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 (459,098 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:
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What are you even trying to say with these Hadrosaurids?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Nov 8 2015, 03:48 AM
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.
Spartan

Quote:
 
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 8 2015, 03:27 AM
If they clash together and they, kinda, "hugh" each other, like how sumo wrestlers do.





Geez.


I don't know how to describe what I imagine.

Quote:
 
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.


Crocodiles hunt wildebeest and roll over to tear of their flesh! No, I don't think Spinosaurus could roll over rolleyes ! I believe that it must have been more effective on land than this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0qRr6DwVTU or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PnfeCg5I10

Tell me. Isn't this a realistic depiction of four legged Spinosaurus?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ7zwW7CQuU

Quote:
 
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.


The fact that Tyrannsoaurus was the best theropod to hunt a ceratopsian doesn't mean that all the other theropods were completely useless. Neither does the fact that Spinosaurus was adapted for fish hunting mean that its jaws were as weak as those of a gharial (a very large gharial). The fact that some dinsoaurs become adapted for different habits doesn't necessarily mean that they completely lose the qualities of their ancestors.

I believe Spinosaurus would be capable of killing a Triceratops. Although, just like Tyrannosaurus, it would have big chances of being killed, if the specimen was a large one. It would actually have significantly bigger chances of being killed, than Tyrannosaurus, for being notably less effective on land.

Quote:
 
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.


There seems to have been a confusion. I never said that Spinosaurus could damage Tyrannosauru's skull. It could do some scratches but not puncture it with its teeth. I'm talking about wounding the opponent's skin and muscle tissues. I never said anything about skull. Skull is very hard to crunch.

Quote:
 
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.


I should say this differently. Cause apparntly you do that thing that you turn my words against me when I have said something seemingly wrong.

"It was a huge dinosaur, a theropod, with massive jaws and sharp teeth, that had small hindlegs but still could move quite well on land so it probably could hunt land animals also."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrant
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
1 last reply to giga and then I am done.

Quote:
 
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.


Saying it could hunt large animals because it is a dinosaur is a giant generalization. You realize modern birds including sparrows are considered dinosaurs?


Quote:
 
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?


Half of those sources are outdated and the others make more assumption than making any 100% factual statements. I got around to finally reading the spinosaurus diet page that you were jerking off to and the most relevant thing stated was that spinosaurus probably hunted terrestrial animals occasionally. Literally the same exact conclusion everyone and there mother has reached on this thread. Oh yeah, wanna know something funny? When we all still thought that Spinosaurus was a massive 15 ton beast, I favored it over tyrannosaurus without question.

Quote:
 
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.


No, if anyone is a "fanboy" it is you. Do you remember how our entire conflict started? Before we had even engaged in a discussion you insinuated I was a "fanboy" for stating that spinosaurus wasn't adapted to killing large animals because of its adaptation. That is literally "fanboy" behavior, trying to label someone something there not for opposing your view. I am not calling you a moron because of your opinion of this match I am calling you one because you keep making the same mistakes, make terrible analogies, paint unrealistic scenarios, your instance on using wikipedia as a source and because your posts often reek of hypocrisy.

Quote:
 
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.


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


That is what you wrote. You didn't write "I find a lot an exaggeration, Spinosaurus was still a large theropod," you just said dinosaur and I made that example to show how stupid that statement was. Of course it's not a perfect analogy it isn't meant to be.

Gigas there is a reason everyone on every thread acts so hostilely towards you, if you don't want everyone sh itting on your life I suggest you improve your debating skills and stop with the wild "fanboy" accusations.
Edited by Tyrant, Nov 8 2015, 04:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Nov 8 2015, 03:54 AM
What are you even trying to say with these Hadrosaurids?
If I remember well, Ausar told me that hunting an Edmontosaurus was far more impressive than hunting an Ouranosaurus, and stated that HE DOESN'T THINK Edmontosaurus weighted only 4 tons. I told him that with this logic I don't think a 18 m. Spinosaurus (Spinosaurus was up to 18 m. long, I hope we all agree) weighted only 7 tons. So he told me that the reaso why Edmontosaurus mustn't have weighted so little is that its relative, Shantungosaurus, was a few meters longer yet, given a weight of 4 tons for Edmontosaurus, weighted multiple times longer, which would be impossible. So I told him that maybe Edmontosaurus had a lighter structure than Shantungosaurus. And I posted these to see whether I'm right and I think I am. Edmontosaurus looks much smaller.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 8 2015, 04:05 AM
Crocodiles hunt wildebeest and roll over to tear of their flesh! No, I don't think Spinosaurus could roll over rolleyes ! I believe that it must have been more effective on land than this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0qRr6DwVTU or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PnfeCg5I10






It's a pain in the ass to debate with you since you never actually respond to what one says. Crocodiles hunt by ambush in rivers or large ponds. I can't imagine many animals being less competent at hunting and chasing animals on land than crocodiles.



