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 (459,090 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:
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Nov 14 2015, 09:01 AM
No one cares about your freaking estimates and no one cares about the length of Spinosaurus' tail. Just stop with that.
Quote:
 
No one cares about your freaking estimates


And why is that? What? Only proffessionals have the right to analyze data and say their opinion? Cause with this logic let's do everything exclusively according to what others say without doing anything by ourselves.
Since Wikipedia was mentioned here multiple times, something irrelevant.

http://listen.hatnote.com/
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 14 2015, 09:11 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Because you're clearly biased and not very knowledgeable. I'm not disregarding amateurs in general. Guys like Spinodontosaurus, theropod, blaze and others often have reasonable things to say and sometimes give their own estimates, but these are actually based on something (and often very close to the estimates by professionals). Everything but ignoring the estimate made by a 15 year old that happens to make his favourite dinosaur 45% heavier than the professional's reconstruction (while giving it a shorter head-body length, so the 3t of mass are apparently just in its 10m long tail) would be asinine.
Edited by Spartan, Nov 14 2015, 09:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The supersaurus
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
So Dunkleosteus Gigas thinks that Spinosaurus has a 10 m long tail?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@Dunkleosteus Gigas

You are missing a lot of data, that's the difference, what about estimating yourself the vertebral column of Baryonyx (it's actually missing back vertebrae and all of the tail) and then using the proportions to fill in the gaps in the vertebral column of Spinosaurus? because we do have vertebrae of Spinosaurus, why are you ignoring it in your estimates? replacing them with an scaled up Baryonyx torso? if you had done the above you would have noticed that Spinosaurus has proportionally much longer dorsal centra so at the same torso length it's body would be shallower and narrower than Baryonyx (thus it will weight less) and the shallowness of the torso would be further augmented by the diminutive pelvic girdle.

I agree that a 17m Baryonyx with the proportions of Hartman's reconstructions could weight 10t or perhaps more but Spinosaurus is not an scaled up Baryonyx, you are not accounting for that. Another difference is the dependence of your estimates on a single metric to determine the size of the body, the length of the skull, I don't know if you noticed but most of the past reconstructions by paleontologists have similar head-body lengths despite different skull length, Hartman's is 175cm as is Dal Sasso et al.'s but Ibrahim et al.'s and Auditore's are ~1.6m. why? because they are letting the vertebral column and the lower jaw of the holotype dictate the relative size of the head so as long as that proportion is maintained, how big/long the head reconstruction turns out is never going to impact the size of the body.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Nov 14 2015, 09:21 AM
Because you're clearly biased and not very knowledgeable. I'm not disregarding amateurs in general. Guys like Spinodontosaurus, theropod, blaze and others often have reasonable things to say and sometimes give their own estimates, but these are actually based on something (and often very close to the estimates by professionals). Everything but ignoring the estimate made by a 15 year old that happens to make his favourite dinosaur 45% heavier than the professional's reconstruction (while giving it a shorter head-body length, so the 3t of mass are apparently just in its 10m long tail) would be asinine.
Quote:
 
Because you're clearly biased and not very knowledgeable


I have tons of knowledge. You are saying this just because you disagree with me.

Quote:
 
but these are actually based on something (and often very close to the estimates by professionals)


I don't know if you noticed but my estimates are based on information that I was given by Spinodontosaurus (who took them from Hartman) and Wikipedia. You throw random things at me like that I'm not knowledgeable or that my estimations aren't based on any sources and they aren't close to those of professionals, just because you don't like the fact that I estimated Spinosaurus a few meters longer!

Quote:
 
(while giving it a shorter head-body length, so the 3t of mass are apparently just in its 10m long tail)


I have answered to you about this too. My estimates are based on Baryonyx and Suchomimus. Not some reconstruction of mine that has an absurdly long tail.

Quote:
 
that happens to make his favourite dinosaur 45% heavier than the professional's reconstruction


I estimated it at 10 tons. It is absolutely reasonable.
SamuelwithDinos
Nov 14 2015, 12:47 PM
So Dunkleosteus Gigas thinks that Spinosaurus has a 10 m long tail?
Not at all. It's just that Spartan doesn't like the 18 m. Spinosaurus so he says that in any case the body and neck and skull would be the same as in the 15 m. one and that I enlongated the tail. But what I actually did was to upscale Baryonyx and then repeat with Suchomimus.
blaze
Nov 14 2015, 01:04 PM
@Dunkleosteus Gigas

You are missing a lot of data, that's the difference, what about estimating yourself the vertebral column of Baryonyx (it's actually missing back vertebrae and all of the tail) and then using the proportions to fill in the gaps in the vertebral column of Spinosaurus? because we do have vertebrae of Spinosaurus, why are you ignoring it in your estimates? replacing them with an scaled up Baryonyx torso? if you had done the above you would have noticed that Spinosaurus has proportionally much longer dorsal centra so at the same torso length it's body would be shallower and narrower than Baryonyx (thus it will weight less) and the shallowness of the torso would be further augmented by the diminutive pelvic girdle.

