility of a younger, larger giga specimen than MUCPv-95 or whatever. You might find it unfair we have more t rex specimens to choose from against one or two for giga or spino, but that's just what we have at the moment. Is there a rule to use a particular t rex to vs other species?
And once again who says Sue is the human representation of 6ft+ exactly? I was using it as an example.
As for the rest it's only a matter of time before we get to know the exact dimension of those specimens, but I was just extrapolating from the known description of various sources. But yes it's true they wont convince you since they're not on official paper or lack details. Scotty rex was on display in my local museum and I saw a 12m figure from the description so there's that. I can't wait for Hartman's drawing of Mor 980, Scotty rex, an update from MOR 1126 or better yet Hartman's own estimate.
But back on topic, Sue is definitely out of a 50ft Spino's league for being much heavier and taller of course. At parity weight I still give the advantage to t rex due to height and strength. Tho Spino could still kill the rex if gotten a good hold of the throat and tear it open using its huge claws.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Oh well, we have also more than one specimen of Spinosauus, use them too.
BTW, B-rex seemed to have been a fatty for her size if we go after femur circumfence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinosaurus could wait in the water, bite Tyrannosauru's foot and try dragging it in the water. Once Tyrannosaurus is in the water Spinosaurus can overpower it easily.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
A deep water battle is a completely new ball game, Spino would surely have the advantage there, but I doubt it's strong enough to drag an animal size and strength of a t rex to the deep end before the rex breaks free in the shallow water.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Jun 30 2015, 01:18 AM
Well Hartman puts Stan at 10.9m while both AMNH and CM 9380 are roughly 11.9m, huge difference. So I don't know where do you put MOR 980 at unless something's changed. I've seen Scotty Rex in my local museum and it lists it at 12m as one of the largest t rex.
As theropod explained that 10.9 meters is a type, it should be 11.3 meters, but that is also deceptive. It has an anomalously short neck and tail compared to other specimens - it's torso and skull are virtually the same size as AMNH 5027, while it's torso legs are virtually the same size as CM 9380.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Jun 30 2015, 02:18 AM
Spinosaurus could wait in the water, bite Tyrannosauru's foot and try dragging it in the water. Once Tyrannosaurus is in the water Spinosaurus can overpower it easily.
Spinosaurus was not a crocodile. Also, this is not an ambush scenario, but a face to face fight.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Jun 30 2015, 03:54 AM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Jun 30 2015, 02:18 AM
Spinosaurus could wait in the water, bite Tyrannosauru's foot and try dragging it in the water. Once Tyrannosaurus is in the water Spinosaurus can overpower it easily.
Spinosaurus was not a crocodile. Also, this is not an ambush scenario, but a face to face fight.
Spinosaurus gets up on its hind legs, falls on Tyrannosaurus and they both fall on the ground cause they were equally heavy (if Spinosaurus wasn't larger). Tyrannosaurus wounds Spinosaurus with its powerful jaws. Spinosaurus tears Tyrannosauru's skin with its jaws and its claws. Tyrannosaurus bites Spinosauru's neck. At the same time Spinosaurus couges out Tyrannosauru's eyes. Yeah, i don't know. Either Tyrannosaurus ignores the pain and crushes Spinosauru's neck or Spinosaurus wounds Tyrannosaurus very seriously all over the body until Tyrannosaurus dies out of blood loss.
Man! I must make my own Jurassic Park if i grow up and become a film producer!
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Jun 30 2015, 04:20 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Spinosaurus gets up on its hind legs, falls on Tyrannosaurus and they both fall on the ground cause they were equally heavy
That sounds like kamikaze. I seriously, seriously don't imagine Spinosaurus (or any multi-ton animal for that matter) wanting to take out an opponent by simply falling on it.
Edited by Ausar, Jun 30 2015, 04:47 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ausar
Jun 30 2015, 04:43 AM
Quote:
 