Quote:
 
The fact that Tyrannsoaurus was the best theropod to hunt a ceratopsian doesn't mean that all the other theropods were completely useless.


Spinosaurus literally hasn't a single trait to deal with something like Triceratops. Triceratops has absolutely every advantage in this fight.


Quote:
 
There seems to have been a confusion. I never said that Spinosaurus could damage Tyrannosauru's skull. It could do some scratches but not puncture it with its teeth. I'm talking about wounding the opponent's skin and muscle tissues. I never said anything about skull. Skull is very hard to crunch.



You still don't get that it's Tyrannosaurus' head it has to fight. It simply can't avoid it. That is why T. rex' bite force is so important here: It could easily fatally damage Spinosaurus rather fragile skull while it would be almost impossible for Spinosaurus to pull off the reverse. I explained this numerous times to you, but you only keep coming up with some weird kung-fu moves by Spinosaurus or say that these giant theropods fight like sumo ringers and hug each other (wtf?).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
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?


Half of those sources are outdated and the others make more assumption than making any 100% factual statements. I got around to finally reading the spinosaurus diet page that you were jerking off to and the most relevant thing stated was that spinosaurus probably hunted terrestrial animals occasionally. Literally the same exact conclusion everyone and there mother has reached on this thread. Oh yeah, wanna know something when we all still thought that Spinosaurus was a massive 15 ton beast, I favored it over tyrannosaurus without question.


That's what I said. It probably hunted terrestrial animals occasionally (but generally prefered not to tire itself and eat fish which were easier). Probably. Occasionally. Which means that it could.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
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.


No, if anyone is a "fanboy" it is you. Do you remember how our entire conflict started? Before we had even engaged in a discussion you insinuated I was a "fanboy" for stating that spinosaurus wasn't adapted to killing large animals because of its adaptation. I am not calling you a moron because of your opinion of this match I am calling you one because you keep making the same mistakes, make terrible analogies, paint unrealistic scenarios, your instance on using wikipedia as a source and because your posts often reek of hypocrisy.


If I was a fanboy I would kill your mother and then use her blood to write a letter to you, insulting you and saying that Spinsoaurus was biped and very fast and such stuff, that I used to believe but I don't anymore.

I called you a fanboy cause of several statements you made, like

Grimace: Why do people even think it eating fish means anything? Have you guys even ever tried to cut into an armored fish before? It'd probably be harder to rip apart some of the big fish species back then then it would a dinosaur.

Tyrant: Killing a crocodile-sized fish really doesn't compare to another theropod's ability to kill five ton + animals. It's like comparing an oystercatcher's ability to eat hard shelled snails and clams to a hawk's ability of killing rats.



Awesome and very smart guy (a.k.a. me agro ): Clear from where? (From where is it clear that Tyrannosaurus was a much better hunter than Spinosaurus?

Tyrant: 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.

So you didn't accept that Spinosaurus might have been hunting land animals. The first time I called you a fanboy was somewhere there (page 277). The second time was when I said that Spinosaurus might could push Tyrannosaurus and flip it over and you said that "this f ucking moron thinks Spinsoaurus knows judo". It is called fighting! Anyone can do it! EVEN JELLYFISH CAN DO IT!!!
OK. Maybe not jellyfish.
You also told me to everyone the favor and deactivate my account. The fact that you started insulting me for not excluding the possibility of Spinosaurus winning is a sign of fanboyism.

Then you said Tyrannosaurus would definitely bring down Spinsoaurus in a contest of strength, which I also doubt cause each one of these animals had different strong parts on each body.


And you keep saying that Wikiepdis isn't valid while it has plenty of sources, both out of date and up to date! This is what is good with Wikipedia! It shows you what have different people of different years said!

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
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.