I agree that a 17m Baryonyx with the proportions of Hartman's reconstructions could weight 10t or perhaps more but Spinosaurus is not an scaled up Baryonyx, you are not accounting for that. Another difference is the dependence of your estimates on a single metric to determine the size of the body, the length of the skull, I don't know if you noticed but most of the past reconstructions by paleontologists have similar head-body lengths despite different skull length, Hartman's is 175cm as is Dal Sasso et al.'s but Ibrahim et al.'s and Auditore's are ~1.6m. why? because they are letting the vertebral column and the lower jaw of the holotype dictate the relative size of the head so as long as that proportion is maintained, how big/long the head reconstruction turns out is never going to impact the size of the body.

Quote:
 
You are missing a lot of data, that's the difference, what about estimating yourself the vertebral column of Baryonyx (it's actually missing back vertebrae and all of the tail) and then using the proportions to fill in the gaps in the vertebral column of Spinosaurus? because we do have vertebrae of Spinosaurus, why are you ignoring it in your estimates?


Cause the estimates I did aren't basd on vertebrae. They are based on skulls. As you know I used MSNM V4047, which I consider and almost if not totally maximum sized specimen. But if I find enough time I will try to estimate the length of another specimen from which we have vertebrae.

Quote:
 
at the same torso length it's body would be shallower and narrower than Baryonyx (thus it will weight less)


I estimated a maximum weight of over 16 tons using Baryonyx and a minimum weight of just over 4 tons using Suchomimus (always using data that I was given by Spinodontosaurus and from Wikipedia). I chose the middle solution which is about 10 tons.

Quote:
 
but Ibrahim et al.'s and Auditore's are ~1.6m. why? because they are letting the vertebral column and the lower jaw of the holotype dictate the relative size of the head so as long as that proportion is maintained, how big/long the head reconstruction turns out is never going to impact the size of the body.


I suppose you are not refering to MSNM V4047.
How can they estimate the size of the head using vertebrae? As you can see on my estimates the estimate I did with Suchomimus is different from the estimate I did with Baryonyx. Why? Cause the head has different length on each of the two species.
I believed the best choice would be Irritator but we don't know the head/body size ratio. That;s exactly the problem. When you have just a skull with no torso and tail or just a torso with no tail or skull you can't exactly estimate the length of the animal.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 14 2015, 06:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
You are cherry picking the information I posted, only factoring in the things that allow you to estimate Spinosaurus as large as possible. You keep quoting your Baryonyx based estimate and completely ignore the Suchomimus one, the latter of which you didn't even estimate correctly. You are ignoring that MSNM V4047 cannot be referred to Spinosaurus. You keep repeating the claim of it being 10 tonnes despite your estimate being overall smaller than other, professional reconstructions that are several tonnes lighter than your claimed weight. You keep relying on your skull-length only estimates instead of others by the likes of Scott Hartman that actually account for how large the vertebrae are.

Based on Baryonyx, MSNM V4047 would be ~17.3 meters long. Based on Suchomimus it would be ~14.2 meters long. The mean of those two estimates is 15.75 meters, slightly longer than the 15.6 meters Hartman actually estimated this specimen but with a shorter torso, meaning the extra length is solely thanks to the tail.

If we do the same for the Spinosaurus type specimen, we get a mean of 14.1 meters. A 14 meter Suchomimus would be expected to weigh in the region of 7-8 tonnes, but as Spinosaurus itself is more elongate and has a diminutive pelvic girdle this can only be viewed as an overestimate.

EDIT: How on earth are you using Baryonyx to obtain estimates of over 16 tonnes? To do that would require you assume Baryonyx to have weighed over 2.5 tonnes, which is simply not reasonable.
Edited by Spinodontosaurus, Nov 14 2015, 07:01 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@Dunkleosteus Gigas
"I suppose you are not refering to MSNM V4047."

Indirectly, yes, how much do you scale the lower jaw of the holotype to fit MSNM V4047 would determine the size of the body because we do have a torso associated with a piece of the head... well, used to but we at least have illustrations and measurements of it.

