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 (459,106 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:
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
stargatedalek
Nov 3 2015, 08:01 AM
I originally brought this up in reference to claims that the paper by Ibrahim was being used as a method to slander Spinosaurus and make Tyrannosaurus appear more powerful, illustrating points from modern animals with similar proportions to debunk the logic of this claim. I'm moving this here by request of Ausar (seemed a more than reasonable request to remain on topic).

Ausar actually beat me to quoting myself, thanks for saving me that trouble. :D

I highly doubt a theropod tail would have been an effective weapon, but lashing it about could have been a very good deterrent and could have kept Tyrannosaurus from risking an attempt to flank Spinosaurus. Indeed Tyrannosaurus bite is going to be far more damaging, I'm just not going to put a ton of faith in it. One way of looking at it is that Tyrannosaurus has more powerful finishing attacks, and would likely be trying to reach the vitals with the least resistance possible. Whereas Spinosaurus has more versatility of tactics and options available to it, and would likely rely on drawing out the fight as long as possible defensively until Tyrannosaurus either left it alone or made a mistake. I wouldn't put any particular degree of faith in either one winning, and the winner isn't getting away without serious injury. But if I absolutely had to guess, I'd say Tyrannosaurus has a slight advantage, but slight.

This is all assuming that Spinosaurus was semi-aquatic and not that it was only rarely returning to land, in which case pitting them against each other just wouldn't be fair in any circumstance. It would be like pitting a sea turtle against a wolf, it wouldn't matter which was more powerful because it would be an unfair fight no matter where it toke place since both are affected so heavily by environmental bias.

Dunkleosteus Gigas
 
Many people use this as an excuse to say that Spinosaurus couldn't kill dinosaurs, off course having Tyrannosaurus in their mind.


I don't know if you are aware of this but I'm annoyed by this Spinosaurus underrating that is taking place in the forum. I mean I accept that the Ibrahim paper might be valid and it is based on findings, but when you take it as sure like how Christians do with the Bible and you make your own assuptions like "Spinosaurus couldn't run" and "Spinosaurus was just a fish-eater" c'mon! It's clear that you (not specifically you) do this on purpose cause of the Spinosaurus VS Tyrannosaurus battle!

I honestly don't know what to say other than "please stop". Spinosaurus wasn't some super predator time travelling Tyrannosaurus face eating daikaiju, nor was Tyrannosaurus some sort of giant pseudo-antagonist that killed everything with bacteria teeth and couldn't see movement. Dinosaurs weren't Pokémon or B movie monsters that existed just to fight one another. There is no shame in having a favorite dinosaur that wasn't a mega-carnivore or invulnerable horn-headed herbivore. You know what my favorite dinosaur is? Fratercula arctica, the clowns of the sea. I don't care that it isn't some super predator great white shark eating monster, because I love them as the real animals that they are, and not as some demonic super being.

My favorite extinct animal is Tupandactylus imperator, a frugivore, but I'm not going to go around insisting that it must have used it's crest to swat Hatzegopteryx out of the air just because that sounds cooler. I actually like Spinosaurus a lot more since the new publications on it's proportions, before it was just another super predator, but now we can begin to understand it's ecological niche and the way it interacted with its world. Which for me is a lot more interesting, and a lot more important, than how big or powerful it may have been. I honestly would not mind if Spinosaurus lost to Tyrannosaurus, because being big or powerful isn't what makes an animal interesting or important.


For anyone curious about my use of italics, I prefer to use italics only for full species names, and since we are all very clearly in understanding of which species of Tyrannosaurus, Spinosaurus and Hatzegopteryx was in reference I left it out.
Did I ever say that I believe Spinosaurus was some kind of super killing machine or something? I just said that many people constantly use this recent study of 2014 as an excuse to say that Spinosaurus was just a fish-eater and didn't have the qualities of other theropods.

