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 (459,105 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:
Tyrant
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus had different preferences.


No s hit.

Quote:
 
Tyrannosaurus prefered sluggish and chunky prey while Spinosaurus prefered fish and local medium sized herbivores like Ouranosaurus.


Evidence of your latter claim? As far as I remember there isn't much evidence of spinosaurus hunting other dinosaurs, though I don't doubt they can.

Quote:
 
This doesn't certainly mean that Tyrannosaurus was the almighty predator you think it was while Spinosaurus was cowarding in the water.


Nice, putting words in my mouth. Spinosaurus was a formidable animal but it's quite clear that tyrannosaurus is far more capable at killing large animals. The only way spinosaurus wins this if we dunk them in the middle of a deep lake.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tyrant
Nov 5 2015, 06:46 AM
Quote:
 
Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus had different preferences.


No s hit.

Quote:
 
Tyrannosaurus prefered sluggish and chunky prey while Spinosaurus prefered fish and local medium sized herbivores like Ouranosaurus.


Evidence of your latter claim? As far as I remember there isn't much evidence of spinosaurus hunting other dinosaurs, though I don't doubt they can.

Quote:
 
This doesn't certainly mean that Tyrannosaurus was the almighty predator you think it was while Spinosaurus was cowarding in the water.


Nice, putting words in my mouth. Spinosaurus was a formidable animal but it's quite clear that tyrannosaurus is far more capable at killing large animals. The only way spinosaurus wins this if we dunk them in the middle of a deep lake.
Quote:
 
Evidence of your latter claim? As far as I remember there isn't much evidence of spinosaurus hunting other dinosaurs, though I don't doubt they can.


I said nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinosaurus#Diet


Quote:
 
but it's quite clear that tyrannosaurus is far more capable at killing large animals


Clear from where?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DarkGricer
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 5 2015, 07:12 AM
Quote:
 
but it's quite clear that tyrannosaurus is far more capable at killing large animals


Clear from where?
Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus both relied on their spike-like teeth to deliver the killing blow. To make a spike deadlier. You have to either make the spike longer, or pierce the target with greater force. Their teeth where just about the same length, so the first option does not apply here. But T.rex's biteforce was about 2-3 times higher then that of Spinosaurus. Sure Spinosaurus may have had its claws. But those are hardly going to kill a robust animal of simmilar size.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrant
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I said nothing.


Yes you did, you made an assertion, with your only source being wikipedia.

Quote:
 
Clear from where?


Based on the fact that spinosaurus was specialized in eating smaller fish and tyrannosaurus preyed on animals its own size and maybe even those larger than it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
DarkGricer
Nov 5 2015, 08:28 AM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 5 2015, 07:12 AM
Quote:
 
but it's quite clear that tyrannosaurus is far more capable at killing large animals


Clear from where?
Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus both relied on their spike-like teeth to deliver the killing blow. To make a spike deadlier. You have to either make the spike longer, or pierce the target with greater force. Their teeth where just about the same length, so the first option does not apply here. But T.rex's biteforce was about 2-3 times higher then that of Spinosaurus. Sure Spinosaurus may have had its claws. But those are hardly going to kill a robust animal of simmilar size.
The jaw strength of Tyrannosaurus doesn't really matter. Even if it was equal to that of Spinosaurus (whose jaw strength is questionable) or Giganotosaurus, it is still enormous. It was probably more usefull after Tyrannosaurus had killed its victim so that it could eat about anything from the corpse, even the bones. Spinosaurus seems to have had significantly longer jaws with a possibly bigger gap, which might be an advantage. Also, the claws of Spinosaurus matter almost as much as Tyrannosauru's teeth, if not even more cause they were kinda like moving teeth. It highly depends on which part of the opponent does either of the two dinosaurs attack. The most dangerous part is probably the neck while the eyes are extremely usefull.
Tyrant
Nov 5 2015, 10:04 AM

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
I said nothing.


Yes you did, you made an assertion, with your only source being wikipedia.


Which has many other sources of its own, as you can see.


Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Clear from where?


Based on the fact that spinosaurus was specialized in eating smaller fish and tyrannosaurus preyed on animals its own size and maybe even those larger than it.


This is for all those who ask me "why do you think Spinosaurus is being underrated by being called a piscivore". You see? That guy here describes being a fisher as something bad that would make Spinosaurus weak and pathetic against Tyrannosaurus! You fanboy!
Spinosaurus must have been like crocodiles, but with its feet udner its body instead of to the side.

Crocodiles mostly eat fish, amphibians, crustaceans, molluscs, birds, reptiles, and mammals, and they occasionally cannibalize smaller crocodiles.

Spinsoaurus was eating similar stuff, only birds were small dinosaurs at the time and mammals didn't exist, so instead its medium sized herbivorous dinosaurs.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 5 2015, 07:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Not seeing Spinosaurus on par with the other giant theropods is hardly underrating it, it's just not as well adapted for taking large prey as them. T. rex just has the superior weaponry here and while it's true that Spinosaurus had impressive claws its arms are still relatively small compared to the rest of the body. I just don't see Spinosaurus winning this fight on land very often. I'd favor Carcharodontosaurus because of the same reasons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The tyrannosaurid's jaw power is going to be one of the things that contribute to its far more damaging bite here. It most certainly matters, unless you want to argue that bite potency is irrelevant.

Spinosaurus MIGHT have had a longer skull (though I'm not sure considering how there's now controversy in regards to what's unambiguously referrable to Spinosaurus) but that doesn't make much of a difference unless it *really dwarfs its opponent's skull. The fact that it's skull/jaws are likewise not exactly the most reliable in a fight doesn't make things better either.
Edited by Ausar, Nov 5 2015, 09:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Nov 5 2015, 09:11 PM
Not seeing Spinosaurus on par with the other giant theropods is hardly underrating it, it's just not as well adapted for taking large prey as them. T. rex just has the superior weaponry here and while it's true that Spinosaurus had impressive claws its arms are still relatively small compared to the rest of the body. I just don't see Spinosaurus winning this fight on land very often. I'd favor Carcharodontosaurus because of the same reasons.
Spinosaurus must have had quite large arms in comparison to other theropods, especially if it was quadruped in which case they would allow it to support its body. Actually this is another advantage of Spinosaurus. It can support itself and stop its fall if it's on its hind legs and loses its balance, whereas if Tyrannosaurus falls towards the front it won't be able to stop its fall so it nigh get injured, or even die, according to some. However I still do recognize that Tyrannosaurus nigh have been quite more agile on land.

Carcharodontosaurus, in my opinion, was a better hunter than both. It's structure seems quite stockier, yet it nigh have been a better runner than both. Also carcharodontosaurids are believed to have been mostly pack hunters, attacking large creatures like titanosaurs.
Ausar
Nov 5 2015, 09:54 PM
The tyrannosaurid's jaw power is going to be one of the things that contribute to its far more damaging bite here. It most certainly matters, unless you want to argue that bite potency is irrelevant.

Spinosaurus MIGHT have had a longer skull (though I'm not sure considering how there's now controversy in regards to what's unambiguously referrable to Spinosaurus) but that doesn't make much of a difference unless it *really dwarfs its opponent's skull. The fact that it's skull/jaws are likewise not exactly the most reliable in a fight doesn't make things better either.
Spinosaurus must have had significantly high bite force too.

I assumed that the huge gap of its jaws, which are regarded by some to have been up to 2 m. long (always speaking about 18 m. Spinosaurus) would be useful for Spinosaurus to bite Tyrannosaurus in the face and AT LEAST prevent I from bitting back.

In other words, I believe that Spinosaurus could use its jaws to maul Tyrannosaurus and keep its mouth shut.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 5 2015, 11:19 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 5 2015, 11:14 PM

Carcharodontosaurus, in my opinion, was a better hunter than both. It's structure seems quite stockier, yet it nigh have been a better runner than both. Also carcharodontosaurids are believed to have been mostly pack hunters, attacking large creatures like titanosaurs.
You can't generally say one was a better hunter than the other. Spinosaurus was better at hunting fish than Rex and Carch, Rex was better at hunting armored prey and Carch better at hunting larger Sauropods. All of them would fail at hunting things they weren't adapted to.

