| 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: |
| Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM (459,096 Views) | |
| Wolf Eagle | Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM Post #1 |
![]()
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. ![]() 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).
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Thalassophoneus | Nov 8 2015, 08:28 AM Post #4276 |
![]()
Pelagic Killer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But the huge difference of their location that he described has been already debunked, as you can see, and the chronological distance between these two is uncertain and possibly insignificant.
So Spinosaurus was 18 m. long and biped? So it could move quite effectively on land? You are now changing what is acceptable by all of us since long ago.
No. My mother tells me that if I had such problem I wouldn't think of the possibility of having it, and my psychologist finds me OK, with the exception of my trypanophobia. I've got to go for now. But tomorrow if I find time we have got things to say. As it seems. Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 8 2015, 08:34 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Nov 8 2015, 08:36 AM Post #4277 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Can't believe I'm spending my saturday night arguing with a 14 year old who has a psychologist. We have no evidence for Spinosaurus approaching 18m and we have no evidence for it being quadrupedal (which other users have also told you numerous times). Spinosaurus being quite unagile on land is due to its short legs, regardless of it moving on two or four limbs. Edited by Spartan, Nov 8 2015, 08:37 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| DarkGricer | Nov 8 2015, 08:40 AM Post #4278 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
T.rex's neck is more robust and likely more muscular. Seeing as the combatants are gonna need to use their neck to pull tear of a chunk of flesh, T.rex would have an easier time both cracking skulls, and tearing off big chunks of meat. Not to mention, with how much wider its maw is, the size of the meat chunks it's tearing off is also gonna be bigger. Either way, most likely neither combatant is gonna be tearing flesh of each other any time soon. Their rounded, conical teeth are suited for holding on. And T.rex wouldn't crack Spino's skull. It would crush it. Certainly deadlier then having a chunk of flesh removed from its neck. And yes, the damage done would depend on where the bite is placed. The difference between the two is that Spinosaurus is going to deal little damage with a bite placed anywhere other then the neck, whilst a T.rex biting a Spinosaurus in the leg will be crippling.
If Chuck Norris has me in a choking grip, then goodbye me. If you have me in a choking grip then I'm just gonna give you a good headbutt to the face. And if the Hulk has me in a choking grip, my neck is already broken, preventing me from every even trying to fight back. |
![]() |
|
| Thalassophoneus | Nov 8 2015, 09:28 AM Post #4279 |
![]()
Pelagic Killer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I say I'm leaving but I can't hold myself. I'm over 15 and having a psychologist isn't anything to be ashamed of. And Spinosaurus couldn't both be biped AND have had very small legs. If it had small legs then it needed extra support. And if Ibrahim is right and Spinosauru's body mass is shifted towards the center of the body then it was obligatory a quadruped. So either it we take Ibrahim's model or somebody else's, like Da Sasso's biped model. The upper estimates for Spinosaurus are based on evidence about the size of the skull. They remain uncertain but they are still supported by many. There was someone who estimated its length at around 14 m. and its maximum weight at over 20 tons, which I just crazy. Do I need to come back to the fact that Spinosaurus had its arms as an extra? Off course you are gonna ask " what position would it take that would allow it to use its arms". Lots of positions. If you can't think of any then this is your problem. If I try to choke you you won't do excrement on me. I'm 1,74 m. tall and since a few years ago I can deal with my older brother. If Hulk tries to choke you will crush all of you, not just your neck. However the difference between Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus isn't the difference between me and Hulk. Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 8 2015, 09:38 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Nov 8 2015, 09:37 AM Post #4280 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Andrea Cau proposed a model where Spinosaurus' posture was kinda like that of a pelican. Short legs, but bipedal.
Please tell me you're just a very good troll. Edited by Spartan, Nov 8 2015, 09:41 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jaws | Nov 8 2015, 11:16 AM Post #4281 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
what is ARK AND T REX WINS |
![]() |
|
| Fist of the North Shrimp | Nov 8 2015, 02:50 PM Post #4282 |
|
vá á orminum
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well this discussion is like arguing with a creationist on drugs. One is presented the same faeces numerous times, one gives evidence to the contrary, it gets ignored while another confused claim is made. On the other side you defend your statement with established facts but still you are accused of not delivering evidence. If you argue like this in real life you probaly run around with a broken nose. |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Nov 8 2015, 03:46 PM Post #4283 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes.