An example is that I searched "Spinosaurus" on carnivora and I saw thread titles like:

"Was Spinosaurus as terrifying as T-Rex in character?" (In the thread it is implied that it might have been just a piscivore that lacked body to hunt large prey)

"Spinosaurus Swims/Crawls the gauntlet" (The title implies that Spinosaurus was crawling and swimming like a crocodile. This clearly has to do with the 2014 research, which actually only says that it was possibly walking on all four, and not that it was crawling)

Comment from the thread "New Spinosaurus material": 10/10 that T.rex stompz this stupid ducky ;-P (This is by MantisShrimp. As you can see the Tyrannosaurus VS Spinosaurus conflict ddidn't need much time to come again on the surface.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
>Thinks MantisShrimp was actually being serious.
Edited by Ausar, Nov 4 2015, 03:07 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Geez, who cares? People are constantly making such comments about every animal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I have found more and I will post them later.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Then open your own thread and stop spamming your nonsense here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Nov 4 2015, 03:34 AM
Then open your own thread and stop spamming your nonsense here.
As you wish.

:)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FishFossil
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
(FACEPALM) Just... (sigh). So you're mad at people for stating that Spinosaurus was a piscivorous animal based on the fact that fossil evidence blatantly implies it?

Quote:
 
Did I ever say that I believe Spinosaurus was some kind of super killing machine or something? I just said that many people constantly use this recent study of 2014 as an excuse to say that Spinosaurus was just a fish-eater and didn't have the qualities of other theropods.


Well I mean, Spinosaurus still possess the characteristic calling card features of other therepods, but their proportions and implications on lifestyle are far different than is seen in other therepods.
You can't really say Spinosaurus did have the same qualities as other therepods. I am in no way saying Spinosaurus was a weakling incapable of taking on other dinosaurs, (again, just look at some of the fish present in Spinosaurus's environment. Huuuuge fish.) I am saying the evidence points towards it being an animal well adapted for an aquatic lifestyle. Did it take on other dinosaurs? Probably sometimes when the situation was desperate, but very rarely. But larger carnivores? Ones on par with Tyrannosaurus? Unlikely.

Quote:
 
"Was Spinosaurus as terrifying as T-Rex in character?" (In the thread it is implied that it might have been just a piscivore that lacked body to hunt large prey)


Which is exactly what the evidence points towards. It's not an excuse if it's simply a fact. You could argue that deer are capable bipedal runners all you want, it still won't fit the evidence. Spinosaurus was a piscivore, and was very well adapted for it.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
FishFossil
Nov 4 2015, 04:28 AM
(FACEPALM) Just... (sigh). So you're mad at people for stating that Spinosaurus was a piscivorous animal based on the fact that fossil evidence blatantly implies it?

Quote:
 
Did I ever say that I believe Spinosaurus was some kind of super killing machine or something? I just said that many people constantly use this recent study of 2014 as an excuse to say that Spinosaurus was just a fish-eater and didn't have the qualities of other theropods.


Well I mean, Spinosaurus still possess the characteristic calling card features of other therepods, but their proportions and implications on lifestyle are far different than is seen in other therepods.
You can't really say Spinosaurus did have the same qualities as other therepods. I am in no way saying Spinosaurus was a weakling incapable of taking on other dinosaurs, (again, just look at some of the fish present in Spinosaurus's environment. Huuuuge fish.) I am saying the evidence points towards it being an animal well adapted for an aquatic lifestyle. Did it take on other dinosaurs? Probably sometimes when the situation was desperate, but very rarely. But larger carnivores? Ones on par with Tyrannosaurus? Unlikely.

Quote:
 
"Was Spinosaurus as terrifying as T-Rex in character?" (In the thread it is implied that it might have been just a piscivore that lacked body to hunt large prey)


Which is exactly what the evidence points towards. It's not an excuse if it's simply a fact. You could argue that deer are capable bipedal runners all you want, it still won't fit the evidence. Spinosaurus was a piscivore, and was very well adapted for it.