The main problem for Spinosaurus here is that it has to get its own head past T. rex' jaws to deal out damage with its claws and I don't see Spinosaurus wanting to go into a biting fight with T. rex.

Quote:
 
It can support itself and stop its fall if it's on its hind legs and loses its balance, whereas if Tyrannosaurus falls towards the front it won't be able to stop its fall so it nigh get injured, or even die, according to some.


Both are going to have major problems if they fall to the side. Falling to the front won't give either of them much trouble.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Nov 5 2015, 11:26 PM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 5 2015, 11:14 PM

Carcharodontosaurus, in my opinion, was a better hunter than both. It's structure seems quite stockier, yet it nigh have been a better runner than both. Also carcharodontosaurids are believed to have been mostly pack hunters, attacking large creatures like titanosaurs.
You can't generally say one was a better hunter than the other. Spinosaurus was better at hunting fish than Rex and Carch, Rex was better at hunting armored prey and Carch better at hunting larger Sauropods. All of them would fail at hunting things they weren't adapted to.

The main problem for Spinosaurus here is that it has to get its own head past T. rex' jaws to deal out damage with its claws and I don't see Spinosaurus wanting to go into a biting fight with T. rex.

Quote:
 
It can support itself and stop its fall if it's on its hind legs and loses its balance, whereas if Tyrannosaurus falls towards the front it won't be able to stop its fall so it nigh get injured, or even die, according to some.


Both are going to have major problems if they fall to the side. Falling to the front won't give either of them much trouble.
If Tyrannosaurus falls to the front it its jaw might get smashed against the ground.

Also, Spinosaurus could bite Tyrannosaurus on the neck, flip it over and then maul it with its claws.
Farlow and colleagues (1995) have argued that a Tyrannosaurus weighing 5.4 metric tons (6.0 short tons) to 7.3 metric tons (8.0 short tons) would have been critically or even fatally injured if it had fallen while moving quickly, since its torso would have slammed into the ground at a deceleration of 6 g (six times the acceleration due to gravity, or about 60 meters/s²) and its tiny arms could not have reduced the impact.[14] However, giraffes have been known to gallop at 50 kilometers per hour (31 mph), despite the risk that they might break a leg or worse, which can be fatal even in a "safe" environment such as a zoo.[100][101] Thus it is possible that Tyrannosaurus also moved fast when necessary and had to accept such risks.[102][103]

My source, as always, is Wikipedia.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 6 2015, 01:43 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 6 2015, 01:39 AM
would have been critically or even fatally injured if it had fallen while moving quickly
They are not making a race.


Quote:
 
Also, Spinosaurus could bite Tyrannosaurus on the neck, flip it over and then maul it with its claws


Again, it has to get past Tyrannosaurus' jaws to do so.






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrant
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
The jaw strength of Tyrannosaurus doesn't really matter.


Bullsh1t.

Quote:
 
Even if it was equal to that of Spinosaurus (whose jaw strength is questionable) or Giganotosaurus, it is still enormous. It was probably more usefull after Tyrannosaurus had killed its victim so that it could eat about anything from the corpse, even the bones.


Once again, bullsh1t.

Quote:
 
Also, the claws of Spinosaurus matter almost as much as Tyrannosauru's teeth, if not even more cause they were kinda like moving teeth.


Yeah right, name any vertebrate macropredator whose primary weapon is its claws. There is a reason most predators rely on their bites to kill.

Quote:
 
Which has many other sources of its own, as you can see.


The fact that you had to use wikipedia shows that you either couldn't find any real evidence or you were too lazy, either way as the guy making the claim your the one that has to present the evidence not me.

