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 (459,101 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:
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
@Dunkleosteus Gigas

Spinosaurus did not live alongside Ouranosaurus. I told you this before. Even then, Ouranosaurus is not that large, it's femur is only 81 cm long which is about 80% the size of Parasaurolophus, it would be barely 6.5 meters long.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrant
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
It doesn't matter what was each one using its weaponry for. What matter's is which one's weaponry was better.


Evolution tends to grant animal's the most effective tools for the tasks they are adapted to. So yeah, if one set of jaws is designed to kill big animals and the other isn't, its unlikely that the latter will preform worse if tried to do the former's job and vice versa.

Quote:
 
A kitchen knife is a deadlier weapon than a taser.


No s hit, a taser is designed for NON lethal force you dumb mong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tyrant

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Also, if by "large herbivore" you mean a sauropod around 18 m. long then I doubt Tyrannosaurus could easily kill such creature


Again, putting words in my mouth. Never even implied tyrannosaurus went after those animals.


OK, then.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Tyrannosaurus is believed to have been preying upon mostly ceratopsians or ornithopods, which where considerably sluggish and like huge chunks of meat. Its area had sauropods like Alamosaurus, but such sauropods were probably too large for one Tyrannosaurus to kill them.


Did you just call certopsians, a family that includes some of the most formidable herbivores and well armed hunks of meat? Remember that time when you said I was trying to make spinosaurus look bad after I factually stated it mostly preyed on smaller fish? I really hope the irony is not lost on you.


My swearwording goodness. Look what I psoted above! I didn't say "chunks of meat" to reduce them.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
As I mentioned before, judging by the diet of modern crocodiles I would say that Spinosaurus could prey upon creatures like Ouranosaurus.


Lol. Just goes to show how little you know about spinosaurus. Spinosaurus skull only superficially resembled those a crocodile, especially the really impressive ones like nile and saltwaters.


And meanwhile you compare its neck to this of a crocodile. Is it like a crocodile or not?

Also, according to Wikipedia off course, it was resistant to vertical bending but not to lateral bending, which means that it could definitely bite strongly, but needed some more caution.

You have to accept that the possibility of Spinosaurus witching between aquatic and terrestrial hunting isn't excluded at all.

Quote:
 
To the well informed, these skulls should look blatantly different. Also, seeing as giant crocodilians like deinosuchus had bites forces exceeding those of tyrannosaurus while spinosaurus's is lower, you should have realized that is a terrible comparison. A false gharial would be a far better example.


False gharials have been reported to eat humans. And their jaws look thinner than those of a Spinosauru's jaws.


Quote:
 
Quote:
 
y comparable in terms of vertebral morphology. For example Spinosaurus’ dorsal (I know, this is referring to cervicals, which are pneumatic, even in Spinosaurs) vertebare have apneumatic centra:
Stromer 1915 said:

"Im Gegensatz zu den Halswirbeln sind sie im Innern nicht hohl, aber ebenfalls unten und seitlich, besonders
seitlich weit oben stark konkav, d. h. ihre pleurozentralen Gruben (Nopcsa 1906, p. 6 1 ff.)sind tief und sehr weit."

"In contrast to the cervical vertebrae they [the dorsal vertebrae] are internally not hollow, but likewise below and laterally, especially laterally far above, strongly concave, i.e. their pleurocentral pits (Nopcsa 1906, p. 61ff.) are deep and very wide."


Lower pneumatisation of course affects the resistance of structures, one that is hollow will have to be more voluminous to be as strong (and that’s what we see in Tyrannosaurus, presumably also with other bones, which is why it has such thick vertebrae and thick femora) as one that is solid, although the degree to which is a more complicated thing to calculate.

To make up for their lack in centrum thickness (i.e. in second moment of area against bending in the dorsoventral plane), Spinosaur vertebrae have huge neural spines, which very likely severd as an anchor point for strong superspinal and nuchal ligament to give the necessary additional support (their hypertrophy can thus be explained by the overall size of the animal).

The assumption is not a far fetched one that also the cervicals of Spinosaurus are less hollow than those of coelurosaurs, especially since the former is both a megalosauroid and a semi-aquatic.

In short, the arguments made there are insufficient for supporting the enthusiastic claims.