It was adapted for hunting fish. This doesn't mean that, as many fanboys think, it couldn't kill a dinosaur and that fish was all it could take on and thus "this is a mismatch and T-Rex, the almighty king, definitely wins.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grimace
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Why do people even think it eating fish means anything? Have you guys even ever tried to cut into an armored fish before? It'd probably be harder to rip apart some of the big fish species back then then it would a dinosaur.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tyrannosaurus lived with sizeable armored prey items too.
Edited by Ausar, Nov 4 2015, 08:09 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grimace
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ausar
Nov 4 2015, 08:09 AM
Tyrannosaurus lived with sizeable armored prey items too.
yeah it definitely did, just thought it was worth mentioning since it sounds like a lot of people here think eating huge fish is easy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrant
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Why do people even think it eating fish means anything? Have you guys even ever tried to cut into an armored fish before? It'd probably be harder to rip apart some of the big fish species back then then it would a dinosaur.


Killing a crocodile-sized fish really doesn't compare to another theropod's ability to kill five ton + animals. It's like comparing an oystercatcher's ability to eat hard shelled snails and clams to a hawk's ability of killing rats.
Edited by Tyrant, Nov 4 2015, 11:02 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tyrant
Nov 4 2015, 10:42 AM
Quote:
 
Why do people even think it eating fish means anything? Have you guys even ever tried to cut into an armored fish before? It'd probably be harder to rip apart some of the big fish species back then then it would a dinosaur.


Killing a crocodile-sized fish really doesn't compare to another theropod's ability to kill five ton + animals. It's like comparing an oystercatcher's ability to eat hard shelled snails and clams to a hawk's ability of killing rats.
Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus had different preferences. Tyrannosaurus prefered sluggish and chunky prey while Spinosaurus prefered fish and local medium sized herbivores like Ouranosaurus. This doesn't certainly mean that Tyrannosaurus was the almighty predator you think it was while Spinosaurus was cowarding in the water.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
How are Tyrannosauurs' available prey items any more sluggish than Spinosaurus'? A presentation by Sereno at this years SVP found Spinosaurus to have been a very slow swimmer, and because of it's short legs it was also clearly not fast on land either. It simply would not be able to hunt swift prey, especially not compared to Tyrannosaurus which had adaptations specifically for fast movement.

There isn't even any prey items available for Spinosaurus that were anything but sluggish. Spinosaurus fossils are only definitively known from the Bahariya Formation, and the only herbivores known from this formation are the sauropods Aegyptosaurus and Paralititan, neither of which are very swift and are both far too large to be prey items for Spinosaurus regardless. Beyond that, there is the giant fish-eating crocodylomorph Stomatosuchus, the giant theropods Carcharodontosaurus and Bahariasaurus, some assorted small reptiles and numerous fish.
Ouranosaurus is from the Elrhaz Formation, it lived alongside Suchomimus not Spinosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Nov 5 2015, 03:43 AM
How are Tyrannosauurs' available prey items any more sluggish than Spinosaurus'? A presentation by Sereno at this years SVP found Spinosaurus to have been a very slow swimmer, and because of it's short legs it was also clearly not fast on land either. It simply would not be able to hunt swift prey, especially not compared to Tyrannosaurus which had adaptations specifically for fast movement.

There isn't even any prey items available for Spinosaurus that were anything but sluggish. Spinosaurus fossils are only definitively known from the Bahariya Formation, and the only herbivores known from this formation are the sauropods Aegyptosaurus and Paralititan, neither of which are very swift and are both far too large to be prey items for Spinosaurus regardless. Beyond that, there is the giant fish-eating crocodylomorph Stomatosuchus, the giant theropods Carcharodontosaurus and Bahariasaurus, some assorted small reptiles and numerous fish.
Ouranosaurus is from the Elrhaz Formation, it lived alongside Suchomimus not Spinosaurus.
I never said Spinosaurus was hunting faster prey. I'm just saying that Tyrannosaurus preferred large prey like ornithopods and ceratopsians (but not to large, like sayropods, or fast like other theropods) while Spinosaurus prefered fish but occassionally was hunting on land.
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.