Quote:
 
This is for all those who ask me "why do you think Spinosaurus is being underrated by being called a piscivore". You see? That guy here describes being a fisher as something bad that would make Spinosaurus weak and pathetic against Tyrannosaurus! You fanboy!


You're a f ucking moron. In my last post I called spinosaurus a "formidable animal" and that the reason it was less impressive than tyrannosaurus was because it mostly preyed on much smaller fish. Fact is, most pscivores with a superficial resemblance to spinosaurus, like false gharials aren't impressive fighters. If spinosaurus killed six ton fish, yeah sure than that it would be comparable to tyrannosaurus feats, but it doesn't and the design of its jaws make it clear that is wasn't built to kill large animals though it probably could with some difficulty.

Quote:
 
Also, Spinosaurus could bite Tyrannosaurus on the neck, flip it over and then maul it with its claws.


Lol look at this moron. He actually thinks spinosaurus could judo flip a dinosaur its own size or possibly even larger than it and calls me a fanboy.
Edited by Tyrant, Nov 6 2015, 03:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
My replies are in orange.

Dunkleosteus Gigas
 
Ausar
Nov 5 2015, 09:54 PM
The tyrannosaurid's jaw power is going to be one of the things that contribute to its far more damaging bite here. It most certainly matters, unless you want to argue that bite potency is irrelevant.

Spinosaurus MIGHT have had a longer skull (though I'm not sure considering how there's now controversy in regards to what's unambiguously referrable to Spinosaurus) but that doesn't make much of a difference unless it *really dwarfs its opponent's skull. The fact that it's skull/jaws are likewise not exactly the most reliable in a fight doesn't make things better either.
Spinosaurus must have had significantly high bite force too. Spinosaurus certainly had a powerful bite in absolute terms, but certainly not in relative terms.

I assumed that the huge gap [sic] of its jaws, which are regarded by some to have been up to 2 m. long (always speaking about 18 m. Spinosaurus) Citation needed. would be useful for Spinosaurus to bite Tyrannosaurus in the face and AT LEAST prevent I [sic] from bitting back.

In other words, I believe that Spinosaurus could use its jaws to maul Tyrannosaurus and keep its mouth shut. Mmm...I find this questionable. Even then, for the record, the tyrannosaur will be far better at performing such acts (actually, if Tyrannosaurus bit down on the relatively fragile face of the megalosauroid and kept ravaging it with sustained bite force and violent postcranial motions, Spinosaurus will end up with a disturbingly mangled face).

Tyrant
 
name any vertebrate macropredator whose primary weapon is its claws
Accipitrids and dromaeosaurids appear to be/have been the few predators that (have) primarily use(d) their hypertrophied pedal claws for killing.

Such wasn't the case for Spinosaurus though...
Edited by Ausar, Nov 6 2015, 05:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
And if you take a 18m Spinosaurus you have to take a T. rex in the weight range of Sue as its adversary.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Nov 6 2015, 02:02 AM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 6 2015, 01:39 AM
would have been critically or even fatally injured if it had fallen while moving quickly
They are not making a race.


Quote:
 
Also, Spinosaurus could bite Tyrannosaurus on the neck, flip it over and then maul it with its claws


Again, it has to get past Tyrannosaurus' jaws to do so.






Quote:
 
They are not making a race.


I'll leave this out of the talk for now.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Also, Spinosaurus could bite Tyrannosaurus on the neck, flip it over and then maul it with its claws


Again, it has to get past Tyrannosaurus' jaws to do so.


Quadruped Spinosaurus was quite lower so it could bite the throat of Tyrannosaurus from bellow. I don't know if it would be worse for one to bite the other's spine or bite the other's throat and tear of a piece of flesh. A bite on the spine would paralyze it while a torn of throat would cause asphyxiation.
Tyrant
Nov 6 2015, 03:09 AM
Quote:
 
The jaw strength of Tyrannosaurus doesn't really matter.


Bullsh1t.

Quote:
 
Even if it was equal to that of Spinosaurus (whose jaw strength is questionable) or Giganotosaurus, it is still enormous. It was probably more usefull after Tyrannosaurus had killed its victim so that it could eat about anything from the corpse, even the bones.


