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 (459,099 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:
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@Dunkleosteus Gigas

Killing an Ouranosaurus (that didn't live with you anyway) is not really something when you weigh substantially more than one. Killing an Edmontosaurus (which I really doubt weighs only ~4t at ~13m) or a Triceratops (which is likewise very, very well-armed) is clearly much more impressive.

But I'm not going to put much weight on that, as we're really looking at weaponry. Bite force isn't just useful for feeding, it's also extremely useful for killing if used in conjunction with raptorial teeth, which happens to be the case for Tyrannosaurus (otherwise, animals with raptorial dentition wouldn't evolve proportionately more powerful bites for macrophagy). So it certainly DOES matter that Tyrannosaurus bites much harder than Spinosaurus, as does the fact that its skull is much better adapted for delivering a more damaging bite and that its teeth are better proportioned and distributed for such a job.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
The 4 tonne weight estimate is almost certainly not for a very large 12 meter specimen, considering that the closely related Shantungosaurus was estimated to weigh 13 tonnes at 15 meters by Greg Paul, and 15 tonnes by Seebacher*. This suggests a weight of 6-8 tonnes for a large Edmontosaurus, comparable to a mid-large size Tyrannosaurus

*Seebacher actually estimates Shantungosaurus at 17 meters and 22.5 tonnes, however, this is based on Greg Paul's skeletal which is only 15 meters long. The estimate I quoted about is merely Seebacher's estimate down-scaled to the correct length.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Nov 7 2015, 09:18 PM
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.
Ouranosaurus is an example. There must have been some other similar herbivore that was closer to Spinosaurus in distance and age. I could find another example if only paleontologists were showing some more interest for Africa.

I haven't seen you debunking the repeated statement that Spinosaurus could use its arms against Tyrannosaurus, or the statement that it was both an aquatic and a terrestrial hunter or the statement it had a normal bite force for a large theropod. I haven't seen you really debunking any of these arguments.
Ausar
Nov 7 2015, 09:21 PM
@Dunkleosteus Gigas

Killing an Ouranosaurus (that didn't live with you anyway) is not really something when you weigh substantially more than one. Killing an Edmontosaurus (which I really doubt weighs only ~4t at ~13m) or a Triceratops (which is likewise very, very well-armed) is clearly much more impressive.

But I'm not going to put much weight on that, as we're really looking at weaponry. Bite force isn't just useful for feeding, it's also extremely useful for killing if used in conjunction with raptorial teeth, which happens to be the case for Tyrannosaurus (otherwise, animals with raptorial dentition wouldn't evolve proportionately more powerful bites for macrophagy). So it certainly DOES matter that Tyrannosaurus bites much harder than Spinosaurus, as does the fact that its skull is much better adapted for delivering a more damaging bite and that its teeth are better proportioned and distributed for such a job.
It doesn't matter cause both Tyrannosaurus (given a bite force of 57.000 N) and Spinosaurus (given a bite force of at least 10.000 N) can tear flesh of their opponents. This is my logic. The jaws of both are powerful enough for them to kill their opponent.

And what do you mean by "YOU really doubt Edmontosaurus weighted only 4 tons? What if it had a light structure? With this logic I realm doubt Spinosaurus weighted only 6-7 tons at 18 m. So it could crush Tyrannosaurus.  :-/
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 7 2015, 10:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Of course you haven't. For the same reason tigerr and Asadas both think nobody has ever proven them wrong on anything.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Nov 7 2015, 10:08 PM
The 4 tonne weight estimate is almost certainly not for a very large 12 meter specimen, considering that the closely related Shantungosaurus was estimated to weigh 13 tonnes at 15 meters by Greg Paul, and 15 tonnes by Seebacher*. This suggests a weight of 6-8 tonnes for a large Edmontosaurus, comparable to a mid-large size Tyrannosaurus

*Seebacher actually estimates Shantungosaurus at 17 meters and 22.5 tonnes, however, this is based on Greg Paul's skeletal which is only 15 meters long. The estimate I quoted about is merely Seebacher's estimate down-scaled to the correct length.
I tried to find examples of size comparison between Edmontosaurus and Shantungosaurus. I'm on the phone so I can't copy paste. Go to Wikipedia page "Dinosaur size" and go ornithopods. The difference seems huge. And this Shantungosaurus isn't full size, as I remember.
Spartan
Nov 7 2015, 10:42 PM
Of course you haven't. For the same reason tigerr and Asadas both think nobody has ever proven them wrong on anything.
Then tell me.