That is why your estimates fall apart, by ignoring what we know of the body of Spinosaurus and the clear link between torso size and skull size represented by the holotype, you are not reconstructing Spinosaurus, you are presenting us with scaled up Baryonyx and Suchomimus with Spinosaurus heads.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Nov 14 2015, 06:57 PM
You are cherry picking the information I posted, only factoring in the things that allow you to estimate Spinosaurus as large as possible. You keep quoting your Baryonyx based estimate and completely ignore the Suchomimus one, the latter of which you didn't even estimate correctly. You are ignoring that MSNM V4047 cannot be referred to Spinosaurus. You keep repeating the claim of it being 10 tonnes despite your estimate being overall smaller than other, professional reconstructions that are several tonnes lighter than your claimed weight. You keep relying on your skull-length only estimates instead of others by the likes of Scott Hartman that actually account for how large the vertebrae are.

Based on Baryonyx, MSNM V4047 would be ~17.3 meters long. Based on Suchomimus it would be ~14.2 meters long. The mean of those two estimates is 15.75 meters, slightly longer than the 15.6 meters Hartman actually estimated this specimen but with a shorter torso, meaning the extra length is solely thanks to the tail.

If we do the same for the Spinosaurus type specimen, we get a mean of 14.1 meters. A 14 meter Suchomimus would be expected to weigh in the region of 7-8 tonnes, but as Spinosaurus itself is more elongate and has a diminutive pelvic girdle this can only be viewed as an overestimate.

EDIT: How on earth are you using Baryonyx to obtain estimates of over 16 tonnes? To do that would require you assume Baryonyx to have weighed over 2.5 tonnes, which is simply not reasonable.
Quote:
 
You keep quoting your Baryonyx based estimate and completely ignore the Suchomimus one, the latter of which you didn't even estimate correctly.


I estimated it perfectly and I do not ignore it at all. This is exactly why did it. To prevent comments such as this "you did it only with Baryonyx".

Quote:
 
You keep relying on your skull-length only estimates instead of others by the likes of Scott Hartman that actually account for how large the vertebrae are.


I asked you to find for me information about the skulls of Baryonyx and Suchomimus and you did. I wasn't planning to use vertebrae. At least not yet.

Quote:
 
If we do the same for the Spinosaurus type specimen, we get a mean of 14.1 meters. A 14 meter Suchomimus would be expected to weigh in the region of 7-8 tonnes, but as Spinosaurus itself is more elongate and has a diminutive pelvic girdle this can only be viewed as an overestimate.


Off course it's an overestimate. If a 18 m. Spinosaurus weighted 10 tons then a 14 m. one weighted less than 5 tons.

Quote:
 
EDIT: How on earth are you using Baryonyx to obtain estimates of over 16 tonnes? To do that would require you assume Baryonyx to have weighed over 2.5 tonnes, which is simply not reasonable.


At this point there is something I would like to say to all of you. If you are wodnering "how the hell did you do this" and "how the hell did you find that", just find the post where I have my estimations and read it carefully. For the weight I used information from Wikipedia about a Baryonyx sismilar in length to Hartman's and a Suchomimus similar in length to Hartman's. Baryonyx was more ehavily built while Suchomimus was more lightly built. So I take the middle solution. Around 10 tons.
blaze
Nov 14 2015, 07:36 PM
@Dunkleosteus Gigas
"I suppose you are not refering to MSNM V4047."

Indirectly, yes, how much do you scale the lower jaw of the holotype to fit MSNM V4047 would determine the size of the body because we do have a torso associated with a piece of the head... well, used to but we at least have illustrations and measurements of it.

That is why your estimates fall apart, by ignoring what we know of the body of Spinosaurus and the clear link between torso size and skull size represented by the holotype, you are not reconstructing Spinosaurus, you are presenting us with scaled up Baryonyx and Suchomimus with Spinosaurus heads.

Quote:
 
because we do have a torso associated with a piece of the head... well, used to but we at least have illustrations and measurements of it.


MSNM V4047 had a torso but it was lost?

Quote:
 
That is why your estimates fall apart, by ignoring what we know of the body of Spinosaurus and the clear link between torso size and skull size represented by the holotype, you are not reconstructing Spinosaurus, you are presenting us with scaled up Baryonyx and Suchomimus with Spinosaurus heads.


I will do my next estimations based on the holotype. It will take time but I believe I can do it with simple maths.