No. I have addressed this already, and since you haven't brought anything new to the table since then I'll just copy-paste it below: "As for your total length estimate, that 18 meter estimate was the upper end of the 16-18 meter range that Dal Sasso et al. provided, and this range was again explicitly for specimen MSNM V4047. However, Hartman more recently estimated this specimen at 15.6 meters, and the type specimen at 'only' 14 meters, whilst the Ibrahim et al. reconstruction is stated to be "over 15 meters" which most likely means 16 meters over the curves for MSNM V4047, as I've explained before. MSNM V4047 has not been estimated at 18 meters long in 10 years, and even that estimate is far from rigorous (their actual reconstruction is only 17 meters long too), more recent estimates place it in the region of 15 - 16 meters, but again this specimen is just a partial upper jaw and cannot be referred to Spinosaurus." Your claim that Ibrahim et al. 'were not opposed' to the Dal Sasso estimate is pretty odd. If Ibrahim et al. considered the 18 meter estimate to be correct, that is the estimate they would have given. But they did not, because their model was not 18 meters long. I would also like to point out that two of the authors of Dal Sasso et al. - Maganuco and Dal Sasso himself - are co-authors in Ibrahim et al.
Strong in absolute terms? By virtue of Spinosaurus being so massive then maybe. More important for this discussion though is how strong it is relative to Tyrannosaurus, and in that metric Spinosaurus would be completely outclassed.
These are two separate claims. The first one is probably roughly accurate, although Tyrannosaurus is almost certainly larger based on the largest known specimen of each this is probably more down to sample size than anything else. The second one less so, as the outcome really shouldn't be controversial given what we now know about each combatant.
Ridiculous. Tyrannosaurus' bite would be several times stronger than Spinosaurus' and would therefore have a far, far more potent killing method against animals of comparable size to one another. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Nov 8 2015, 04:36 PM Post #4284 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't know why people continue to argue with him. He thinks he's right(although demonstrated wrong in almost every aspect),and won't accept anything that conflicts with his delusions. It's like slamming your head into a wall, its not very productive, and all you end up with is a headache. |
![]() |
|
| Thalassophoneus | Nov 8 2015, 07:57 PM Post #4285 |
![]()
Pelagic Killer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think I have seen it and it looked stupid. And wouldn't work even with Moon gravity. Look at it! It's completely derpy! How could this things stand like this? ![]() Scott Hartman's corrected version of Ibrahim's Spinosaurus looks much better. And it must have had better walking skills. ![]() Seriously. I'm 1,74 and I look younger but heavier than my brother. And no, I don't want to choke you. I have met other truly infuriating people When we have circular reasoning it's not clear who starts it and who tries to end it. So let's try to make it clear. Also, MantisShrimp, if you are just in the mood to come here and make fun of me without saying anything else, then get the hell out of here. "Spinosaurus was 18 m. long" "Spinosaurus might have weighted up to 20 tons" "Spinosaurus had very powerful jaws (not for its size but very powerful)" "Spinosaurus was quadruped" "Spinosaurus could move on land quite slower than other theropods" "Spinosaurus could prey upon dinosaurs" "Spinosaurus could use its claws"
The reason why I believe Spinosaurus might have been up to 18 m. long is that, as mentioned before, several estimations place it to over 15 m. (how much above 15 m. isn't clear in Ibrahim's case). 15 m. is very close to the highest estimation, of 18 m. So if it could certainly reach 15 m., then why couldn't it reach 18 m.? There are 30 m. long Blue Whales and 33,6 m. long Blue Whales. If someone says he found one such long Blue Whale and calculated it then maybe its maximum length should be changed from 30 m. to 33,6 m. I know that you guys are gonna say "no, this is stupid, you can't just assume that Spinosaurus was larger than how much it has been calculated". No it couldn't. But the problem is that the greatest calculation is 18 m. and many others approach it. If for example other calculations were talking about 11 and 12 m. then OK, it would be absurd. What is certain is that Spinosaurus was certainly longer than T-Rex.
I accept that 20 tons is too much for a theropod that is supposed to have a lighter structure than most large theropods. A maximum weight of around 10 tons sounds more reasonable.
I guess we all agree with that. But the problem seems to be my statement that the extra bite force of Tyrannosaurus doesn't really matter cause both of them could kill their opponent by bitting, only Tyrannosaurus would kill it and cause higher damage. So it's what I told to DarkGricer. If Chuck Norris tries to choke a person that person will die. If I try to choke the same person that person will again probably die. I don't need to be Chuck Norris to choke someone. I don't know how disturbing did this sound. It might look like if I have homicidal tendencies or something.