Do you think Spinosaurus could or couldn't use its arms in combat and why?

Do you think Spinosaurus was capable of hunting land creatures, like Ouranosaurus (which is the closest prey I could find) or not? And if yes, how much more impressive do you think it was that Tyrannosaurus could hunt creatures like Edmontosaurus or Triceratops (which could both deal with it)?

And do you doubt Spinosaurus had a jaw strength within the normal limits of a large theropod?
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 7 2015, 10:52 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 7 2015, 10:34 PM
Ausar
Nov 7 2015, 09:21 PM
@Dunkleosteus Gigas

Killing an Ouranosaurus (that didn't live with you anyway) is not really something when you weigh substantially more than one. Killing an Edmontosaurus (which I really doubt weighs only ~4t at ~13m) or a Triceratops (which is likewise very, very well-armed) is clearly much more impressive.

But I'm not going to put much weight on that, as we're really looking at weaponry. Bite force isn't just useful for feeding, it's also extremely useful for killing if used in conjunction with raptorial teeth, which happens to be the case for Tyrannosaurus (otherwise, animals with raptorial dentition wouldn't evolve proportionately more powerful bites for macrophagy). So it certainly DOES matter that Tyrannosaurus bites much harder than Spinosaurus, as does the fact that its skull is much better adapted for delivering a more damaging bite and that its teeth are better proportioned and distributed for such a job.
It doesn't matter cause both Tyrannosaurus (given a bite force of 57.000 N) and Spinosaurus (given a bite force of at least 10.000 N) can tear flesh of their opponents. This is my logic. The jaws of both are powerful enough for them to kill their opponent.

And what do you mean by "YOU really doubt Edmontosaurus weighted only 4 tons? What if it had a light structure? With this logic I realm doubt Spinosaurus weighted only 6-7 tons at 18 m. So it could crush Tyrannosaurus.  :-/
That's ridiculous. Just because two animals might have sufficient bite potency to kill the other (and I have doubts as to whether that of Spinosaurus is really going to be all that effective on an animal as large as Tyrannosaurus) doesn't mean any significant discrepancy in terms of damage output is irrelevant. If one has a clear advantage in the bite damage department, it's an advantage, case closed.

What if Edmontosaurus had a light structure? Except it didn't. 18 meter Spinosaurus? Except it never was.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ausar
Nov 7 2015, 10:59 PM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 7 2015, 10:34 PM
Ausar
Nov 7 2015, 09:21 PM
@Dunkleosteus Gigas

Killing an Ouranosaurus (that didn't live with you anyway) is not really something when you weigh substantially more than one. Killing an Edmontosaurus (which I really doubt weighs only ~4t at ~13m) or a Triceratops (which is likewise very, very well-armed) is clearly much more impressive.

But I'm not going to put much weight on that, as we're really looking at weaponry. Bite force isn't just useful for feeding, it's also extremely useful for killing if used in conjunction with raptorial teeth, which happens to be the case for Tyrannosaurus (otherwise, animals with raptorial dentition wouldn't evolve proportionately more powerful bites for macrophagy). So it certainly DOES matter that Tyrannosaurus bites much harder than Spinosaurus, as does the fact that its skull is much better adapted for delivering a more damaging bite and that its teeth are better proportioned and distributed for such a job.
It doesn't matter cause both Tyrannosaurus (given a bite force of 57.000 N) and Spinosaurus (given a bite force of at least 10.000 N) can tear flesh of their opponents. This is my logic. The jaws of both are powerful enough for them to kill their opponent.

