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 (446,003 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:
Grimace
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
spinosaurus would use its functional arms to suplex t rex
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
So what is this specimen considered to be, if not a Spinosaurus?

An indeterminate spinosaurid.

Quote:
 
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.
...
So if we have those 15+ m. estimations and one 18 m. estimation, then why is it excluded that Spinosaurus reached 18 m.?

You are clinging to one single estimate, purely because it happens to be the largest. And for the last time, 15 meters is not close to 18 meters. It just isn't, that isn't even up for debate. It would be like finding the skeleton of a 180 cm tall hominid and then proudly proclaiming that it was actually 216 cm tall because those two estimate are somehow close to one another, so the bigger one is obviously correct.

Quote:
 
I don't know. Ibrahim 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.

Some of the authors of the paper communicated to Andrea Cau that their estimated weight of the model (6-7 tonnes) was smaller than the maximum known size of Tyrannosaurus (>8 tonnes), so Ibrahim was most likely referring to length only.

Quote:
 
You can't state BOTH that the model was a chimera and had some disproportions AND that its hindlimbs were correct.

I can, because the chimeric elements are restricted to a few isolated neck vertebrae, the humerus and the upper jaw. These things do not change the relative scaling between the torso and hindlimbs. The specimen preserving the short hindlimbs is not a chimera, only the skeleton model Ibrahim et al. produced is.

Quote:
 
Dal Sasso said we do.

And his co-authors - Maganuco, Buffetaut and Mendez. However, Dal Sasso and Maganuco both worked on the Ibrahim et al. study, where they revised their estimate old estimate. If you want to cite Dal Sasso you should be citing Ibrahim et al.




Also since you asked in a later comment about skull size in other spinosaurids, so you can estimate the length of Spinosaurus, it's actually a bit tricky. No known spinosaurid is known from a complete skull, the most complete skull known is Irritator's which isn't all that helpful because it doesn't preserve any post-cranial elements.

I'll use the skull lengths Scott Hartman restores for them, and use that to estimate Spinosaurus' size for you.

Firstly, his Spinosaurus has an estimated skull length of ~157 cm, the full animal has a tip-to-tip length of 13.42 meters and Hartman has stated that it measures 14 meters over curves. It's head-body length, i.e. from the tip of the snout to the back of the illium, or hip bone, measures ~7.1 meters in a straight line.

His Baryonyx has an estimated skull length of ~95 cm long, and the full animal has a tip-to-tip length of 9.04 meters, and probably measures around 9.45 meters over curves. Head-body length is ~4.2 meters.
Spinosaurus has an estimated skull length that is ~65% greater than that of Baryonyx, therefore we can estimate it to measure ~14.9 meters tip-to-tip, or ~15.6 meters over curves.
This is deceptive, however, as Hartman restores Baryonyx with a very long tail; scaling it up to Spinoaurus' skull size yields a head-body length of ~6.9 meters, which is actually slightly lower than what Hartman restores Spinosaurus itself at.

His Suchomimus does not come with a scale bar, but thankfully we know the length of the femur - 107.5 cm. From this we can estimate that Hartman restores Suchomimus with a skull ~143 cm long, with the full thing measuring ~11.1 meters tip-to-tip and maybe ~11.6 meters over curves. Head-body length is ~5.7 meters.
Spinosaurus' skull is an estimated 9.8% larger than Suchomimus', therefore we can estimate it to measure ~12.2 meters tip-to-tip, maybe ~12.7 meters over curves with a head-body length of ~6.3 meters.
As you can see, Hartman restores Suchomimus with a proportionally much larger head than he does Spinosaurus or Baryonyx. And yes Suchomimus itself is actually really big.

If we take the estimates above and average them, we have an estimated tip-to-tip length of ~13.55 meters, an estimated over curves length of ~14.15 meters and an estimated head-body length of ~6.6 meters. The tip-to-tip and over curves lengths are slightly larger than what Hartman actually restores the Spinosaurus type specimen at - 13.4 and 14 meters respectively - whilst the head-body length is actually slightly lower than his estimated 7.1 meters. I would tentatively estimate it at around 7,000 kg, comparable in size to the type specimens of Giganotosaurus (6,800 kg) and Tyrannosaurus (7,600 kg).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Nov 8 2015, 08:22 AM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 8 2015, 08:18 AM
We agree that Spinosaurus was quadrupedal
No, we don't. Another example of you being ignorant and/or lacking reading comprehension.


Quote:
 
if Ibrahim says it was bigger than T-Rex then he is a faeceshole and he should kill himself?


Do you suffer from autism or something?
Maybe not autism,but he definitely has a learning disability that we all have to cope with.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Nov 9 2015, 12:36 PM
Quote:
 
So what is this specimen considered to be, if not a Spinosaurus?

An indeterminate spinosaurid.

Quote:
 
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.
...
So if we have those 15+ m. estimations and one 18 m. estimation, then why is it excluded that Spinosaurus reached 18 m.?

You are clinging to one single estimate, purely because it happens to be the largest. And for the last time, 15 meters is not close to 18 meters. It just isn't, that isn't even up for debate. It would be like finding the skeleton of a 180 cm tall hominid and then proudly proclaiming that it was actually 216 cm tall because those two estimate are somehow close to one another, so the bigger one is obviously correct.

Quote:
 
I don't know. Ibrahim 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.

Some of the authors of the paper communicated to Andrea Cau that their estimated weight of the model (6-7 tonnes) was smaller than the maximum known size of Tyrannosaurus (>8 tonnes), so Ibrahim was most likely referring to length only.

