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 (459,100 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:
FishFossil
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
This is circular reasoning. I have been trying to explain to you since lots of posts ago that Spinosaurus was capable of terrestrial hunting.


It's only circular cause you keep renewing it. Were all in agreement that Spinosaurus was capable of terrestrial hunting. Don't need to convince anyone of that. We just don't think that, as close as it may be, Spinosaurus is going to edge out a T. rex.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrant
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
You also said piscivores tend to have a faster moving neck. Am I wrong?


May have been wrong about that part. But I do find it likely that is true, it would only make sense to have a fast moving neck if you have a fast snapping jaws.

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


You never really argued against it and pretty much went along with it. I might have been wrong but it doesn't really make you right, sadly.

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


Sparrows and eagles are both birds, therefore sparrows still must be formidable. Yeah...no that logic doesn't work.

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.


Seriously, did you just ignore everything I said?

Quote:
 
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.


They're crappy because they're not professional. Has nothing to do with preference. For example, I like the idea of tyrannosaurus being covered in scutes but evidence indicates that they weren't so I accept what I don't like.

Quote:
 
Do I spot fanboy anger?


At first I was annoyed by your stupidity, now I am slightly amused by it. You comparing tasers and knifes had me rolling.

But yeah this is getting redundant and I am sure this ridiculous banter is annoying some other posters so I'll stop from the time being.

My take on the match is this, the spinosaurus will put up a tough fight but it is highly unlikely to win. Think of it as a stork going against an eagle.
Edited by Tyrant, Nov 7 2015, 09:31 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 7 2015, 08:10 AM
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!
Note that this post is three years old now and I back then did not consider that the fish may not need to be lifted wholly but could also get dragged out (which is a lot more energy efficient). And as little is known about the mass of Onchopristis (Planet Dinosaur is the only source for that 8 m story, the mass is a completely uneducated guess), I don't like this being cited as evidence of Spinosaurus having a strong bite. It too much sounds like a definitive mathematical proof while it isn't.

I was kinda some Spinosaurus/Carnosaur fanboy a while ago and not very old (hence my immature belittling of opponents). The units were even wrong, I should have written 10 N/kg (otherwise you get 25,000 kg2/N lol ).

P.S. Don't worry, I have great problems with sciences other than biology as well. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheROC
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tyrant
Nov 7 2015, 09:20 AM


My take on the match is this, the spinosaurus will put up a tough fight but it is highly unlikely to win. Think of it as a stork going against an eagle.
I don't see that as a good analogy at all.

The largest stork, would have a decent chance of killing any eagle, since they massively outsize extant eagle species, and have a long sharp bill and long feet to keep the eagle at a distance. They've also killed eagle-sized animals like greater flamingos, and apparently human children as well, which would be a little bigger than eagle-sized.

Whereas the Spinosaurus would be forced to bluff, and would stand no real chance of defense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Choeradodis
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
TheROC
Nov 7 2015, 02:09 PM
Tyrant
Nov 7 2015, 09:20 AM


My take on the match is this, the spinosaurus will put up a tough fight but it is highly unlikely to win. Think of it as a stork going against an eagle.
I don't see that as a good analogy at all.

The largest stork, would have a decent chance of killing any eagle, since they massively outsize extant eagle species, and have a long sharp bill and long feet to keep the eagle at a distance. They've also killed eagle-sized animals like greater flamingos, and apparently human children as well, which would be a little bigger than eagle-sized.

Whereas the Spinosaurus would be forced to bluff, and would stand no real chance of defense.
Not to mention that eagles need to fly in order to fight well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mirounga leonina
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

Would you say this Scale is accurate, precise, both , or neither.

As for the battle between these two (and I bet this has been rehashed a lot) T-Rex Land Spino Water. (those claws can do serious damage)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ausar
Nov 7 2015, 08:22 AM
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.
Ouranosaurus measured up to 8,3 m. long. For comparison Triceratops, which a formidable foe for Tyrannosaurus, measured up to 9 m. long (and weighted over 2 times more but this is a kinda different story). And, to take an ornithopod, Edmontosaurus measured up to 13 m. long and weighted around 4 tons. It is a significant difference but killing an Ouranosaurus is still something.
Tyrant
Nov 7 2015, 09:20 AM
Quote:
 
Do I spot fanboy anger?


At first I was annoyed by your stupidity, now I am slightly amused by it. You comparing tasers and knifes had me rolling.

But yeah this is getting redundant and I am sure this ridiculous banter is annoying some other posters so I'll stop from the time being.

My take on the match is this, the spinosaurus will put up a tough fight but it is highly unlikely to win. Think of it as a stork going against an eagle.
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
I find "a lot" an exaggeration. Spinosaurus was still a dinosaur.


Sparrows and eagles are both birds, therefore sparrows still must be formidable. Yeah...no that logic doesn't work.