And what do you mean by "YOU really doubt Edmontosaurus weighted only 4 tons? What if it had a light structure? With this logic I realm doubt Spinosaurus weighted only 6-7 tons at 18 m. So it could crush Tyrannosaurus.  :-/
That's ridiculous. Just because two animals might have sufficient bite potency to kill the other (and I have doubts as to whether that of Spinosaurus is really going to be all that effective on an animal as large as Tyrannosaurus) doesn't mean any significant discrepancy in terms of damage output is irrelevant. If one has a clear advantage in the bite damage department, it's an advantage, case closed.

What if Edmontosaurus had a light structure? Except it didn't. 18 meter Spinosaurus? Except it never was.
Explain me, why is it so important to Tyrannosaurus that it had a much higher bite force? It doesn't help in agility or something and both could seriously injure each other. If Tyrannosaurus had an exceptional high bite force, good for it. Only Spinosaurus was also a large theropod and both an aquatic and a terrestrial predator, so it also could cause Tyrannosaurus critical harm.

Edmontosaurus was much smaller than Shantungosaurus. When my brother (who is a dick :) ) leaves the computer I'll spend some extra time on this issue.

This statement that Spinosaurus definitely wasn't up to 18 m. long has been made repeatedly but none supports it with arguments. Spinosaurus remains quite mysterious in terms of exact morphology, yet a maximum length of over 15 m. is generally accepted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 7 2015, 10:47 PM
Do you think Spinosaurus could or couldn't use its arms in combat and why?



Of course it could theoretically, but it couldn't get in the position to use them against a theropod of equal size.



Quote:
 
Do you think Spinosaurus was capable of hunting land creatures, like Ouranosaurus (which is the closest prey I could find) or not?



Probably, but catching them would be harder than killing them for it.


Quote:
 
And if yes, how much more impressive do you think it was that Tyrannosaurus could hunt creatures like Edmontosaurus or Triceratops (which could both deal with it)?


A lot more. Ankylosaurus and Triceratops are among the most dangerous prey for any terrestrial predator.



Quote:
 
And do you doubt Spinosaurus had a jaw strength within the normal limits of a large theropod?


What do you mean by "normal"? It had far weaker jaws than T. rex and also than the members of Carcharodontosauridae. So under this aspect, yes it had relatively weak jaws for a theropod of its size.
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
 
Explain me, why is it so important to Tyrannosaurus that it had a much higher bite force? Because it's one of the things contributing to its much more damaging bite. And a much more damaging bite is an advantage in a fight. Simple. As. That. It doesn't help in agility or something No sh*t! and both could seriously injure each other. Well, sure. Both COULD seriously injure each other. Tyrannosaurus could kill Spinosaurus via biting and Spinosaurus could kill Tyrannosaurus if its claws just so happened to puncture a vital region when it makes a gripping attempt (do note that it may not necessarily do this deliberately, thus reducing the likelihood of it happening). But the problem for Spinosaurus is, its opponent is significantly more likely to seriously injure and kill it than vice versa. If Tyrannosaurus had an exceptional high bite force, good for it. Only Spinosaurus was also a large theropod and both an aquatic and a terrestrial predator, so it also could cause Tyrannosaurus critical harm. One caveat: Spinosaurus was not particularly well-adapted for combat with similar-sized, well-armed opponents like Tyrannosaurus and the times when it actually does seriously injure Tyrannosaurus will not represent a good portion of what would happen if this fight played out multiple times.

Edmontosaurus was much smaller than Shantungosaurus. When my brother (who is a dick :) ) leaves the computer I'll spend some extra time on this issue. Thank you for providing information I already knew :) . Except that does not in any way mean Edmontosaurus was lightly built enough so that its body weight would be comparatively lower at a given body length.