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


That is what you wrote. You didn't write "I find a lot an exaggeration, Spinosaurus was still a large theropod," you just said dinosaur and I made that example to show how stupid that statement was. Of course it's not a perfect analogy it isn't meant to be.


You just took something that I shouldn't over-generalize and you turned it against me. It is VERY annoying when you say something that you didn't mean exactly this way and someone turns it against you.

Quote:
 
Gigas there is a reason everyone on every thread acts so hostilely towards you, if you don't want everyone sh itting on your life I suggest you improve your debating skills and stop with the wild "fanboy" accusations.


Everyone on every thread acts hostilely towards me cause I'm an alt-bag*, thus there must be lots of people that won't agree with me.

And I repeat that I'm not a fanboy, cause I only defend the possibility of Spinsoaurus winning. I do not say that it would certainly win.

And I do not find this a mismatch, in favor of Tyrannsoaurus, and say things like "Spinsoaurus was CRAWLING" or "Spinsoaurus was definitely not 18 m., even though many sources suggest so and even though it remains quite unknown" or "10/10 that T.rex stompz this stupid ducky ;-P" (I'm looking at you, MantisShrimp!).





*Alt-bag is a term used by the Greek internet personality Mikeius. It is a combination of the words "alternative" and "douchebags" and refers to people that do not like anything popular, original and, let's say, "traditional" and only like alternatives that are way less popular, so that they can play it progressive and opposed to this capitalist and stuck up society.
Spartan
Nov 8 2015, 04:22 AM

Spartan

Quote:
 
It's a pain in the ass to debate with you since you never actually respond to what one says. Crocodiles hunt by ambush in rivers or large ponds. I can't imagine many animals being less competent at hunting and chasing animals on land than crocodiles.


I posted videos. And I posted one before which I ask you if you think it was a realistic depiction of how quadruped Spinsoaurus might have been running.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
The fact that Tyrannsoaurus was the best theropod to hunt a ceratopsian doesn't mean that all the other theropods were completely useless.


Spinosaurus literally hasn't a single trait to deal with something like Triceratops. Triceratops has absolutely every advantage in this fight.


Spinosaurus was quite slower than Tyrannosaurus but it also had jaws that could penetrate the skin of a ceratopsian and it additionally had claws. So if it was managing to avoid the ceratopsian's horns, it could possibly kill it.

Let's not forget that Spinosaurus had a very long tail. Seriously! What about its tail?

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
There seems to have been a confusion. I never said that Spinosaurus could damage Tyrannosauru's skull. It could do some scratches but not puncture it with its teeth. I'm talking about wounding the opponent's skin and muscle tissues. I never said anything about skull. Skull is very hard to crunch.



You still don't get that it's Tyrannosaurus' head it has to fight. It simply can't avoid it. That is why T. rex' bite force is so important here: It could easily fatally damage Spinosaurus rather fragile skull while it would be almost impossible for Spinosaurus to pull off the reverse. I explained this numerous times to you, but you only keep coming up with some weird kung-fu moves by Spinosaurus or say that these giant theropods fight like sumo ringers and hug each other (wtf?).


Spinosaurus avoiding the head of Spinsoaurus would be like me avoiding you, while you are attacking me with a large scissor (those huge ones that are used for the garden). And even less, cause the neck (that is moving Tyrannsoauru's head) is less flexible than the arms (that you would use to move the scissor).

I guess I have to describe it to you in words.

Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus see each other and start making circles around each other.
Spinosaurus charges at Tyrannsoaurus
1: It attempts to bite Tyrannsoaurus on the neck but Tyrannosaurus manages to bite its snout and stop it and then bites its own neck and kills it.
2: Spinsoaurus rises on its hindlegs to be a little taller and folds its arms around Tyrannsoauru's neck (while its own neck is next to Tyrannsoauru's shoulder). It starts scratching. It falls on Tyrannsoaurus with all of its weight, causing it to lose its balance. It bites Tyrannsoaurus on the neck and tears of chunks of flesh.

This was an example.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 8 2015, 04:51 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 8 2015, 04:38 AM
Spinosaurus avoiding the head of Spinsoaurus would be like me avoiding you, while you are attacking me with a large scissor (those huge ones that are used for the garden).