You are doing what Spartan did before (with the penguins). You are over-generalizing to turn my words against me. The distance between T-Rex and Spinosaurus isn't the distance between sparrow and eagle. More of the distance between eagle and vulture. Both eagles and vultures are predatory birds. So don't play it smartass and be proud of yourself.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
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.


They're crappy because they're not professional. Has nothing to do with preference. For example, I like the idea of tyrannosaurus being covered in scutes but evidence indicates that they weren't so I accept what I don't like.


They aren't professional, huh? Well, then. Let's go to "Spinosaurus" page and see some sources.

Holtz, Thomas R. Jr. (2012) Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages, Winter 2011 Appendix.

Ibrahim, Nizar; Sereno, Paul C.; Dal Sasso, Cristiano; Maganuco, Simone; Fabri, Matteo; Martill, David M.; Zouhri, Samir; Myhrvold, Nathan; Lurino, Dawid A. (2014). "Semiaquatic adaptations in a giant predatory dinosaur". Science 345 (6204): 1613–6. doi:10.1126/science.1258750. PMID 25213375. Supplementary Information


von Huene, F.R. (1926). "The carnivorous saurischia in the Jura and Cretaceous formations principally in Europe". Rev. Mus. La Plata 29: 35–167.

Glut, D.F. (1982). The New Dinosaur Dictionary. Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press. pp. 226–228. ISBN 0-8065-0782-9.

Paul, G.S. (1988). "Family Spinosauridae". Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 271–274. ISBN 0-671-61946-2.

Mortimer, M. (2007-03-25). "Comments on Therrien and Henderson's new paper". Dinosaur Mailing List. Retrieved 22 September 2010.

Bates, K.T.; Manning, P.L.; Hodgetts, D.; and Sellers, W.I.; Sellers, William I. (2009). Beckett, Ronald, ed. "Estimating Mass Properties of Dinosaurs Using Laser Imaging and 3D Computer Modelling". PLoS ONE 4 (2): e4532. Bibcode:2009PLoSO...4.4532B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004532. PMC 2639725. PMID 19225569.

Stromer, E. (1915). "Ergebnisse der Forschungsreisen Prof. E. Stromers in den Wüsten Ägyptens. II. Wirbeltier-Reste der Baharije-Stufe (unterstes Cenoman). 3. Das Original des Theropoden Spinosaurus aegyptiacus nov. gen., nov. spec". Abhandlungen der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-physikalische Klasse (in German) 28 (3): 1–32.

Buffetaut, E.; and Ouaja, M. (2002). "A new specimen of Spinosaurus (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from the Lower Cretaceous of Tunisia, with remarks on the evolutionary history of the Spinosauridae" (PDF). Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France 173 (5): 415–421. doi:10.2113/173.5.415.

Taquet, P.; and Russell, D.A. (1998). "New data on spinosaurid dinosaurs from the Early Cretaceous of the Sahara" (PDF). Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences - Series IIA - Earth & Planetary Sciences 327 (5): 347–353. Bibcode:1998CRASE.327..347T. doi:10.1016/S1251-8050(98)80054-2. Retrieved 22 September 2010.

Charig, A.J.; Milner, A.C. (1997). "Baryonyx walkeri, a fish-eating dinosaur from the Wealden of Surrey". Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, Geology Series 53: 11–70.

Buffetaut, E.; Martill, D.; Escuillié, F. (2004). "Pterosaurs as part of a spinosaur diet". Nature 430 (6995): 33. Bibcode:2004Natur.429...33B. doi:10.1038/430033a. PMID 15229562.

Amiot, R.; Buffetaut, E.; Lécuyer, C.; Wang, X.; Boudad, L.; Ding, Z.; Fourel, F.; Hutt, S.; Martineau, F.; Medeiros, A.; Mo, J.; Simon, L.; Suteethorn, V.; Sweetman, S.; Tong, H.; Zhang, F.; and Zhou, Z. (2010). "Oxygen isotope evidence for semi-aquatic habits among spinosaurid theropods". Geology 38 (2): 139–142. doi:10.1130/G30402.1.

Scott Hartman (12 September 2014). "There's something fishy about Spinosaurus". skeletaldrawing.com. Retrieved 20 September 2014.

Mark Witton (22 September 2014). "The Spinosaurus hindlimb controversy: a detailed response from the authors". markwitton-com.blogspot.de. Retrieved 22 September 2014.

So what are you trying to tell me? That in Wikipedia "everyone writes whatever he wants" and that all those sources above are written by a bunch of clowns? Just because your precious T-Rex might not be king of dinosaurs?

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Do I spot fanboy anger?


At first I was annoyed by your stupidity, now I am slightly amused by it. You comparing tasers and knifes had me rolling.