This statement that Spinosaurus definitely wasn't up to 18 m. long has been made repeatedly but none supports it with arguments. Spinosaurus remains quite mysterious in terms of exact morphology, yet a maximum length of over 15 m. is generally accepted. Didn't Spinodontosaurus address this earlier?
Edited by Ausar, Nov 7 2015, 11:55 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 7 2015, 07:29 PM
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
So who was calling others Fanboys and not listening?
Who constantly offended people?
I could post something of more substance but your argumentation is based on your own erratic gospel.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mirounga leonina
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
I think the Ouranosaurus prey is coming from JPOG (Jurassic Park Operation Genesis). According to the game's encyclopedia Spinosaurus favorite prey was Ouranosaurus. http://jpog.wikia.com/wiki/Spinosaurus
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Late reply, but @Dunkelosteus Gigas
Your eagle-vulture analogy for the phylogenetic relationships of T.rex & Spinosaurus aegyptiacus are very wrong; vultures are actually very close on their phylogenetic tree, where as Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus, quite simply put, are not.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 7 2015, 10:47 PM
Do you think Spinosaurus could or couldn't use its arms in combat and why?



Of course it could theoretically, but it couldn't get in the position to use them against a theropod of equal size.


Keep in mind that I do not imagine Spinosaurus as boxing or something. If Spinosaurus swing to the side so its head won't be an obstacle then it can maul Tyrannosaurus. However I wouldn't suggest Spinosaurus this move cause this way it might expose its neck. Another example. If they clash together and they, kinda, "hugh" each other, like how sumo wrestlers do. Then it can use its arms (and possibly its jaws also) on Tyrannosauru's skin while Tyrannosaurus can use its jaws on it (but not its arms, apparently :D ). Spinosaurus must have had quite flexible arms, as it could also use them for knuckle-walking and fishing.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Do you think Spinosaurus was capable of hunting land creatures, like Ouranosaurus (which is the closest prey I could find) or not?



Probably, but catching them would be harder than killing them for it.


I think that catching them wouldn't be harder than it is for a crocodilian, like Sarcosuchus. Crocodilians have sprawling legs, yet they do seem to move kinda effectively on land. Judging from modern ones. Older and larger ones like Sarcoshuchus must have been slower. I assume that since Spinosaurus had erect legs, it could move even better than them, although not better than other theropods (like Tyrannosaurus).

Here is an animated video with Spinosaurus running on all four. Yes, I know it is a game. I'm only posting it just to show you what I believe Spinosaurus was moving like, which looks kinda normal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ7zwW7CQuU

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
And if yes, how much more impressive do you think it was that Tyrannosaurus could hunt creatures like Edmontosaurus or Triceratops (which could both deal with it)?


A lot more. Ankylosaurus and Triceratops are among the most dangerous prey for any terrestrial predator.


In the case of Ouranosaurus (or any relative of it that lived together with Spinosaurus) the prey doesn't possess any significant threat to Spinosaurus. Spinosaurus could definitely take on creatures more dangerous than them, only I don't know lots of creatures from its ecosystem. Paleontologists should show some more interest about Africa.
All people should show some more interest about Africa but this is a different story. rolleyes
Triceratops was very dangerous for a Tyrannsoaurus. It is believed that in some cases it might have actually succeeding in killing Tyrannosaurus.
So the fact that there were seemingly no ceratopsia in Africa doesn't mean that Spinosaurus was incapable of killing one.

I managed to find a large African dinosaur from Spinosauru's age, but it is also in a different area of Africa. Rebbachisaurus. I don't know if Spinosaurus or Tyrannosaurus could kill that one. Such creatures are probably the upper limit for a single large theropod.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
And do you doubt Spinosaurus had a jaw strength within the normal limits of a large theropod?


What do you mean by "normal"? It had far weaker jaws than T. rex and also than the members of Carcharodontosauridae. So under this aspect, yes it had relatively weak jaws for a theropod of its size.