Quote:
 
You can't state BOTH that the model was a chimera and had some disproportions AND that its hindlimbs were correct.

I can, because the chimeric elements are restricted to a few isolated neck vertebrae, the humerus and the upper jaw. These things do not change the relative scaling between the torso and hindlimbs. The specimen preserving the short hindlimbs is not a chimera, only the skeleton model Ibrahim et al. produced is.

Quote:
 
Dal Sasso said we do.

And his co-authors - Maganuco, Buffetaut and Mendez. However, Dal Sasso and Maganuco both worked on the Ibrahim et al. study, where they revised their estimate old estimate. If you want to cite Dal Sasso you should be citing Ibrahim et al.




Also since you asked in a later comment about skull size in other spinosaurids, so you can estimate the length of Spinosaurus, it's actually a bit tricky. No known spinosaurid is known from a complete skull, the most complete skull known is Irritator's which isn't all that helpful because it doesn't preserve any post-cranial elements.

I'll use the skull lengths Scott Hartman restores for them, and use that to estimate Spinosaurus' size for you.

Firstly, his Spinosaurus has an estimated skull length of ~157 cm, the full animal has a tip-to-tip length of 13.42 meters and Hartman has stated that it measures 14 meters over curves. It's head-body length, i.e. from the tip of the snout to the back of the illium, or hip bone, measures ~7.1 meters in a straight line.

His Baryonyx has an estimated skull length of ~95 cm long, and the full animal has a tip-to-tip length of 9.04 meters, and probably measures around 9.45 meters over curves. Head-body length is ~4.2 meters.
Spinosaurus has an estimated skull length that is ~65% greater than that of Baryonyx, therefore we can estimate it to measure ~14.9 meters tip-to-tip, or ~15.6 meters over curves.
This is deceptive, however, as Hartman restores Baryonyx with a very long tail; scaling it up to Spinoaurus' skull size yields a head-body length of ~6.9 meters, which is actually slightly lower than what Hartman restores Spinosaurus itself at.

His Suchomimus does not come with a scale bar, but thankfully we know the length of the femur - 107.5 cm. From this we can estimate that Hartman restores Suchomimus with a skull ~143 cm long, with the full thing measuring ~11.1 meters tip-to-tip and maybe ~11.6 meters over curves. Head-body length is ~5.7 meters.
Spinosaurus' skull is an estimated 9.8% larger than Suchomimus', therefore we can estimate it to measure ~12.2 meters tip-to-tip, maybe ~12.7 meters over curves with a head-body length of ~6.3 meters.
As you can see, Hartman restores Suchomimus with a proportionally much larger head than he does Spinosaurus or Baryonyx. And yes Suchomimus itself is actually really big.

If we take the estimates above and average them, we have an estimated tip-to-tip length of ~13.55 meters, an estimated over curves length of ~14.15 meters and an estimated head-body length of ~6.6 meters. The tip-to-tip and over curves lengths are slightly larger than what Hartman actually restores the Spinosaurus type specimen at - 13.4 and 14 meters respectively - whilst the head-body length is actually slightly lower than his estimated 7.1 meters. I would tentatively estimate it at around 7,000 kg, comparable in size to the type specimens of Giganotosaurus (6,800 kg) and Tyrannosaurus (7,600 kg).
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
So what is this specimen considered to be, if not a Spinosaurus?

An indeterminate spinosaurid.


I want a source supporting this.

So you are indirectly telling me that MSNM V4047 might have belonged to an unknown spinosaurid, larger than Spinosaurus?

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
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.
...
So if we have those 15+ m. estimations and one 18 m. estimation, then why is it excluded that Spinosaurus reached 18 m.?

You are clinging to one single estimate, purely because it happens to be the largest. And for the last time, 15 meters is not close to 18 meters. It just isn't, that isn't even up for debate. It would be like finding the skeleton of a 180 cm tall hominid and then proudly proclaiming that it was actually 216 cm tall because those two estimate are somehow close to one another, so the bigger one is obviously correct.


Actually, if there was evidence that this skeleton might have been 216 cm. tall, then you could state that you might have found a very tall human, cause 180 cm. is the AVERAGE height of a human. So maybe 15 m. was the average length of an adult Spinosaurus while 18 m. was the maximum length. Similarly, Blue Whales are typically less than 30 m. long and weight less than 150 tons. Humans are around 180 cm. tall, but there are some much taller (humans are very strange, regarding this). Tyrannosaurus for example is known from Sue and several other skeletons that are all smaller than her. There is also this UCMP that I mentioned before (I always forget the number) but this is only a toe so for now there is no valid proof that Sue was actually an average sized Tyrannosaurus.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
I don't know. Ibrahim 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.

Some of the authors of the paper communicated to Andrea Cau that their estimated weight of the model (6-7 tonnes) was smaller than the maximum known size of Tyrannosaurus (>8 tonnes), so Ibrahim was most likely referring to length only.


Most probably.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
You can't state BOTH that the model was a chimera and had some disproportions AND that its hindlimbs were correct.

I can, because the chimeric elements are restricted to a few isolated neck vertebrae, the humerus and the upper jaw. These things do not change the relative scaling between the torso and hindlimbs. The specimen preserving the short hindlimbs is not a chimera, only the skeleton model Ibrahim et al. produced is.