There's something I'll need. Information about the numbers we give to the vertebrae. Each vertebra has a number to be recognised from the others. But I don't know how do we count them. If I want to compare the vertebrae of the holotype to those of Baryonyx I have to take to similar ones but if you were giving me a picture right now I wouldn't know which ones to choose from each species.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 14 2015, 08:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 14 2015, 08:13 PM
If a 18 m. Spinosaurus weighted 10 tons then a 14 m. one weighted less than 5 tons.
Look at this image and take it in. Let it's message sink in.

Posted Image

Also, I advise, that, if you have a copy of "All Yesterdays", go to the "All Todays" section and let it sink in.

Please, just please stop shrinkwrapping dinosaurs.

An ~18-meter Spinosaurus would have exceeded ~10 tonnes as a healthy individual, especially with Duane Nash's proposed thick skin. Likewise, a ~14-meter Spinosaurus would likely have been more massive than what you claim it to be.
Edited by SpinoInWonderland, Nov 14 2015, 08:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Can we just please end this? Everything is said and every halfway sane person reading this sees which side's arguments are more convincing.
Edited by Spartan, Nov 14 2015, 09:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Nov 14 2015, 08:13 PM
I estimated it perfectly and I do not ignore it at all.
Scaling MSNM V4047 based on Suchomimus yields 14.2 meters, not the 15.4 meters that you claimed it did. Then you keep claiming that your estimate supports the 18 meter estimate despite only the Baryonyx one even coming close to doing so, and take weight estimates from Wikipedia that are completely un-sourced all the while using a specimen that doesn't even belong to Spinosaurus.

And I know you didn't ask for vertebrae information, my point is is that you keep ignoring reconstructions that are actually based on those vertebrae in favour of your own estimate. And 10 tonnes is not a 'middle solution', it is higher than any recent attempts to rigorously estimate Spinosaurus' size, the only estimate higher than it is from Therrein and Henderson (2007) which essentially treated it as a gigantic, ultra fat tyrannosaurid. Just look at their data, their Tyrannosaurus is 9.1 tonnes with a 139 cm skull, yet somehow their estimate for MSNM V4047 is over 3 tonnes heavier than linear scaling based on their Tyrannosaurus estimate suggests!

Dal Sasso et al. estimated it at 7-9 tonnes, Ibrahim et al. at 6-7 tonnes, both reconstructions are larger than your own (bar tail length) yet you are still claiming that 10 tonnes is reasonable. It isn't.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Nov 14 2015, 09:31 PM
Can we just please end this? Everything is said and every halfway sane person reading this sees which side's arguments are more convincing.
Easier said than done, unfortunately. I posted a scenario from Cau's blog which should appease both sides here and yet they weren't satisfied.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
"MSNM V4047 had a torso but it was lost?"

Are you being facetious? how could you have missed the text right before what you quoted? me writing "How big you scale V4047 to fit the holotype would determine the size of the body" obviously implies that the specimen with pieces of head and torso is the holotype.

edit:
@SpinoInWonderland
I think the author of that drawing was being hyperbolic, look up skeletons of baboons, the torso is much deeper posteriorly, not much different from the live animal, the shrink-wrap along the back legs is also very exaggerated as it completely ignored the iliac blades, having the thighs cover not much more than the vicinity of the acetabulum, Greg Paul always portrayed the thighs going the whole length of the hips.

Besides, why are you so sure Ibrahim et al. model is shrink-wrapped? it has tucked-in gastralia but if you look at the flesh profile it completely ignores it that kink.
Edited by blaze, Nov 15 2015, 01:52 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
blaze
Nov 15 2015, 01:33 AM
@SpinoInWonderland
I think the author of that drawing was being hyperbolic, look up skeletons of baboons, the torso is much deeper posteriorly, not much different from the live animal, the shrink-wrap along the back legs is also very exaggerated as it completely ignored the iliac blades, having the thighs cover not much more than the vicinity of the acetabulum, Greg Paul always portrayed the thighs going the whole length of the hips.

Besides, why are you so sure Ibrahim et al. model is shrink-wrapped? it has tucked-in gastralia but if you look at the flesh profile it completely ignores it that kink.
The point remains the same though, shrinkwrapping ain't good for you. Maybe I should have posted this instead?

And actually, the Ibrahim et al. flesh outline does follow the tucked-in gastralia.

Posted Image
(Click the image to see it at full size)

And LOL at the guy who said that MSNM v4047 had a torso that was then lost. The only part of the MSNM v4047 specimen found was the front part of it's skull. Nothing else says otherwise.
Edited by SpinoInWonderland, Nov 15 2015, 04:04 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Anyway, I believe that a Spinosaurus weighting over 7 tons would have high chances of winning.

I will use the vertebrae of Baryonyx and the holotype to estimate the body length/skull length ratio.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.