I base my statement of Spinosaurus having strong jaws on several facts.
-It was very large, first of all. It might have had relatively weak jaws for its size but it mustn't have had much weaker jaws than other theropods like Allosaurus.
-I doubt evolution would completely deprive it the bite force that previous megalosauroids had. Even though its jaws might have been relatively weak for its size, you might notice that several piscivores (like crocodiles) had (have) a powerful bite, only in the case of Spinosaurus it is just enough for it to penetrate the skin of a large prey. Whether it can tear of its flesh depends on how strong its neck is. The gharial is a very rare case of animal whose jaws are adapted exclusively for eating fish, and this is apparent, cause gharials have extremely thin jaws.
-The characteristic rostral morphology of Spinosaurus allowed its jaws to resist bending in the vertical direction, however its jaws were poorly adapted with respect to resisting lateral bending. This is something.
-Jinfegopteryx's estimation of the bite force of Spinosaurus (and several other sources). His first estimation was years ago and was around 25.000 N. Today he told me that this estimation isn't up to date so he gaveme a new one of around 10.000 N. I guess we both agreed that a bite force smaller than 1/5 of Tyrannosauru's bite force must have been too small. I saw that he used a fish to estimate its bite force. I'll see if I can do anything similar by my own, unless the knowledge he needed for this estimations is more advanced than my current knowledge in physics.

I guess lots of people agree that Spinosaurus wasn't adapted exclusively for aquatic hunting.
Ceratodromeus
Nov 8 2015, 02:40 AM
Late reply, but @Dunkelosteus Gigas
Your eagle-vulture analogy for the phylogenetic relationships of T.rex & Spinosaurus aegyptiacus are very wrong; vultures are actually very close on their phylogenetic tree, where as Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus, quite simply put, are not.

I'm aware of it.

They (two people) stated that if Spinosaurus could hunt dinosaurs cause it was a theoropod then with this logic sparrows are birds of prey just for being birds. In my reply I state that this is over-generalization and that their argument would be good, if I was saying something like "Ornithomimus could hunt other dinosaurs cause it was a theropod".

To become more clear, birds or dinosaurs or any other large clade of animals shows a huge variety of species. It's wrong to compare the relation between two such species that show lots of similarities to the relation between to species that have evolved completely differently.
Mirounga leonina
Nov 8 2015, 02:09 AM
I think the Ouranosaurus prey is coming from JPOG (Jurassic Park Operation Genesis). According to the game's encyclopedia Spinosaurus favorite prey was Ouranosaurus. http://jpog.wikia.com/wiki/Spinosaurus
Not at all. It just would seem logic to me for Spinosaurus to prey upon Ouranosaurus cause they lived in the same continent in similar eras. I guess this is what the creators of JPOG also thought.
MantisShrimp
Nov 7 2015, 11:51 PM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 7 2015, 07:29 PM
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
So who was calling others Fanboys and not listening?
Who constantly offended people?
I could post something of more substance but your argumentation is based on your own erratic gospel.
I'm listening. I just don't agree. It's called conversation.

I assume you ironically blame me of worshiping Spinosaurus or something.
Ausar
Nov 7 2015, 11:42 PM
My replies are in orange.

Dunkleosteus Gigas
 
Explain me, why is it so important to Tyrannosaurus that it had a much higher bite force? Because it's one of the things contributing to its much more damaging bite. And a much more damaging bite is an advantage in a fight. Simple. As. That. It doesn't help in agility or something No sh*t! and both could seriously injure each other. Well, sure. Both COULD seriously injure each other. Tyrannosaurus could kill Spinosaurus via biting and Spinosaurus could kill Tyrannosaurus if its claws just so happened to puncture a vital region when it makes a gripping attempt (do note that it may not necessarily do this deliberately, thus reducing the likelihood of it happening). But the problem for Spinosaurus is, its opponent is significantly more likely to seriously injure and kill it than vice versa. If Tyrannosaurus had an exceptional high bite force, good for it. Only Spinosaurus was also a large theropod and both an aquatic and a terrestrial predator, so it also could cause Tyrannosaurus critical harm. One caveat: Spinosaurus was not particularly well-adapted for combat with similar-sized, well-armed opponents like Tyrannosaurus and the times when it actually does seriously injure Tyrannosaurus will not represent a good portion of what would happen if this fight played out multiple times.