I have heard that after Scott Hartman made that small correction on Ibrahim's model, he replied to him and tried to assure him that his specimen was actually a single one.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Dal Sasso said we do.

And his co-authors - Maganuco, Buffetaut and Mendez. However, Dal Sasso and Maganuco both worked on the Ibrahim et al. study, where they revised their estimate old estimate. If you want to cite Dal Sasso you should be citing Ibrahim et al.


I do. Don't I?

But you are gonna say "Why? Is there valid proof that Dal Sasso's estimations might have been right and that there were Spinosaurus longer than 15 m.?" Well let's see.

Quote:
 
Also since you asked in a later comment about skull size in other spinosaurids, so you can estimate the length of Spinosaurus, it's actually a bit tricky. No known spinosaurid is known from a complete skull, the most complete skull known is Irritator's which isn't all that helpful because it doesn't preserve any post-cranial elements.


Damn it.

Quote:
 
Firstly, his Spinosaurus has an estimated skull length of ~157 cm, the full animal has a tip-to-tip length of 13.42 meters and Hartman has stated that it measures 14 meters over curves. It's head-body length, i.e. from the tip of the snout to the back of the illium, or hip bone, measures ~7.1 meters in a straight line.


What skull did Hartman use to estimate this? 157 cm. is said to be a low estimation of the length of the skull of Spinosaurus. The upper estimation is 175 cm (at least according to what I posted below, some say it might have been longer but forget it now).

François Therrien and Donald Henderson, in a 2007 paper using scaling based on skull length, challenged previous estimates of the size of Spinosaurus, finding the length too great and the weight too small.[2] Based on estimated skull lengths of 1.5 to 1.75 meters (4.9 to 5.7 ft), their estimates include a body length of 12.6 to 14.3 meters (41 to 47 ft) and a body mass of 12 to 20.9 tonnes (11.8 to 20.6 long tons; 13.2 to 23.0 short tons).[2] The lower estimates for Spinosaurus would imply that the animal was shorter and lighter than Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus.[2] The Therrien and Henderson study has been criticized for the choice of theropods used for comparison (e.g., most of the theropods used to set the initial equations were tyrannosaurids and carnosaurs, which have a different build than spinosaurids), and for the assumption that the Spinosaurus skull could be as little as 1.5 meters (4.9 ft) in length.[9][10]

Quote:
 
His Baryonyx has an estimated skull length of ~95 cm long, and the full animal has a tip-to-tip length of 9.04 meters, and probably measures around 9.45 meters over curves. Head-body length is ~4.2 meters.
Spinosaurus has an estimated skull length that is ~65% greater than that of Baryonyx, therefore we can estimate it to measure ~14.9 meters tip-to-tip, or ~15.6 meters over curves.
This is deceptive, however, as Hartman restores Baryonyx with a very long tail; scaling it up to Spinoaurus' skull size yields a head-body length of ~6.9 meters, which is actually slightly lower than what Hartman restores Spinosaurus itself at.


This Baryonyx isn't based on the holotype, right? The holotype was smaller.

Using an 175 cm. long skull (read above) you get a length of 17,4 m. over curves.

Quote:
 
His Suchomimus does not come with a scale bar, but thankfully we know the length of the femur - 107.5 cm. From this we can estimate that Hartman restores Suchomimus with a skull ~143 cm long, with the full thing measuring ~11.1 meters tip-to-tip and maybe ~11.6 meters over curves. Head-body length is ~5.7 meters.
Spinosaurus' skull is an estimated 9.8% larger than Suchomimus', therefore we can estimate it to measure ~12.2 meters tip-to-tip, maybe ~12.7 meters over curves with a head-body length of ~6.3 meters.
As you can see, Hartman restores Suchomimus with a proportionally much larger head than he does Spinosaurus or Baryonyx. And yes Suchomimus itself is actually really big.


This is strange. I read on Wikipedia that Dal Sasso used Suchomimus to give the estimation of 16-18 m. And yet you used it here again and the result is much less.

Using some information, from Wikipedia as I always do (In 2010, Baryonyx was estimated to have been 7.5 m (25 ft) long and to have weighed 1.2 t (1.3 short tons).) I tried to estimate the approximate weight of a 15,6 m. long Spinosaurus.

(15,6/7,5)^3=8,998912
ANSx1,2=10,7986944 tons

It does sound quite normal (talking about Hartman's reconstruction). If you take Ibrahim's it must be less. If you take 18 m. one it's 16,5888 tons.
Drift
Nov 10 2015, 03:38 AM
Spartan
Nov 8 2015, 08:22 AM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 8 2015, 08:18 AM
We agree that Spinosaurus was quadrupedal
No, we don't. Another example of you being ignorant and/or lacking reading comprehension.<br /><br /><br />
Quote:
 
if Ibrahim says it was bigger than T-Rex then he is a faeceshole and he should kill himself?
<br /><br />Do you suffer from autism or something?
Maybe not autism,but he definitely has a learning disability that we all have to cope with.
It's called sarcasm, you know. It has been invented.
I tried to make a picture that would help me estimate the overall length of MSNM V4047. The red line marks the part that has been found (the upper jaw from the red line and to the left).

I estimated it at 173 cm. (the discovered part is 98 cm.).