Once again, bullsh1t.

Quote:
 
Also, the claws of Spinosaurus matter almost as much as Tyrannosauru's teeth, if not even more cause they were kinda like moving teeth.


Yeah right, name any vertebrate macropredator whose primary weapon is its claws. There is a reason most predators rely on their bites to kill.

Quote:
 
Which has many other sources of its own, as you can see.


The fact that you had to use wikipedia shows that you either couldn't find any real evidence or you were too lazy, either way as the guy making the claim your the one that has to present the evidence not me.

Quote:
 
This is for all those who ask me "why do you think Spinosaurus is being underrated by being called a piscivore". You see? That guy here describes being a fisher as something bad that would make Spinosaurus weak and pathetic against Tyrannosaurus! You fanboy!


You're a f ucking moron. In my last post I called spinosaurus a "formidable animal" and that the reason it was less impressive than tyrannosaurus was because it mostly preyed on much smaller fish. Fact is, most pscivores with a superficial resemblance to spinosaurus, like false gharials aren't impressive fighters. If spinosaurus killed six ton fish, yeah sure than that it would be comparable to tyrannosaurus feats, but it doesn't and the design of its jaws make it clear that is wasn't built to kill large animals though it probably could with some difficulty.

Quote:
 
Also, Spinosaurus could bite Tyrannosaurus on the neck, flip it over and then maul it with its claws.


Lol look at this moron. He actually thinks spinosaurus could judo flip a dinosaur its own size or possibly even larger than it and calls me a fanboy.
Wow! This guy is a total T-Rex fanboy!


Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Also, the claws of Spinosaurus matter almost as much as Tyrannosauru's teeth, if not even more cause they were kinda like moving teeth.


Yeah right, name any vertebrate macropredator whose primary weapon is its claws. There is a reason most predators rely on their bites to kill.


Geez! I don't know! Maybe... how about Spinosaurus and its relatives? Cause apparently, those arms and those claws must have been usefull. Especially if they were thick somehow like this: http://pre12.deviantart.net/0115/th/pre/i/2014/260/e/9/spinosaurs_aegyptiacus_2014_by_rodrigo_vega-d7zj8yn.jpg What do you say?
I think that Ibrahim's study increases the possibility of Spinosaurus having notably large and strong arms, cause it had to support itself on them.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Which has many other sources of its own, as you can see.


The fact that you had to use wikipedia shows that you either couldn't find any real evidence or you were too lazy, either way as the guy making the claim your the one that has to present the evidence not me.


I have to admit that I tend to be kinda lazy when it comes to paleontology sources, mostly cause I haven't found any specific site on which to search. My main sources are Wikipedia and Carnivora, which is kinda questionable for me cause it is mostly composed of amateur zoology lovers, like me. However, I don't find Wikipedia really bad. I mean it speaks about the opinion of different professional paleontologists, so I believe this is enough.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Also, Spinosaurus could bite Tyrannosaurus on the neck, flip it over and then maul it with its claws.


Lol look at this moron. He actually thinks spinosaurus could judo flip a dinosaur its own size or possibly even larger than it and calls me a fanboy.


Spinosaurus had an elongated neck (according to Ibrahim's paper) and long jaws, perfect for trapping fish while in the water. If it was finding a chance to bite Tyrannosaurus in the face, then it could swing its head to the side, causing Tyrannosaurus to lose its balance and fall over, and then crawl on it, before it gets up, and use its claws to disembowel it. This is what I assume.
Spartan
Nov 6 2015, 05:41 AM
And if you take a 18m Spinosaurus you have to take a T. rex in the weight range of Sue as its adversary.
That's what I do. 18 m. Spinosaurus, 12 m. Tyrannosaurus. Both around 7-10 tons.
Spinosaurus might have been a quadruped but this doesn't seem to reduce critically its height. Especially since it also had a long neck which could rise a little more above the ground.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 6 2015, 07:09 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.