But yeah this is getting redundant and I am sure this ridiculous banter is annoying some other posters so I'll stop from the time being.

My take on the match is this, the spinosaurus will put up a tough fight but it is highly unlikely to win. Think of it as a stork going against an eagle.


You know, I'm also amused by your fanboyism. You just try to debunk whatever I say, without sources and you keep calling me stupid and a moron and such stuff just because I do not think Tyrannosaurus had far more than 50% chance of winning.

And what you said before that "If you think Spinosaurus might have been predatory just for being a dinosaur then you also believe sparrows are birds of prey cause they are birds just like eagle" reminds me of stupid creationist arguments like "What reason would a human have to have sex with a monkey". It shows your ignorance. Your scientific ignorance.
Mirounga leonina
Nov 7 2015, 03:25 PM
Posted Image

Would you say this Scale is accurate, precise, both , or neither.

As for the battle between these two (and I bet this has been rehashed a lot) T-Rex Land Spino Water. (those claws can do serious damage)
Kyogre VS Groudon! :) Haha!

The waves always erode the rocks just like how Spinosaurus would tear apart Tyrannosauru's skin. The rocks fall on the waves and pushes them away like how tyrannosaurus would push Spinosaurus and stomp on it. Who is gonna win?


Quote:
 
(those claws can do serious damage)


Exactly!
I believe that your comparison is very accurate.
Jinfengopteryx
Nov 7 2015, 09:33 AM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 7 2015, 08:10 AM
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!
Note that this post is three years old now and I back then did not consider that the fish may not need to be lifted wholly but could also get dragged out (which is a lot more energy efficient). And as little is known about the mass of Onchopristis (Planet Dinosaur is the only source for that 8 m story, the mass is a completely uneducated guess), I don't like this being cited as evidence of Spinosaurus having a strong bite. It too much sounds like a definitive mathematical proof while it isn't.

I was kinda some Spinosaurus/Carnosaur fanboy a while ago and not very old (hence my immature belittling of opponents). The units were even wrong, I should have written 10 N/kg (otherwise you get 25,000 kg2/N lol ).

P.S. Don't worry, I have great problems with sciences other than biology as well. :P
So you believe its bite force might have been lower than your estimation?

I doubt the bite force of Spinosaurus was less than 1/5 the bite force of Tyrannosaurus, given its large size and the resistance of its jaws to vertical bending. And as I said before, Spinosaurus was a dinosaur, a theropod and a megalosauroid so it must have been a land predator as well.

My huge problems are ancient Greek and algebra. I hate algebra more cause it needs lots of practice rather than reading. I also hate ancient Greek a lot, not only cause they need lots of reading but also because I find them useless and I don't believe this faeces that everyone tells me that "they will help understand modern Greek better" or that "we need to know ancient scripts about philosophy" and such stuff. Yes! We do! But do we have to learn all the details of the grammar? Do I really have to spend all of Junior High School and some classes in High School, learning a language that will never use?
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 7 2015, 06:06 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 7 2015, 05:26 PM
Ouranosaurus measured up to 8,3 m. long. For comparison Triceratops, which a formidable foe for Tyrannosaurus, measured up to 9 m. long (and weighted over 2 times more but this is a kinda different story). And, to take an ornithopod, Edmontosaurus measured up to 13 m. long and weighted around 4 tons. It is a significant difference but killing an Ouranosaurus is still something.
For the last time Spinosaurus did not live alongside Ouranosaurus, they were separated by several million years and several thousand miles. This is now the third time I have told you this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Nov 7 2015, 06:11 PM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 7 2015, 05:26 PM
Ouranosaurus measured up to 8,3 m. long. For comparison Triceratops, which a formidable foe for Tyrannosaurus, measured up to 9 m. long (and weighted over 2 times more but this is a kinda different story). And, to take an ornithopod, Edmontosaurus measured up to 13 m. long and weighted around 4 tons. It is a significant difference but killing an Ouranosaurus is still something.
For the last time Spinosaurus did not live alongside Ouranosaurus, they were separated by several million years and several thousand miles. This is now the third time I have told you this.
I do not remember you telling me about Spinosaurus and Ouranosaurus any other time.


Ouranosaurus (meaning "brave (monitor) lizard") is a genus of herbivorous iguanodont dinosaur that lived during the early Cretaceous (late Aptian age) at some point between 125 and 112 million years ago.

Spinosaurus (meaning "spine lizard") is a genus of theropod dinosaur that lived in what now is North Africa, during the lower Albian to lower Cenomanian stages of the Cretaceous period, about 112 to 97 million years ago.

I don't see any significant distance.