Assuming it was a Spinosaurus and using Baryonyx to estimate its size we have a length of 17,2 m. over curves, if we use this information
In 2010, Baryonyx was estimated to have been 7.5 m (25 ft) long and to have weighed 1.2 t (1.3 short tons).[1] It was estimated at 10 m (33 ft) in 1997 and 9.5 m (31 ft) and 1.7–2.7 t (1.9–3.0 short tons) in 1988. (Was Hartman active in 1988?)

we have a weight of at least around 10,249 and at most 16,27808 tons for this specimen.
Attached to this post:
Attachments: MSNM_V4047.png (155.31 KB)
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 10 2015, 06:03 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I want a source supporting this.

So you are indirectly telling me that MSNM V4047 might have belonged to an unknown spinosaurid, larger than Spinosaurus?


Evers et al., 2015, although they do not directly state it about MSNM V4047, they do state that isolated spinosaurid remains from the Kem Kem Beds cannot be referred to any known spinosaurid at this time unless they directly overlap with known remains of a given species. Since MSNM V4047 is just an isolated rostrum, it falls foul of this.

Although in fairness, it's straight conical teeth are highly suggestive that it is at least spinosaurine.

It might be from an individual larger than known Spinosaurus remains, or it might not.

Quote:
 
Actually, if there was evidence that this skeleton might have been 216 cm. tall, then you could state that you might have found a very tall human, cause 180 cm. is the AVERAGE height of a human

If. If there was evidence, but there isn't, that's the whole point.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
I can, because the chimeric elements are restricted to a few isolated neck vertebrae, the humerus and the upper jaw. These things do not change the relative scaling between the torso and hindlimbs. The specimen preserving the short hindlimbs is not a chimera, only the skeleton model Ibrahim et al. produced is.

I have heard that after Scott Hartman made that small correction on Ibrahim's model, he replied to him and tried to assure him that his specimen was actually a single one.


Yes, this specimen is most likely just a single specimen, or if it isn't then it is two specimens of comparable size and age to each other. The specimen is not a chimera I literally said that in the passage you quoted.
The skeleton model that Ibrahim et al. produced is, however, a chimera, because it contains remains from at least two different species of spinosaurids, it could contain as many as 3-4 different species.

But, again, the specimen that preserves the short hindlimbs is not a chimera.

Quote:
 
What skull did Hartman use to estimate this? 157 cm. is said to be a low estimation of the length of the skull of Spinosaurus. The upper estimation is 175 cm (at least according to what I posted below, some say it might have been longer but forget it now).

That's just how large the complete skull came out as, the upper estimate of 175 cm is not relevant as it is, again, scaled based on MSNM V4047. Hartman's scaling of MSNM V4047 yields a skull length of 174 cm, comparable to what Dal Sasso et al. estimated for it.

The Therrien & Henderson study you referred to also used the Dal Sasso et al. skull, scaled to MSNM V4047, but provided a smaller estimate in addition to the original by rather arbitrarily 'measuring' to a different point of the skull. I put 'measured' in quotes because their revised estimate isn't even a proper measurement, they merely state that since Dal Sasso et al's skull is 175 cm in maximum length (up to the squamosal to be precise), it is reasonable to estimate it at only 150 cm up the quadratojugal (which is the measurement they universally used in their study).
However, had they bothered to actually calculate this they would have realised they were wrong, as if you measure Dal Sasso et al.'s skull up to the tip of the quadratojugal it is actually 160 cm.

See this skull diagram for the names of individual skull bones and their position on the skull.

Quote:
 
This Baryonyx isn't based on the holotype, right? The holotype was smaller.

I should have specified, but all the measurements I gave in the calculations at the end of my post are based on the holotype specimens of Baryonyx, Suchomimus and Spinosaurus. I did not use any referred specimens.

Quote:
 
This is strange. I read on Wikipedia that Dal Sasso used Suchomimus to give the estimation of 16-18 m. And yet you used it here again and the result is much less.

This is another reason I do not consider the Dal Sasso et al. estimate to be all that reliable. This is how they estimated the size of Spinosaurus:

Dal Sasso et al.
2005
With an appropriate degree
of caution, the size of the whole animal (Fig. 5C) can be
calculated by reconstructing the skeleton on the basis of both
the remains of the holotype of Spinosaurus (Stromer, 1915) and
Suchomimus (Sereno et al., 1998). The estimated length for
MSNM V4047 is about 16–18 m, and presuming that the body
proportions were the same as for Suchomimus (Sereno et al.,
1998), using Seebacher’s (2001) method we obtain a weight
around 7–9 t.

Seebacher (2001) estimated Suchomimus at 11 meters and 3.8 tonnes, so immediately we can see a problem with the estimates Dal Sasso et al. make. If they truly assumed the same body proportions as in Suchomimus, then their weight estimate would be expected to be in the region of 11.7 - 16.7 tonnes, yet somehow they only managed to estimate it at 7-9 tonnes? I still don't understand how they did that.

The higher length estimates than the ones I calculated is because they assumed Suchomimus' skull to be significantly shorter than what Hartman restores it at. Remember I said that Suchomimus' skull is incomplete? Dal Sasso et al. simply used a shorter skull reconstruction; we can see by their estimated length for Spinosaurus that they must be assuming Suchomimus' skull to have been 107 - 120 cm long, compared to 143 cm that Hartman estimates.
I think Hartman's is more reasonable, take a look at his very old 2003 version of Suchomimus. If you look at the smaller, rigorous version at the top right, you can see what bones are actually known. Look at the skull - although there are plenty of bones missing it doesn't seem possible to make the skull any shorter than it already is, because the ones preserved along the top of it cannot just squish together and shave of 20-40 cm of length.