Lol I'm out. So Spinosaurus was a kung-fu fighter, then they both were sumo ringers trying to hug each other and now these 7000kg dinosaurs are like two humans fighting each other with garden shears.
I'm not going to reply to you anymore til you manage to make a coherent argument that's not just your wishful thinking.
Edited by Spartan, Nov 8 2015, 05:04 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
 
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.
And I repeat that the tyrannosaur's much more powerful bite will help contribute to it having a much more damaging bite than the spinosaur. And a much more damaging bite is an advantage. No intelligent person would deny the previous statement.

Also, neither's first strategy is going to be to try and tear flesh with their jaws. Both have comparatively blunt, thick teeth designed more for piercing and more or less relied on the strength of their jaw muscles coupled with their teeth to kill their respective prey.

Finally, since Spinosaurus had teeth ill-suited for causing soft tissue damage, a bite force that was comparatively low, and a longirostrine snout that was not well-suited for dealing with high stresses and overall fighting similar-sized opponents, the idea that Spinosaurus' bite is really going to be all that effective against Tyrannosaurus is questionable at best.

Dunkleosteus Gigas
 
"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.
Hurr durr! Captain Obvious strikes!

I don't know if you're aware, but I didn't say that because I thought the claws would be physically incapable of grabbing onto Tyrannosaurus. I said that because theropods (at least most of them) likely did not use their claws as their primary killing weapons and thus Spinosaurus would not have deliberately tried to kill something by sticking its claws into a vital region.

Dunkleosteus Gigas
 
Why is that? Cause "it had a higher bite force"? Is that what you are gonna use again?
What if I told you that wasn't the primary reason? It's 'cause most theropods (including these two) primarily used their jaws to kill/fight. Considering how that of Tyrannosaurus is far better suited for fighting an animal the same weight as itself, guess who's more likely to seriously injure and kill their opponent here.

Dunkleosteus Gigas
 
Where?
Allow me to try to find it.

Edit: ah, here it is (hyperlink).
Dunkleosteus Gigas
 
If I remember well, Ausar told me that hunting an Edmontosaurus was far more impressive than hunting an Ouranosaurus
Well, that's because it was. Edmontosaurus was significantly larger than Ouranosaurus. I believe the former should be about as heavy as a giant theropod like Tyrannosaurus or Spinosaurus. Considering this, what's more impressive: a giant theropod killing an Edmontosaurus about as heavy as itself or a giant theropod killing an Ouranosaurus significantly smaller than itself?

Dunkleosteus Gigas
 
and stated that HE DOESN'T THINK Edmontosaurus weighted only 4 tons.
Because Edmontosaurus seems too heavily built to be only ~4t at ~12m.

Dunkleosteus Gigas
 
I told him that with this logic I don't think a 18 m. Spinosaurus (Spinosaurus was up to 18 m. long, I hope we all agree) weighted only 7 tons.
And I pointed out that the reason this holds no ground was because Spinosaurus did not reach 18m.

Dunkleosteus Gigas
 
So he told me that the reaso [sic] why Edmontosaurus mustn't have weighted so little is that its relative, Shantungosaurus, was a few meters longer yet, given a weight of 4 tons for Edmontosaurus, weighted multiple times longer, which would be impossible.
No, it's because "Edmontosaurus seems too heavily built to be only ~4t at ~12m.".

Dunkleosteus Gigas
 
So I told him that maybe Edmontosaurus had a lighter structure than Shantungosaurus. And I posted these to see whether I'm right and I think I am. Edmontosaurus looks much smaller.
What reason is there to suggest such was the case? The two animals are related and should, by phylogenetic inference, have similar body builds.
Edited by Ausar, Nov 8 2015, 05:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
No, Spartan. You don't need to be an Extreme Dinosaur to avoid your opponent dinosaur's head and just fold your arms around its neck, from below. I could make you a drawing, but I guess I'm not going to reach that point just because you are in the mood not understand what I'm saying.

As you can see, guys, I have accepted Ibrahim's paper and that Spinosaurus had quite weak jaws for its size. And that it was less effective on land than Tyrannosaurus. What else do you want?
Let me guess. "We want you to accept that Tyrannosaurus definitely wins and Spinosaurus could do nothing to another dinosaur."
No. Cause Spinsoaurus had its quite strong jaws, and quite strong arms, and long tail and those are at least enough.


I just saw some things on World of Animals. Some people disqussing about somone making ridiculous statements.

I saw my name in the thread and I was about to burst like a closed keetle.