-I wouldn't doubt that at parity, Spinosaur necks were less robust and less resistant to damage than other theropods. But not by a drastic margin, as is often claimed.

The Forum's rules prevent me from posting the source.


Did you just repost somebody's post from another forum and use it as a source?


Yeah. Why? Is it bad? Basically he found the source for me without intending to. A Forum is considered a source too, right? Carnivora is a source based on other sources. Wikipedia is also a source based on other sources. The majority of sources on the internet are based on some original sources and we cannot truly debunk those original sources unless we make our original sources.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
And if Spinosaurus really had a very fast moving neck, which I doubt that it could be fast without having strong muscles, then this was ALSO an advantage cause it would allow Spinsoaurus to charge at Tyrannosaurus and then thrust its head forward to bite its neck. Also, this corresponds to my theory that Spinosaurus was catching fish by thrusting its head forward and closing its jaws, somehow like a heron "poking" the water.


I will repeat what I said before, these fast jaw and neck movements are found in gharials while it is not found in crocodiles. Crocodiles can eat large animals gharials can't. If this adaption was useful for hunting large animals, then wouldn't it be found in crocodiles instead of gharials?


I would like you to link me to your source.
Also, is this adaptation found on false gharials, which have been reported to eat humans in extremely rare cases?

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Tyrant.


You know blindly calling me a fanbody without evidence doesn't make me look bad, it makes you look bad.


Quote:
 
without evidence

Quote:
 
without evidence

Quote:
 
without evidence

Quote:
 
without evidence


Ehm... ehm! Read all the above!
Oh! What a surprise! They look like evidence!

Quote:
 
it makes you look bad.


Ow! Tyrant is sad cause I'm do not believe T-Rex was a much better hunter than anyone else!
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 7 2015, 07:37 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrant
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
My swearwording goodness. Look what I psoted above! I didn't say "chunks of meat" to reduce them.


I saw but again, I hope you realize that what you said actually does sound degrading to them unlike me.

Quote:
 
And meanwhile you compare its neck to this of a crocodile. Is it like a crocodile or not?


I never directly compared their necks. I was just pointing out pscivores tend to lack the power used to hunt big game and this likely applied to spinosaurus.

Quote:
 
You have to accept that the possibility of Spinosaurus witching between aquatic and terrestrial hunting isn't excluded at all.


I already said I accepted the notion that spinosaurus could hunt terrestial animals but it would be a lot less effective.

Quote:
 
False gharials have been reported to eat humans. And their jaws look thinner than those of a Spinosauru's jaws.


Humans are lot smaller than false gharials so that's still not very impressive and I said it would be a better example not a perfect one.

Quote:
 
Yeah. Why? Is it bad? Basically he found the source for me without intending to. A Forum is considered a source too, right? Carnivora is a source based on other sources. Wikipedia is also a source based on other sources. The majority of sources on the internet are based on some original sources and we cannot truly debunk those original sources unless we make our original sources.


Not all sources are equal. For example, some people use Kent Hovind as a source of information.

Quote:
 
I would like you to link me to your source.
Also, is this adaptation found on false gharials, which have been reported to eat humans in extremely rare cases?


I already told you it but whatevs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrNQVnZ_X0M

^A link to the documentary, probably not the exact part. You'll find it somewhere.

Edit: That was the right part and now that I rewatched it, Richard Dawkins doesn't make any mention of necks just jaws. Still, it's likely the pscivores like gharials and spinosaurus didn't need comparatively powerful neck muscles since their typical prey was so much smaller.

Quote:
 
Ehm... ehm! Read all the above!


Evidence of me being a fanboy you stupid twat. I'm not talking about those crappy wikipedia sources you keep using.

Quote:
 
Oh! What a surprise! They look like evidence!


More like crap.


Edited by Tyrant, Nov 7 2015, 07:53 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FishFossil
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
(siiiiiiiiiighh..................) please give up on the Wikipedia thing. It lends nothing to your argument. Also, I find it funny that you're labeling Tyrant a fanboy. He's doing a better job of defending Spinosaurus than you are, by using facts, and accurate comparisons, which is what you should do when stating an opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 7 2015, 07:12 AM
It doesn't matter what was each one using its weaponry for. What matter's is which one's weaponry was better.
And Tyrannosaurus' weaponry is far better for killing large animals. Nobody can seriously doubt that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tyrant
Nov 7 2015, 07:46 AM
Quote:
 
I would like you to link me to your source.
Also, is this adaptation found on false gharials, which have been reported to eat humans in extremely rare cases?