Note that based on Seebacher's estimates, we can estimate a 14 meter Spinosaurus at 7.8 tonnes. I personally view that as an overestimate, as Hartman in general restores spinosaurids more elongate than how Seebacher estimated Suchomimus plus the latter had a normal sized pelvic girdle and hindlimb whilst both of those in Spinosaurus were absurdly small. Which is why I said I tentatively guestimate Spinosaurus at roughly 7 tonnes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I normally don't even wanna be here in this thread, but if a ~14.15-meter Spinosaurus is at ~7-tonnes, doesn't that mean that a ~16.5-meter-or-so Spinosaurus (MSNM v4047 and possibly NMC 41852, assuming that it was roughly equal to MSNM v4047) would have had a mass of roughly around ~11.1 tonnes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
That is assuming either specimen got that large or are even Spinosaurus to begin with. I am doubtful of both, although MSNM V4047 may indeed still be the largest known theropod specimen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Nov 10 2015, 03:48 PM
That is assuming either specimen got that large or are even Spinosaurus to begin with. I am doubtful of both, although MSNM V4047 may indeed still be the largest known theropod specimen.
Well, based on the Ibrahim et al. reconstruction, MSNM v4047 would have been roughly around ~16.5 meters long in axial length. And the reconstructions we're going by at this time are simply modified versions of the Ibrahim et al. reconstruction. Give or take some, but it ends up at roughly that much.

NMC 41852 is a bit iffy, it could be larger or equal to MSNM v4047 depending on the arm pose of the Ibrahim et al. reconstruction.
Scaling to MSNM v4047's size gives the Ibrahim et al. reconstruction a humerus with an apparent length of around ~63 centimeters, but we don't know if it's in a parasagittal pose or not.

As for the last part, the 19IGR trackmaker is probably larger than both Spinosauri :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Nov 10 2015, 07:35 AM
Quote:
 
I want a source supporting this.

So you are indirectly telling me that MSNM V4047 might have belonged to an unknown spinosaurid, larger than Spinosaurus?


Evers et al., 2015, although they do not directly state it about MSNM V4047, they do state that isolated spinosaurid remains from the Kem Kem Beds cannot be referred to any known spinosaurid at this time unless they directly overlap with known remains of a given species. Since MSNM V4047 is just an isolated rostrum, it falls foul of this.

Although in fairness, it's straight conical teeth are highly suggestive that it is at least spinosaurine.

It might be from an individual larger than known Spinosaurus remains, or it might not.

Quote:
 
Actually, if there was evidence that this skeleton might have been 216 cm. tall, then you could state that you might have found a very tall human, cause 180 cm. is the AVERAGE height of a human

If. If there was evidence, but there isn't, that's the whole point.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
I can, because the chimeric elements are restricted to a few isolated neck vertebrae, the humerus and the upper jaw. These things do not change the relative scaling between the torso and hindlimbs. The specimen preserving the short hindlimbs is not a chimera, only the skeleton model Ibrahim et al. produced is.

I have heard that after Scott Hartman made that small correction on Ibrahim's model, he replied to him and tried to assure him that his specimen was actually a single one.


Yes, this specimen is most likely just a single specimen, or if it isn't then it is two specimens of comparable size and age to each other. The specimen is not a chimera I literally said that in the passage you quoted.
The skeleton model that Ibrahim et al. produced is, however, a chimera, because it contains remains from at least two different species of spinosaurids, it could contain as many as 3-4 different species.

But, again, the specimen that preserves the short hindlimbs is not a chimera.

Quote:
 
What skull did Hartman use to estimate this? 157 cm. is said to be a low estimation of the length of the skull of Spinosaurus. The upper estimation is 175 cm (at least according to what I posted below, some say it might have been longer but forget it now).

That's just how large the complete skull came out as, the upper estimate of 175 cm is not relevant as it is, again, scaled based on MSNM V4047. Hartman's scaling of MSNM V4047 yields a skull length of 174 cm, comparable to what Dal Sasso et al. estimated for it.

The Therrien & Henderson study you referred to also used the Dal Sasso et al. skull, scaled to MSNM V4047, but provided a smaller estimate in addition to the original by rather arbitrarily 'measuring' to a different point of the skull. I put 'measured' in quotes because their revised estimate isn't even a proper measurement, they merely state that since Dal Sasso et al's skull is 175 cm in maximum length (up to the squamosal to be precise), it is reasonable to estimate it at only 150 cm up the quadratojugal (which is the measurement they universally used in their study).
However, had they bothered to actually calculate this they would have realised they were wrong, as if you measure Dal Sasso et al.'s skull up to the tip of the quadratojugal it is actually 160 cm.

See this skull diagram for the names of individual skull bones and their position on the skull.

Quote:
 
This Baryonyx isn't based on the holotype, right? The holotype was smaller.

I should have specified, but all the measurements I gave in the calculations at the end of my post are based on the holotype specimens of Baryonyx, Suchomimus and Spinosaurus. I did not use any referred specimens.

Quote:
 
This is strange. I read on Wikipedia that Dal Sasso used Suchomimus to give the estimation of 16-18 m. And yet you used it here again and the result is much less.

This is another reason I do not consider the Dal Sasso et al. estimate to be all that reliable. This is how they estimated the size of Spinosaurus:

Dal Sasso et al.
2005
With an appropriate degree
of caution, the size of the whole animal (Fig. 5C) can be
calculated by reconstructing the skeleton on the basis of both
the remains of the holotype of Spinosaurus (Stromer, 1915) and
Suchomimus (Sereno et al., 1998). The estimated length for
MSNM V4047 is about 16–18 m, and presuming that the body
proportions were the same as for Suchomimus (Sereno et al.,
1998), using Seebacher’s (2001) method we obtain a weight
around 7–9 t.