I have accepted that it might be true and I use the quadruped Spinsoaurus. A quadruped Spinsoaurus would have the disadvantage of being less agile than Tyrannosaurus, due to its smaller hindlimbs. Then again, a biped one would probably have had bigger hindlimbs than a quadruped one, and maybe it would be more agile. What isn't clear to me is if we have all accepted that Spinosaurus was quadruped. Spartan doesn't seem to have done so.
As I said before, this would be most notable on a quadruped Spinosaurus. I biped one would have larger hindlimbs so it could move on land similarly to other theropods.
I hope we all agree. Spinosaurus did have the ability to kill other dinosaurs. But it usually preffered not to, as it could simplier stay in its habitat (water) and eat large fish.
It's certain that Spinosaurus could use its claws during combat. If you guys cannot visualise the fight to think how could it do it, it's your problem and either you don't have imagination or you are doing this on purpose. Regarding the length of Spinosaurus I just checked Wikipedia. I I haven't checked yet to ensure that the information I found is valid. It says that the skull of Spinosaurus might be as low as 1,5 m. in length. So judging from the fact that its close relative, Irritator measured around 8 m. long and had a skull 80 cm. long I estimated for Spinosaurus a length of 15 m. HOWEVER this I if Spinosaurus is a biped, similar to Irritator, like how it was usually depicted until recently. If we take Ibrahim's model, which has an elongated neck then the length is a little more than 15 m. Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 8 2015, 11:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Nov 8 2015, 11:57 PM Post #4286 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
An 18 meter Spinosaurus is 20% longer and over 70% more massive than a 15 meter one, so no those two figures are not in any way close in size. And let me state this again - those estimates are based on a specimen that can no longer be considered a specimen of Spinosaurus, the largest specimen is now the holotype specimen which Hartman estimates at 14 meters long and probably weighed less than 7 tonnes. Clinging to a 10 year old estimate, and only quoting the upper end of that estimate to boot despite further discoveries since then demonstrating those estimates to be inaccurate is precisely the kind of ridiculous thinking that is causing others to call you biased. Trying to use the fact Ibrahim et al. stated "over" 15 meters as some kind of justification for your continued insistence on using the 18 meter estimate is also dishonest, because their reconstruction is not anywhere close to 18 meters long, over curves it is roughly 16 meters but only when scaled to the size of the MSNM V4047 snout that cannot be referred to Spinosaurus. The Ibrahim et al. model is also chimeric, containing several specimens that are probably not Spinosaurus (or at least are not S. aegyptiacus). This probably has an impact on the length and proportions of various body segments, although the small size of the hindlimbs will not be affected by this. Your Blue Whale example does not work for the simple fact that we do not have any Spinosaurus specimens that are as big as you claim they are.
Larger hindlimbs than what? We already know roughly how large Spinosaurus' legs are. That isn't going to change. RE: Your Irritator-based estimate, I would advise against using it to estimate Spinosaurus' size for the simple fact that Irritator is known only from a skull. Spinosaurus needs to be used to estimate Irritator's size, not the other way around. And if you estimated Spinosaurus to be just over 15 meters why are you still adamantly quoting 18 meters?? Your insistence that Tyrannosaurus' far more potent bite is somehow unimportant does not get any less ridiculous the more times you try and justify it. |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Nov 9 2015, 12:23 AM Post #4287 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Also, who in this recent discussion denied that Spinosaurus couldn't use its claws as weapons? Either we didn't necessarily say anything about that or we actually agreed that it could, it's just that we acknowledge that most theropods did not use their forelimbs as their primary weapons. |
![]() |
|
| Thalassophoneus | Nov 9 2015, 12:40 AM Post #4288 |
![]()
Pelagic Killer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spinosaurus could. Many theropods were using their forelimbs. Therizinosaurus was adapted to scratching trees and eating small bugs that are inside them. It was doing this with its claws. Actually I believe Therizinosaurus must have been very dangerous at least to those that enraged it. Troodon is believe to have been adapted to hold things. Spinosaurus and Baryonyx and other Spinosaurids had sharp claws to hook fish. It is possible they could also use it as weapons. On the last page of this pdf: http://www.jplegacy.org/downloads/misc/spinosaurus.pdf (is that Ibrahim's original script?) you can see a chart that shows the body length-arm length ratio of different dinosaurs. Allosaurus has the longest forelimbs, in comparison to its body, and I have read several sources suggesting that Allosaurus could use its arms to claw its prey (examples are an encyclopedia that I have and this: http://www.britannica.com/animal/Allosaurus. As you can see the forelimbs of Spinosaurus and Suchomimus are similarly large AND they are known to have been made for fishing. So I assume they could use them as weapons also.