Spinosaurus gets up on its hind legs, falls on Tyrannosaurus and they both fall on the ground cause they were equally heavy
That sounds like kamikaze. I seriously, seriously don't imagine Spinosaurus (or any multi-ton animal for that matter) wanting to take out an opponent by simply falling on it.
If Spinosaurus, quadrupedal off course, supports itself from Tyrannosauru's head then he can cuase Tyrannosaurus to fall on the ground and then soften its own fall by holding itself from Tyrannosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Jun 30 2015, 04:48 AM
Ausar
Jun 30 2015, 04:43 AM
Quote:
 
Spinosaurus gets up on its hind legs, falls on Tyrannosaurus and they both fall on the ground cause they were equally heavy
That sounds like kamikaze. I seriously, seriously don't imagine Spinosaurus (or any multi-ton animal for that matter) wanting to take out an opponent by simply falling on it.
If Spinosaurus, quadrupedal off course, supports itself from Tyrannosauru's head then he can cuase Tyrannosaurus to fall on the ground and then soften its own fall by holding itself from Tyrannosaurus.
A quadrupedal Spinosaurus is questionable too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Theropod I can clarify with you that I have no bias towards t rex, what speculative size estimate made for the t rex also applies for others too. So I'm not ruling out the plausibility of a younger, larger giga specimen than MUCPv-95 or whatever. You might find it unfair we have more t rex specimens to choose from against one or two for giga or spino, but that's just what we have at the moment. Is there a rule to use a particular t rex to vs other species?
As you know, I would suggest to use the average size. If you want any particular specimen, use one that is close to it, e.g. Stan.

Quote:
 
And once again who says Sue is the human representation of 6ft+ exactly? I was using it as an example.
Nobody sais it.

Quote:
 
But back on topic, Sue is definitely out of a 50ft Spino's league for being much heavier and taller of course. At parity weight I still give the advantage to t rex due to height and strength. Tho Spino could still kill the rex if gotten a good hold of the throat and tear it open using its huge claws.
I agree with that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ausar
Jun 30 2015, 04:50 AM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Jun 30 2015, 04:48 AM
Ausar
Jun 30 2015, 04:43 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepSpinosaurus gets up on its hind legs, falls on Tyrannosaurusseriously, seriously don't imagine Spinosaurus (or any multi-ton animal for that matter) wanting to take out an opponent by simply falling on it.
If Spinosaurus, quadrupedal off course, supports itself from Tyrannosauru's head then he can cuase Tyrannosaurus to fall on the ground and then soften its own fall by holding itself from Tyrannosaurus.
A quadrupedal Spinosaurus is questionable too.
Some guys previously told me that Spinosaurus was almost certainly quadrupedal. I searched Wikipedia and saw that this theory is still "fresh" but we finally all accepted the quadrupedal Spinosaurus. What was more probable? Quadrupedal or biped?
I also need to know because I make dinosaur drawings and when I draw Spinosaurus I don't know if I will make it biped or quadrupedal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Jun 30 2015, 04:54 AM
Ausar
Jun 30 2015, 04:50 AM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Jun 30 2015, 04:48 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepSpinosaurus gets up on its hind legs, falls on Tyrannosaurusseriously, seriously don't imagine Spinosaurus
A quadrupedal Spinosaurus is questionable too.
Some guys previously told me that Spinosaurus was almost certainly quadrupedal. I searched Wikipedia and saw that this theory is still "fresh" but we finally all accepted the quadrupedal Spinosaurus. What was more probable? Quadrupedal or biped?
I also need to know because I make dinosaur drawings and when I draw Spinosaurus I don't know if I will make it biped or quadrupedal.
I'd say biped. The forelimbs were most likely similar to normal theropods from what I've read, and in that case they'd be ill-suited for weight-bearing.
Edited by Ausar, Jun 30 2015, 05:10 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
^^Let’s say that no sufficient evidence for quadrupedality has been presented (literally nothing except for an estimate of COM position), and a more parsimonious alternative (bipedality with a more upright "kangaroo" posture) has not been addressed.
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.