Seebacher (2001) estimated Suchomimus at 11 meters and 3.8 tonnes, so immediately we can see a problem with the estimates Dal Sasso et al. make. If they truly assumed the same body proportions as in Suchomimus, then their weight estimate would be expected to be in the region of 11.7 - 16.7 tonnes, yet somehow they only managed to estimate it at 7-9 tonnes? I still don't understand how they did that.

The higher length estimates than the ones I calculated is because they assumed Suchomimus' skull to be significantly shorter than what Hartman restores it at. Remember I said that Suchomimus' skull is incomplete? Dal Sasso et al. simply used a shorter skull reconstruction; we can see by their estimated length for Spinosaurus that they must be assuming Suchomimus' skull to have been 107 - 120 cm long, compared to 143 cm that Hartman estimates.
I think Hartman's is more reasonable, take a look at his very old 2003 version of Suchomimus. If you look at the smaller, rigorous version at the top right, you can see what bones are actually known. Look at the skull - although there are plenty of bones missing it doesn't seem possible to make the skull any shorter than it already is, because the ones preserved along the top of it cannot just squish together and shave of 20-40 cm of length.

Note that based on Seebacher's estimates, we can estimate a 14 meter Spinosaurus at 7.8 tonnes. I personally view that as an overestimate, as Hartman in general restores spinosaurids more elongate than how Seebacher estimated Suchomimus plus the latter had a normal sized pelvic girdle and hindlimb whilst both of those in Spinosaurus were absurdly small. Which is why I said I tentatively guestimate Spinosaurus at roughly 7 tonnes.
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
I want a source supporting this.

So you are indirectly telling me that MSNM V4047 might have belonged to an unknown spinosaurid, larger than Spinosaurus?


Evers et al., 2015, although they do not directly state it about MSNM V4047, they do state that isolated spinosaurid remains from the Kem Kem Beds cannot be referred to any known spinosaurid at this time unless they directly overlap with known remains of a given species. Since MSNM V4047 is just an isolated rostrum, it falls foul of this.


I assume that this indeterminate spinosaurid you were tlaking about is Sigilmassasaurus. If I'm not wrong Sigilmassasaurus is known from vertebra, and not from a snout (MSNM V4047) while since none actually spoke about MSNM V4047 while speaking about Sigilmassasaurus and since it clearly resembles a Spinosaurus snout, I honestly believe that your source doesn't say a lot, so in my opinion MSNM V4047 should be considered a Spinosaurus, at least until there are news regarding this specific fossil itself that imply it was not a Spinosaurus.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Actually, if there was evidence that this skeleton might have been 216 cm. tall, then you could state that you might have found a very tall human, cause 180 cm. is the AVERAGE height of a human

If. If there was evidence, but there isn't, that's the whole point.


I would like you to read above about the estimation I made for MSNM V4047. I have to say that I'm really proud of my work, even though it is amateur and even though you might find mistakes.



I have more to say but later.


And moving on

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
What skull did Hartman use to estimate this? 157 cm. is said to be a low estimation of the length of the skull of Spinosaurus. The upper estimation is 175 cm (at least according to what I posted below, some say it might have been longer but forget it now).

That's just how large the complete skull came out as, the upper estimate of 175 cm is not relevant as it is, again, scaled based on MSNM V4047. Hartman's scaling of MSNM V4047 yields a skull length of 174 cm, comparable to what Dal Sasso et al. estimated for it.

The Therrien & Henderson study you referred to also used the Dal Sasso et al. skull, scaled to MSNM V4047, but provided a smaller estimate in addition to the original by rather arbitrarily 'measuring' to a different point of the skull. I put 'measured' in quotes because their revised estimate isn't even a proper measurement, they merely state that since Dal Sasso et al's skull is 175 cm in maximum length (up to the squamosal to be precise), it is reasonable to estimate it at only 150 cm up the quadratojugal (which is the measurement they universally used in their study).
However, had they bothered to actually calculate this they would have realised they were wrong, as if you measure Dal Sasso et al.'s skull up to the tip of the quadratojugal it is actually 160 cm.


I find Dal Sasso's estimation reasonable, as long as we assume MSNM V4047 is a Spinosaurus (as I said before I don't really think you found real evidence it was not) cause it was a very large skull that belonged to a lightly built dinosaur, while I consider Therrien's and Henderson's estimate ridiculous cause 14 m. AND 20 t. sounds absurd, at least for such lightly built creature.

I will try again to estimate the length of MSNM V4047 (which, as I said, you haven't convinced me that it wasn't a Spinosaurus) and this time I'll use your information about Scott Hartman's Suchomimus (the previous time I used Baryonyx).
SpinoInWonderland
Nov 10 2015, 02:04 PM
I normally don't even wanna be here in this thread, but if a ~14.15-meter Spinosaurus is at ~7-tonnes, doesn't that mean that a ~16.5-meter-or-so Spinosaurus (MSNM v4047 and possibly NMC 41852, assuming that it was roughly equal to MSNM v4047) would have had a mass of roughly around ~11.1 tonnes?
What I support is that Spinosaurus reached a maximum length of 18 m. and a maximum weight of around 10 t.