But then I realised that this guy isn't serious at all. He REALLY favors Spinsoaurus. His name is AFGThugonomics.

Quote:
 
There are many Paleontologists that believe in Spinosaurus beating Tyrannosaurus such as Jack Horner, Lawrence Kenneth, Thomas Holtz etc.

I doubt those sources are really accurate. At least not anymore.

Quote:
 
Well at least you can admit your mistakes. For that, I can respect you.


Professor Thomas Holtz was briefly in the 2009 documentary "Monsters Resurrected" along with other Paleontologists. Holtz has also appeared in other documentaries.


ALL documentaries can be exaggerated. You need to stop throwing hate on this particular one because evidence/material were showcased. Spinosaurus CGI behavior was just exaggerated. Truth is we don't know HOW it behaved along with all the other dinosaurs. We can speculate.

For all we know, it might have behaved like that.


" For all we know, it might have behaved like that. "

Yes, because Spinosaurus probably did kill 13-14 meter long carcharodontosaurids with one hit, and slaughtered ~12 meter long pholidosaurid crocodyliforms for sport, right?

Quote:
 
So now it's YOUR opinion that you don't trust/believe in those claims. IT's a facts sheet too and you are ignoring it. Not only that put the Databases even states so. No existence of a 4m long hip ratio.

He stated "other Spinosauraides are known from their head bones so who knows?" As in question whether it may be accurate or not.
To summarize it, he has doubts.


SGM-Din1 is stated to have a taxonomy ratio of 17-19ft. So that is taller than Tyrannosaurus. Giga and Carch are debated as the 2nd largest. While Tyrannosaurus is not even on the Top 5.

Your opinion. Moving on. 


Quote:
 
1) Comments that don't have any evidence/sources or are irrelevant one liner get deleted. I've gotten mine deleted but decided to post evidence only comments.
That link you sent me, I bet you didn't even fully read the research conducted there. They don't side with them having horrid eye eights up close at all! Some targets were far sighted than others. Where as you look at other multiple sources that state Crocodiles had good eye sight:
news.softpedia.com/news/14-Amazing-Facts-About-Crocodiles-69931.shtml



Spinosaurus had excellent eye sight and this is a tie. Moving on...


2) You don't need prove to make a safe estimate on a fully grown adult from sub-adult. Since the sub-adult had reach a length of 36ft and 5.7 tons, it's common damn sense that a few more meters and tons will match it's adult stage.
Looks like you're too damn lazy to backtrack as I DID stated numerous people going against the new measurements from 2014. Scott Hartman, Josh, R Hutchinson, Thomas Holtz etc. Which by the way I answered on the Facebook comment. I'll remind you and he stated "But who knows?" as in doubt. There are a few more but I rest my case with these three.


Plus I already gave you evidence stating Spinosaurus weights are between 11-20 tons. BBC holds it at 20 tons max so not as light as the 7.5 claim you are pulling.




3) So where hell does it say a "2014 study" huh? These are from 2007 just from gathering the first paragraph on how they made it into. By the way, Tyrannosaurus maxes out at 18 according to the site. Where as Spinosaurus is at 24 mph according to BBC's Spinosaurus statistics. Again, you are basing the 2014 Spinosaurus, which is not official and criticized. They written an article of the findings from the team but where does it say it's fact? Nowhere.



Spinosaurus wins in speed.




4) Who is "Blasing" because this person sounds unimportant and have zero documentation evidence on this kind of subject. Don't pull the "everyone is pulling it at 15m" card because it is still uncertain as Scott Hartman himself stated. I quoted you his line of the possibilities and Del Sasso's measurements. That is enough evidence to justify my claims. Spinosaurus reach lengths of 16-18m long. You realize most dinosaurs have been measured like this right? Comparing it towards it's other relatives and matching their skull sizes. Since they had more complete bones around them. Once we do this to Spinosaurus we get a 16-18m giant.




5) So you can't provide sources for a 20ft tall Tyrannosaurus. Just as I thought because none exists. You back up Scott Hartman on your claims yet you go against him when I bring him up. You're just a hypocrite than can't except being wrong. Even with that Museum facts sheet, that doesn't put Sue at 20ft tall. No evidence of such BS exists. It's more accurate than Ibrahim's/ Paul Sereno's 2014 Spinosaurus which is under criticism. That's all you literally have. 2014 claims from the same team. Ignoring every other piece of evidence that are not proven inconclusive.