I just found out something that I find tragic and hillarious, for some reason. The only known remains of Aegyptosaurus were stored in Munich and were distroyed by a bombing during World War II. Well done, humanity!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Those ranges are just estimates, a more accurate way to do it is see if they are known from the same geological formation as one another. They are not; Ouranosaurus is from the Elrhaz Formation in Niger, as is Suchomimus, whilst Spinosaurus is from the Bahariya Formation in Egypt, and possibly the Kem Kem Formation in Morocco.

The Elrhaz Formation is dated to the Aptian and/or Albian stages of the Cretaceous. The Aptian stage spans 113-125 millions years ago, while the Albian spans 100.5-113 Millions years ago. The Bahariya and Kem Kem Formations are both dated to the Cenomanian stage, which spans 93.9-100.5 million years ago. Note that the year ranges I gave are the entire time span of that stage, that does not mean the formations themselves spanned that same amount of time, in fact they almost certainly did not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Jeez Goji you are thick headed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MantisShrimp
Nov 7 2015, 06:46 PM
Jeez Goji you are thick headed.
MantisShrimp, you never break the tradition. You just insult and... nothing.

And my name is Dunkleosteus Gigas. agro
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 7 2015, 05:26 PM
So you believe its bite force might have been lower than your estimation?
Pretty much, Tyrannosaurus' bite force is not estimated on the basis of its capability of lifting a Triceratops.
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 7 2015, 05:26 PM
I doubt the bite force of Spinosaurus was less than 1/5 the bite force of Tyrannosaurus, given its large size and the resistance of its jaws to vertical bending. And as I said before, Spinosaurus was a dinosaur, a theropod and a megalosauroid so it must have been a land predator as well.
I was never saying that its bite was that weak, just that my method is not an acceptable one.
I can't tell you what is the most likely bite force, but I guess isometric scaling is an acceptable method.
Now, TheROC told us something about a Baryonyx with a bite force of 3800 N:
http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/9537513/1/
The Baryonyx specimen is likely about 8 m long, which'd equate a mass of like 1.5 to in case Wikipedia's 1.2 t mass for a 7.5 m Baryonyx is accurate.
Now, let's scale that up to a hypothetical 7 t Baryonyx.
3800 N * (7/1.5)2/3 ≈ 10.6 kN ≈ 1.1 t

This is extremely low, but if we assume a somewhat more robust skull in Spinosaurus, we may get a bit more. TheROC assumed that Spinosaurus' bite must have been 50% stronger than that of Baryonyx, so you can get up to 1.6 t for Spinosaurus if you are generous.
Again, this is nothing you should treat like a gospel, I was just writing this in case a simple "I have no idea" was intellectually to unsatisfying.
In case you think the weights are wrong and Spinosaurus should have been heavier, you at least know the equation for making your own calculations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Nov 7 2015, 08:25 PM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 7 2015, 05:26 PM
So you believe its bite force might have been lower than your estimation?
Pretty much, Tyrannosaurus' bite force is not estimated on the basis of its capability of lifting a Triceratops.
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 7 2015, 05:26 PM
I doubt the bite force of Spinosaurus was less than 1/5 the bite force of Tyrannosaurus, given its large size and the resistance of its jaws to vertical bending. And as I said before, Spinosaurus was a dinosaur, a theropod and a megalosauroid so it must have been a land predator as well.
I was never saying that its bite was that weak, just that my method is not an acceptable one.
I can't tell you what is the most likely bite force, but I guess isometric scaling is an acceptable method.
Now, TheROC told us something about a Baryonyx with a bite force of 3800 N:
http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/9537513/1/
The Baryonyx specimen is likely about 8 m long, which'd equate a mass of like 1.5 to in case Wikipedia's 1.2 t mass for a 7.5 m Baryonyx is accurate.
Now, let's scale that up to a hypothetical 7 t Baryonyx.
3800 N * (7/1.5)2/3 ≈ 10.6 kN ≈ 1.1 t

This is extremely low, but if we assume a somewhat more robust skull in Spinosaurus, we may get a bit more. TheROC assumed that Spinosaurus' bite must have been 50% stronger than that of Baryonyx, so you can get up to 1.6 t for Spinosaurus if you are generous.
Again, this is nothing you should treat like a gospel, I was just writing this in case a simple "I have no idea" was intellectually to unsatisfying.
In case you think the weights are wrong and Spinosaurus should have been heavier, you at least know the equation for making your own calculations.
I believe that the lowest bite force for Spinosaurus must have been at 10.000 N. It's not extremely low. It's enough. And it doesn't really matter that Tyrannosauru's jaws were around 5 times stronger. Both cases are really much. An extremely high bite force is more useful during feeding.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You're far more of a fanboy than anyone else here for seriously thinking this is a 50/50 match.
You just keep repeating the same fallacious statements over and over again, like the Ouranosaurus thing.
Despite getting your stupid arguments debunked everytime you just don't stop since you seem to be in a emotional relationship with a dead dinosaur and think you have to defend its honor or some weird sh.it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.