This is again based on numerous estimation, among which is mine (read above). I estimated a maximum weight of over 16 tons, assuming Baryonyx was 9,45 m. long and weighted 2,7 tons, but maybe this is too much. Basically I agree with Dal Sasso/Ibrahim/Scott Hartman's reply to Ibrahim.
I estimated MSNM V4047 again, this time using the information Spinodontosaurus gave me about Scott Hartman's reconstruction of Suchomimus, and it gave me a length of 15,36 m. (and other digits).

Also, I used some weight estimations for Suchomimus that I read on Wikipedia and I estimated the weight of Spinosaurus at between 4,59 tons and 9,19 tons.
I would like to repost my previous estimation to have both of them.

Quote:
 
I tried to make a picture that would help me estimate the overall length of MSNM V4047. The red line marks the part that has been found (the upper jaw from the red line and to the left).

Posted Image

I estimated it at 173 cm. (the discovered part is 98 cm.).

Assuming it was a Spinosaurus and using Baryonyx to estimate its size we have a length of 17,2 m. over curves, if we use this information
In 2010, Baryonyx was estimated to have been 7.5 m (25 ft) long and to have weighed 1.2 t (1.3 short tons).[1] It was estimated at 10 m (33 ft) in 1997 and 9.5 m (31 ft) and 1.7–2.7 t (1.9–3.0 short tons) in 1988. (Was Hartman active in 1988?)

we have a weight of at least around 10,249 and at most 16,27808 tons for this specimen.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 11 2015, 04:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 11 2015, 12:05 AM
SpinoInWonderland
Nov 10 2015, 02:04 PM
I normally don't even wanna be here in this thread, but if a ~14.15-meter Spinosaurus is at ~7-tonnes, doesn't that mean that a ~16.5-meter-or-so Spinosaurus (MSNM v4047 and possibly NMC 41852, assuming that it was roughly equal to MSNM v4047) would have had a mass of roughly around ~11.1 tonnes?
What I support is that Spinosaurus reached a maximum length of 18 m. and a maximum weight of around 10 t.

This is again based on numerous estimation, among which is mine (read above). I estimated a maximum weight of over 16 tons, assuming Baryonyx was 9,45 m. long and weighted 2,7 tons, but maybe this is too much. Basically I agree with Dal Sasso/Ibrahim/Scott Hartman's reply to Ibrahim.
I estimated MSNM V4047 again, this time using the information Spinodontosaurus gave me about Scott Hartman's reconstruction of Suchomimus, and it gave me a length of 15,36 m. (and other digits).
Um, a hypothetical ~18-meter Spinosaurus would be more massive than ~10 tonnes. More along the lines of ~12-14ish tonnes or so.

And why are you using Suchomimus to estimate Spinosaurus' length? Why not Ibrahim et al's Spinosaurus reconstruction? Whatever it's legs turn out to be has no effect on it's total length.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@SpinoInWonderland
I've measured Ibrahim et al. (2014) reconstruction, at the scale of MSNM V4047 it's shy of 16m in axial length, though, it should be mentioned that Auditore's version is ~14.6m, it has a shorter torso but most of the difference is in the tail.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
SpinoInWonderland
Nov 11 2015, 04:18 AM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 11 2015, 12:05 AM
SpinoInWonderland
Nov 10 2015, 02:04 PM
I normally don't even wanna be here in this thread, but if a ~14.15-meter Spinosaurus is at ~7-tonnes, doesn't that mean that a ~16.5-meter-or-so Spinosaurus (MSNM v4047 and possibly NMC 41852, assuming that it was roughly equal to MSNM v4047) would have had a mass of roughly around ~11.1 tonnes?
What I support is that Spinosaurus reached a maximum length of 18 m. and a maximum weight of around 10 t.

This is again based on numerous estimation, among which is mine (read above). I estimated a maximum weight of over 16 tons, assuming Baryonyx was 9,45 m. long and weighted 2,7 tons, but maybe this is too much. Basically I agree with Dal Sasso/Ibrahim/Scott Hartman's reply to Ibrahim.
I estimated MSNM V4047 again, this time using the information Spinodontosaurus gave me about Scott Hartman's reconstruction of Suchomimus, and it gave me a length of 15,36 m. (and other digits).
Um, a hypothetical ~18-meter Spinosaurus would be more massive than ~10 tonnes. More along the lines of ~12-14ish tonnes or so.

And why are you using Suchomimus to estimate Spinosaurus' length? Why not Ibrahim et al's Spinosaurus reconstruction? Whatever it's legs turn out to be has no effect on it's total length.
Quote:
 
Um, a hypothetical ~18-meter Spinosaurus would be more massive than ~10 tonnes. More along the lines of ~12-14ish tonnes or so.


Why is that? Spinosaurus is known to have been considerably light for its size. However I heard Ibrahim on the video mentioning that it had more solid bones than other dinosaurs, so I have questioned the possibility of this adding more weight.

Quote:
 
And why are you using Suchomimus to estimate Spinosaurus' length? Why not Ibrahim et al's Spinosaurus reconstruction? Whatever it's legs turn out to be has no effect on it's total length.


My estimates are approximate. I used both Baryonyx and Suchomimus cause their skulls had proportionally different size, so having the overall length of MSNM V4047 I could use it to measure the rest of the creature. I fell close to Dal Sasso with Baryonyx and again at over 15 m. with Suchomimus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 10 2015, 04:14 AM

Drift
Nov 10 2015, 03:38 AM
Spartan
Nov 8 2015, 08:22 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Maybe not autism,but he definitely has a learning disability that we all have to cope with.
It's called sarcasm, you know. It has been invented.
I tried to make a picture that would help me estimate the overall length of MSNM V4047. The red line marks the part that has been found (the upper jaw from the red line and to the left).