Height goes to Spinosaurus being 4ft taller than Tyrannosaurus. Fact




6) That 3 ton bite force is for a 16-18 meter Spinosaurus in general. So Spinosaurus has a strong bite force that is enough to kill tyrannosaurus.




7) Oh good. More 2014 articles, which btw don't deny Spinosaurus feeding off other dinosaurs other than fish. Like I said, it hunted on lands and rivers.


8) Scott Hartman put's it over 15m as you previously stated. Now you're going with a even LOWER estimate for Spinosaurus. Fanboy at it's finest.
-Weight is proven as multiple sites state it to have weight anywhere from 9-20 tons.


-2012 Documentary "Planet Dinosaur" featuring Spinosaurus had weight 12 tons


- BBC "Walking with Dinosaurs" Spinosaurus weight stands at 20 tons
It's obviously that it out weight Tyrannosaurus by more than 4 tons. FACT


As for Height, same deal. It's stated on that same page to have been 4ft taller. I listed the people one the #2 response that goes against the 2014 Spinosaurus due to the amount of questions and flawed posture it presents. Only people that push for the quadruple theory are T.Rex fanboys. They don't look at the other side of the argument. There are more cons than pros for the 2014 reconstruction. Not let it go or else I'll simple ignore anything you posted regarding it.


Spinosaurus:
Weight = power, height, weapons (arms, claws, bite force, size) length and speed


Tyrannosaurus
Bigger bite force,


Eye sight is tied since both had binocular vision. Smart? Instinct only matters in a fight. Intelligence doesn't play a role here. On top of that, we don't know how smart a Spinosaurus was. Tyrannosaurus was NOT taller nor weight more. Get over this false myth because science says something else. You reply on Wiki and Paul Sereno/Ibrahim articles to support yourself.


Apparently, Planet Dinosaur and Monsters Resurrected are more reliable sources than Ibrahim and Sereno! (Said someone ironically)

Seriously now, guys. Do you think I'm like THIS guy? I mean yes, I believe Spinosaurus had enough bite force to kill another dinosaur and I believe it was 18 m. long at maximum (cause that's what Del Sasso say and Ibrahim seemingly didn't deny, while others measure its length at 15 m. which is pretty close) and I also have stated that Ibrahim's paper doesn't exclude the possibility of Spinosaurus having been semi-aquatic.
But come on! Seriously! Do you guys really compare me to... THIS?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DarkGricer
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 8 2015, 03:27 AM
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
You did not just use ARK's Spinosaurus as a source...

ARK's Spinosaurus is inaccurate. Even if Spinosaurus does turn out to be a quadruped, there's pretty much no way it would've walked on its palms like ARK's Spinosaurus does. And even if it did, theropod arms are terrible for weight bearing, running like that would likely result in it breaking its own arms. It's a dinosaur, not a giant dog.

Chances are, Spinosaurus was quite slow on land.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The supersaurus
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
such big debating, very big,very big indeed^
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
DarkGricer
Nov 8 2015, 05:38 AM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 8 2015, 03:27 AM
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
You did not just use ARK's Spinosaurus as a source...

ARK's Spinosaurus is inaccurate. Even if Spinosaurus does turn out to be a quadruped, there's pretty much no way it would've walked on its palms like ARK's Spinosaurus does. And even if it did, theropod arms are terrible for weight bearing, running like that would likely result in it breaking its own arms. It's a dinosaur, not a giant dog.

Chances are, Spinosaurus was quite slow on land.
I didn't see it running on its palms cause it was in the water. Spinosaurus must have been knuckle-walking.

And his Spinosaurus was bulkier than Ibrahim's. This video is what I could find to show you what I imagine.

And I doubt that THESE arms could break.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FishFossil
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
I'm done Dunk. It's like talking to a brick wall. A brick wall who doesn't really give an answer to the questions he's asked, and instead replies with an unrelated aspect of the topic that just leads to an overly confusing view of what you actually believe. The things you say and the things you state you believe do not match up. I have no idea what you ACTUALLY feel, and we've all been debating you for at least 10 pages now. Have a good day Dunk.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
SamuelwithDinos
Nov 8 2015, 05:45 AM
such big debating, very big,very big indeed^
I'm notable for causing big debates! :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The supersaurus
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
10 pages! What........ ten pages :huh:
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.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.