I already told you it but whatevs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrNQVnZ_X0M

^A link to the documentary, probably not the exact part. You'll find it somewhere.

Quote:
 
Ehm... ehm! Read all the above!


Evidence of me being a fanboy you stupid twat. I'm not talking about those crappy wikipedia sources you keep using.

Quote:
 
Oh! What a surprise! They look like evidence!


More like crap.


Quote:
 
Quote:
 
And meanwhile you compare its neck to this of a crocodile. Is it like a crocodile or not?


I never compared their necks. I was just pointing out pscivores tend to lack the power used to hunt big game and this likely applied to spinosaurus.


You also said piscivores tend to have a faster moving neck. Am I wrong?

Quote:
 
Specialized psicvores tend to have jaw and neck muscles that trade explosive power in favor of rapid movement.


"No, Dunkleosteus Gigas. You aren't wrong."

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
You have to accept that the possibility of Spinosaurus witching between aquatic and terrestrial hunting isn't excluded at all.


I already said I accepted the notion that spinosaurus could hunt terrestial animals but it would be a lot less effective.


I find "a lot" an exaggeration. Spinosaurus was still a dinosaur.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
False gharials have been reported to eat humans. And their jaws look thinner than those of a Spinosauru's jaws.


Humans are lot smaller than false gharials so that's still not very impressive and I said it would be a better example not a perfect one.


At the end of 2008, a 4-m female false gharial attacked and ate a fisherman in central Kalimantan; his remains were found in the gharial's stomach.[13] This was the first verified fatal human attack by a false gharial.[13] However, by 2012, at least two more verified fatal attacks on humans by false gharial had occurred indicating perhaps an increase of human-false gharial conflict possibly correlated to the decline of habitat, habitat quality and natural prey numbers.[14]

And false gharials have skinnier jaws than Spinosaurus.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Yeah. Why? Is it bad? Basically he found the source for me without intending to. A Forum is considered a source too, right? Carnivora is a source based on other sources. Wikipedia is also a source based on other sources. The majority of sources on the internet are based on some original sources and we cannot truly debunk those original sources unless we make our original sources.


Not all sources are equal. For example, some people use Kent Hovind as a source of information.


Those people exist too.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Ehm... ehm! Read all the above!


Evidence of me being a fanboy you stupid twat. I'm not talking about those crappy wikipedia sources you keep using.


You call them crappy just because you do not agree. They are all professional sources. They aren't the website of the Cuban Communist Party or something.



Do I spot fanboy anger?
Spartan
Nov 7 2015, 07:53 AM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 7 2015, 07:12 AM
It doesn't matter what was each one using its weaponry for. What matter's is which one's weaponry was better.
And Tyrannosaurus' weaponry is far better for killing large animals. Nobody can seriously doubt that.
This is circular reasoning. I have been trying to explain to you since lots of posts ago that Spinosaurus was capable of terrestrial hunting.
Here is a source about the bite force of Spinosaurus.

http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/9537513/1/
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 7 2015, 08:07 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I find "a lot" an exaggeration. Spinosaurus was still a dinosaur.
It being a dinosaur doesn't mean squat in regards to how adept it was at hunting terrestrial prey.
Quote:
 
At the end of 2008, a 4-m female false gharial attacked and ate a fisherman in central Kalimantan; his remains were found in the gharial's stomach.[13] This was the first verified fatal human attack by a false gharial.[13] However, by 2012, at least two more verified fatal attacks on humans by false gharial had occurred indicating perhaps an increase of human-false gharial conflict possibly correlated to the decline of habitat, habitat quality and natural prey numbers.[14]

And false gharials have skinnier jaws than Spinosaurus.
It's as if you didn't even read Tyrant's response.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Simple Physics:

We have F1➜ and F2➜. The ➜ is because it's a force that goes in a directon. It must be as strong, as both forces are the same. If F2➜ is higher, the fish will fall. F1 is the minimum Biteforce of Spino. F2 is the weight of Onchopristis X Gravitation(10N/kg). F1➜=F2➜.(The point that Fanboys can't understand)We take 2500 kg for Onchopristis. F1=2500kg x 10kg/N. We can remove the 2 kg's, so we get 25000N➜2,5t.