So what is this specimen considered to be, if not a Spinosaurus?
I assume you are talking about Da Sasso's estimate, right? First, 10 years isn't a lot. It is still in the new millennium. Second,I'm not clinging only on the maximum one. I told you that I base my opinion on the fact that several other estimations approach it. Both Friedrich von Huene in 1926[6] and Donald F. Glut in 1982 listed it as among the most massive theropods in their surveys, at 15 meters (49 ft) in length and upwards of 6 t (5.9 long tons; 6.6 short tons) in weight.[7] In 1988, Gregory Paul also listed it as the longest theropod at 15 meters (49 ft), but gave a lower mass estimate of 4 tonnes (3.9 long tons; 4.4 short tons).[8] Therrien's and Henderson's estimate is ridiculous. 14,3 m. and 20,9 tons? Seriously? So if we have those 15+ m. estimations and one 18 m. estimation, then why is it excluded that Spinosaurus reached 18 m.? PLUS the fact that millions of Spinosaurus existed in all those millions of years and we can't have found the largest specimens. ALSO, Spinosaurus remains quite purely known. I mean we certainly know lots of stuff about it but regarding its morphology it is quite mysterious.
I don't know. I brahim stated on the video I posted before that Spinosaurus was "larger than T-Rex". I don't know if he was reffering to only length or length and weight. What I suppose is that he observed a significant length difference between Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus. Or maybe he just didn't bother to estimate the length and only made changes on its morphology.
You can't state BOTH that the model was a chimera and had some disproportions AND that its hindlimbs were correct. I mean its hindlimbs are the disproportions that most people that know about this paper are talking about. Either it is a chimera but he knew what he was doing or he is wrong. Scott Hartman said the hindlimbs might have been 27% shorter than normal and made a model, which I posted above, that looks more like a normal theropod.
Dal Sasso said we do. Do not comment on me yet! I have more things to say but later!
Larger hindlimbs than the quadruped version. There is no way Spinsoaurus could be a biped with those legs. If, again, it was a biped its legs were probably large enough to allow it to move on land like any other normal theropod (by normal I don't mean a dromaeosaurid or something).
I chose Irritator cause it was probably the closest one to Spinsoaurus. I also thought about Oxalaia but it has exactly the problem you mentioned here about Irritator. I avoided Baryonyx and Suchomimus and such cause they belong to a different subfamily. And the reason why I insist with 18 m. is that my calculation along with several others give a length of 15 m. or greater while Dal Sasso basically tells us that this "greater" stops at 18 m. I have stated this again. If everyone else was giving a length of like 12 m. or something then either you would say "Dal Sasso is definitely wrong cause everyone else says something completely different" or you would say "Dal Sasso is definitely right and everyone else is wrong, hail the alternative king Spinosaurus". But in this case, since so many estiamtions fall clsoe to Dal Sasso's 18 m. estimation, it is possible that Spinosaurus actually reaches 18 m. I'll do the calculation again and this time I'm forced to chose a Baryonychine. I won't try to estimate the weight cause, at least according to the latest paper, Spinosaurus had a lighter overall structure in general.
And you just say so without supporting it. All you have is that Tyrannosaurus could crack bones. Woopdeedoo! You don't need to crack someone's bones in order to kill him! That's what I'm trying to explain to you! Those large fish that Spinosaurus was killing didn't have their bones cracked by it and yet they were dying! When Deinonyx was hunting ornithopods it was killing it by tearing apart its skin! If someone gets hit by a maglev train he dies! If someone gets hit by a fast car he dies again! But let me guess. You will just ignore my previous example and keep saying that the bite force does count A LOT even though I just explained you the reason why Tyrannosaurus had its bite force as an extra! OR, you will state that Spinosaurus didn't have anough bite force to wound Spinosaurus seriously, even though I believe we have solved this. Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 9 2015, 05:22 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Nov 9 2015, 03:06 AM Post #4289 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe there was a 18m freak Spinosaurus, so what? Then maybe there was also a 14.5m freak T. rex. Doesn't change anything. Someone (I think Spinodontosaurus) already explained to you that the 27% longer hindlimbs by Hartman were based on a misunderstanding that has been resolved. |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Nov 9 2015, 04:45 AM Post #4290 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You're arguing against a notion that never argued here. Yes, Spinosaurus definitely used its manual claws as weapons, we get that, no one's saying it didn't. It's just that they don't seem to have been its primary weapons (let alone its primary tools for killing). |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:23 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)



![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





)


2:23 AM Jul 14