I estimated it at 173 cm. (the discovered part is 98 cm.).

Assuming it was a Spinosaurus and using Baryonyx to estimate its size we have a length of 17,2 m. over curves, if we use this information
In 2010, Baryonyx was estimated to have been 7.5 m (25 ft) long and to have weighed 1.2 t (1.3 short tons).[1] It was estimated at 10 m (33 ft) in 1997 and 9.5 m (31 ft) and 1.7–2.7 t (1.9–3.0 short tons) in 1988. (Was Hartman active in 1988?)

we have a weight of at least around 10,249 and at most 16,27808 tons for this specimen.
Third rate trolling,Seeing as how i don't think you understand what sarcasm is.Accusations riddled with cognitive bias, being corrected repeatedly on mentioned prey items sharing habitats with your favored & ridiculously idealistic 14 tonne 18 meter animal.The basis for their Centre of Mass estimate was a rendered 3-D model (the Ibrahim paper) which yields far more merit as to the actual weight of spinosaurus aegyptiacus than "This paper is false due to not portraying an animal how i envision it".Regarding its maximum accepted weights and anatomy,Why do you infer that you know better than paleontologists dedicating their livelihoods to studying every explicit detail surrounding dinosauria morphology?

There's no factual proof that MSNM V4047 is indisputable evidence of spinosaurus aegyptiacus remains,And it seems you're clinging to it so as to see spinosaurus aegyptiacus embelished to its 2001 status,you also hypocritically tell others not to indulge fully in the Ibrahim paper because that just allegedly is in favor of their favorite Tyrannosaurus...while simultaneously touting absolute maximum fictitious weights/lengths that you believe are sustainable for the longevity of a piscivore.

The majority of the members posting here decide the outcome from reliable sources and not opinions,Look at the tried and true papers and studies depicting these animals as they were and not what you want them to be.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Drift
Nov 11 2015, 05:01 AM
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 10 2015, 04:14 AM

Drift
Nov 10 2015, 03:38 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
It's called sarcasm, you know. It has been invented.
I tried to make a picture that would help me estimate the overall length of MSNM V4047. The red line marks the part that has been found (the upper jaw from the red line and to the left).

I estimated it at 173 cm. (the discovered part is 98 cm.).

Assuming it was a Spinosaurus and using Baryonyx to estimate its size we have a length of 17,2 m. over curves, if we use this information
In 2010, Baryonyx was estimated to have been 7.5 m (25 ft) long and to have weighed 1.2 t (1.3 short tons).[1] It was estimated at 10 m (33 ft) in 1997 and 9.5 m (31 ft) and 1.7–2.7 t (1.9–3.0 short tons) in 1988. (Was Hartman active in 1988?)

we have a weight of at least around 10,249 and at most 16,27808 tons for this specimen.
Third rate trolling,Seeing as how i don't think you understand what sarcasm is.Accusations riddled with cognitive bias, being corrected repeatedly on mentioned prey items sharing habitats with your favored & ridiculously idealistic 14 tonne 18 meter animal.The basis for their Centre of Mass estimate was a rendered 3-D model (the Ibrahim paper) which yields far more merit as to the actual weight of spinosaurus aegyptiacus than "This paper is false due to not portraying an animal how i envision it".Regarding its maximum accepted weights and anatomy,Why do you infer that you know better than paleontologists dedicating their livelihoods to studying every explicit detail surrounding dinosauria morphology?

There's no factual proof that MSNM V4047 is indisputable evidence of spinosaurus aegyptiacus remains,And it seems you're clinging to it so as to see spinosaurus aegyptiacus embelished to its 2001 status,you also hypocritically tell others not to indulge fully in the Ibrahim paper because that just allegedly is in favor of their favorite Tyrannosaurus...while simultaneously touting absolute maximum fictitious weights/lengths that you believe are sustainable for the longevity of a piscivore.

The majority of the members posting here decide the outcome from reliable sources and not opinions,Look at the tried and true papers and studies depicting these animals as they were and not what you want them to be.
I have repeatedly said that a maximum length of 18 m. and a maximum weight of around 10 tons would seem reasonable, assuming that Spinosaurus was a large, enlongated and lightly built animal. I support this on several estimations of its size, icluding mine which gives MSNM V4047 a length of over 15 m. even when I use Suchomimus, which had a proportionally larger head. And about what Spinodontosaurus assumed, that MSNM V4047 wasn't a Spinosaurus Aegyptiacus, he gave me ONE source and this isn't even mentioned in it. And I do support the fact that Ibrahim might have made a good reconstruction, even though I still question it, cause it IS questionable.

So if there's anyone here right now who can blame someone of using fake facts in favor of the dinosaur he likes, this is me. I can blame Spinodontosaurus that he used the first source he found that MIGHT have supported that MSNM V4047 wasn't a Spinosaurus, cause he was afraid that MSNM V4047 might would beat Tyrannosaurus. But I do not reach this point. He just found this new study and pointed it out to warn me that the validity of MSNM V4047 is questionable, which I still doubt.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
*Forget this, I seem to have misunderstood the issue*
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Nov 11 2015, 06:56 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
3 users reading this topic (3 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.