The Fanboys don't understand that the fish will fall, if the biteforce is lower. This is a detailed explaination why.(F2➜ goes to the down. If it's stronger, it's obvious)What we have learned after this post➜Fanboys are immune to Physics.


Thank you Jinfengopteryx! I'm not good at such physics! I'm in the first grade of Lykeio and we are now learning about acceleration!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jesus Christ, no sane person doubts that Spinosaurus could hunt terrestrial prey. But here it has to fight a Tyrannosaurus rex of 6-9t which is far better armed and hunts some of the most impressive terrestrial prey there is.

Quote:
 
I find "a lot" an exaggeration. Spinosaurus was still a dinosaur.


Here you're showing again that you have no clue. What has Spinosaurus being a dinosaur to do with its ability to hunt terrestrial prey? A penguin is also a dinosaur, so it could certainly hunt it some deer of buffalo if it runs out of fish, right?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ausar
Nov 7 2015, 08:08 AM
Quote:
 
I find "a lot" an exaggeration. Spinosaurus was still a dinosaur.
It being a dinosaur doesn't mean squat in regards to how adept it was at hunting terrestrial prey.
Quote:
 
At the end of 2008, a 4-m female false gharial attacked and ate a fisherman in central Kalimantan; his remains were found in the gharial's stomach.[13] This was the first verified fatal human attack by a false gharial.[13] However, by 2012, at least two more verified fatal attacks on humans by false gharial had occurred indicating perhaps an increase of human-false gharial conflict possibly correlated to the decline of habitat, habitat quality and natural prey numbers.[14]

And false gharials have skinnier jaws than Spinosaurus.
It's as if you didn't even read Tyrant's response.
Quote:
 
Humans are lot smaller than false gharials so that's still not very impressive and I said it would be a better example not a perfect one.


I assume that if a false gharial could do this to a human then a Spinosaurus could do this to an Ouranosaurus.

Conclusion: Spinosaurus COULD hunt dinosaurs.
Boom!
Spartan
Nov 7 2015, 08:10 AM
Jesus Christ, no sane person doubts that Spinosaurus could hunt terrestrial prey. But here it has to fight a Tyrannosaurus rex of 6-9t which is far better armed and hunts some of the most impressive terrestrial prey there is.

Quote:
 
I find "a lot" an exaggeration. Spinosaurus was still a dinosaur.


Here you're showing again that you have no clue. What has Spinosaurus being a dinosaur to do with its ability to hunt terrestrial prey? A penguin is also a dinosaur, so it could certainly hunt it some deer of buffalo if it runs out of fish, right?
The fact that Tyrannosaurus was much better armed is STILL not proven.

My Virgin Mary!
A penguin is much smaller than a deer or buffalo! Off cpurse it couldn't hunt a deer or buffalo!
Are you guys stalking me?
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 7 2015, 08:15 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
So you're basically saying Spinosaurus' jaws are better adapted to fighting and killing similar sized dinosaurs than the jaws of T. rex which is specialized in exactly doing this?
Edited by Spartan, Nov 7 2015, 08:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Nov 7 2015, 08:17 AM
So you're basically saying Spinosaurus' jaws are better adapted to fighting and killing similar sized dinosaurs than the jaws of T. rex which is specialized in exactly this?
No. For God's sake, no.

I don't know if you are aware of what I'm trying to prove here. I'm not necessarily trying to prove that Spinosaurus wins. I'm just trying to say that Spinosaurus could win and I'm not letting this possibility to be excluded.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I assume that if a false gharial could do this to a human then a Spinosaurus could do this to an Ouranosaurus.

Conclusion: Spinosaurus COULD hunt dinosaurs.
Boom!
HUZZAH!

Except no one said it was impossible, it's just that it wasn't particularly well-adapted for it.

Likewise, given how Ouranosaurus isn't really so huge, especially compared to Spinosaurus, it's still not particularly impressive.
Edited by Ausar, Nov 7 2015, 08:23 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You don't have to make one nonsensical claim after another to do so. I don't think many people believe this to be a mismatch.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.