Edmontosaurus was much smaller than Shantungosaurus. When my brother (who is a dick :) ) leaves the computer I'll spend some extra time on this issue. Thank you for providing information I already knew :) . Except that does not in any way mean Edmontosaurus was lightly built enough so that its body weight would be comparatively lower at a given body length.

This statement that Spinosaurus definitely wasn't up to 18 m. long has been made repeatedly but none supports it with arguments. Spinosaurus remains quite mysterious in terms of exact morphology, yet a maximum length of over 15 m. is generally accepted. Didn't Spinodontosaurus address this earlier?
Quote:
 
Because it's one of the things contributing to its much more damaging bite. And a much more damaging bite is an advantage in a fight. Simple. As. That.


I repeat that if both of them could tear of each other's flesh then extra bite force isn't needed. The ability is different from the weapon.

Quote:
 
Well, sure. Both COULD seriously injure each other. Tyrannosaurus could kill Spinosaurus via biting and Spinosaurus could kill Tyrannosaurus if its claws just so happened to puncture a vital region when it makes a gripping attempt (do note that it may not necessarily do this deliberately, thus reducing the likelihood of it happening). But the problem for Spinosaurus is, its opponent is significantly more likely to seriously injure and kill it than vice versa.


"If its claws just so happened". I don't know if you are aware of it but claws go on the hands, which are on the edge of the arms, which are capable of movement.

Quote:
 
But the problem for Spinosaurus is, its opponent is significantly more likely to seriously injure and kill it than vice versa.


Why is that? Cause "it had a higher bite force"? Is that what you are gonna use again?

Quote:
 
This statement that Spinosaurus definitely wasn't up to 18 m. long has been made repeatedly but none supports it with arguments. Spinosaurus remains quite mysterious in terms of exact morphology, yet a maximum length of over 15 m. is generally accepted. Didn't Spinodontosaurus address this earlier?


Where?

I found a comparison. And the Shantungosaurus pictures here isn't as large as the largest specimen (formerly known as Huaxiaosaurus).

Posted Image
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 8 2015, 03:47 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 8 2015, 03:27 AM
If they clash together and they, kinda, "hugh" each other, like how sumo wrestlers do.





Geez.


Quote:
 

I think that catching them wouldn't be harder than it is for a crocodilian, like Sarcosuchus.


Crocodiles are absolutely awful at hunting prey on land.


Quote:
 
Triceratops was very dangerous for a Tyrannsoaurus. It is believed that in some cases it might have actually succeeding in killing Tyrannosaurus.
So the fact that there were seemingly no ceratopsia in Africa doesn't mean that Spinosaurus was incapable of killing one.


Yes, a Triceratops would even kill a Tyrannosaurus more often than not and it's the best adapted theropod to hunt this kind of prey. Spinosaurus wouldn't pose any kind of threat for a fully grown Triceratops.


Quote:
 
I base my statement of Spinosaurus having strong jaws on several facts.
-It was very large, first of all. It might have had relatively weak jaws for its size but it mustn't have had much weaker jaws than other theropods like Allosaurus.


Again, nobody doubts that Spinosaurus has a strong bite in absolute terms, but it's probably not enough to cause significant damage to a skull as robust as T. rex' ones before T. rex can cause extreme damage to Spinosaurus itself.
Allosaurus is like three times smaller than Spinosaurus and also doesn't seem to have a high bite force for its size either.


Quote:
 
To become more clear, birds or dinosaurs or any other large clade of animals shows a huge variety of species. It's wrong to compare the relation between two such species that show lots of similarities to the relation between to species that have evolved completely differently.


That was what you did in the first place. You said it could hunt terrestrial prey, because it was a dinosaur. We just showed you how stupid that statement was.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Here is another one (no Shantungosaurus). Compare the bodies. They are similar to the ones in the precious one only taller by about 1 m.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.