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 (459,350 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:
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
They said MAXIMUM for T rex, that means they probably included the fragmentary rexes, however average sharks are much smaller than they can be, because they grow only slowly and I think it's easier to say the size and weight of living animals, than extinct ones. Do you think their Sawfish data was made up?

The maximum length for T rex should be 14+m base on UCMP 137538, i really don't know where do they get that 13,7m T rex from. So can you answer why the MAXIMUM weight for T rex is only 5,4 TONNES ???. They also stated that Giganotosaurus is the largest land carnovore of all time !
Not to mention that using Randall method to estimate size of Megalodon is probably outdated
I don't think that sawfish data is made up, but that is just an individual, you cannot use an individual as the average size of the whole species
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, that individuals weight can be used as basis for Onchopristis weight, exept if it was a very fat sawfish.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Sep 9 2012, 05:49 PM
Well, that individuals weight can be used as basis for Onchopristis weight, exept if it was a very fat sawfish.
I think it is a pretty fat one, i can't image how a much less robust sawfish being much heavier than a GWS at equal length
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
O.K. than 1t for Onchopristis seems realistic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Sep 9 2012, 05:57 PM
Jinfengopteryx
Sep 9 2012, 05:49 PM
Well, that individuals weight can be used as basis for Onchopristis weight, exept if it was a very fat sawfish.
I think it is a pretty fat one, i can't image how a much less robust sawfish being much heavier than a GWS at equal length
much heavier? this sawfish is 18m long and probably around 2t, that´s not much heavier than gws at the same size, and appearantly there are individuals with such a bulkiness.

There was a time where generally all theropod weight estimates were very low. That´s the time in which chure suggested 3t for a 14m saurophaganax and where 4,5t for T. rex was estimated. You can think is too low, it probably is, but you can´t jsut ignore the fact that it is also msot likely lower than you think it was. mass estimates are centering around 6t, that´s it.

and no, the maximum size of T. rex to date is 12,3m, the rest are fragments that might have belonged to larger animals, but what´s actually interesting is that no scientist bothered to mention UCMP 137538 was particularly large, the largest rex of all time, even though they where fully aware of it´s size.
explanation:
-typing error: written IV-2 instead of III-2
-guess: no real evidence for it being IV-2
-typing error: written 13cm instead of 11 (which would still be around sue sized and large, as they suggested) this is rather unlikely, as from the photo we can see that it was really huge.

To date we don´t have any clue what specific size megalodon really reached, and maybe the autors consider this metod as accurate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I suspect the IV-2 vs III-2 error myself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
much heavier? this sawfish is 18m long and probably around 2t, that´s not much heavier than gws at the same size, and appearantly there are individuals with such a bulkiness.

18m ??. Must be typing error lol . An 8m sawfish is actually 5,5m because its saw has already been 2,5m long. A much more robust GWS rarely exceed 2 tons at 5,5m. So why a much less robust sawfish being heavier ??
Quote:
 
-typing error: written 13cm instead of 11 (which would still be around sue sized and large, as they suggested) this is rather unlikely, as from the photo we can see that it was really huge.

Hmm, proof evidence ??
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
yes it was a typing error, that´s true. yes, I regard the last solution as unlikely myself, but the other two are pretty likely.

fragillimus, what are the characters that are used to distinguish an IV-2 from another phalanx? are there any at all?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shaochilong
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Sep 9 2012, 05:40 PM
Quote:
 
They said MAXIMUM for T rex, that means they probably included the fragmentary rexes, however average sharks are much smaller than they can be, because they grow only slowly and I think it's easier to say the size and weight of living animals, than extinct ones. Do you think their Sawfish data was made up?

The maximum length for T rex should be 14+m base on UCMP 137538, i really don't know where do they get that 13,7m T rex from. So can you answer why the MAXIMUM weight for T rex is only 5,4 TONNES ???. They also stated that Giganotosaurus is the largest land carnovore of all time !
Not to mention that using Randall method to estimate size of Megalodon is probably outdated
I don't think that sawfish data is made up, but that is just an individual, you cannot use an individual as the average size of the whole species
UCMP 137538 is significantly larger than any other Tyrannosaurus specimens we have currently (except, potentially, for MOR 008).
I am of the opinion that the average size for Tyrannosaurus remains more or less the same despite the discovery of these large specimens; i.e. around 12.5 metres long.

As one of Spinosaurus' main advantages is its size, we need to look at a range of sizes for both animals.

The absolute minimum difference in size between the two is 14 metres for Tyrannosaurus and 16 metres for Spinosaurus.
In this case, Tyrannosaurus is 87.5% of the size of Spinosaurus. This is a clear victory for Tyrannosaurus.
Now, let's try 14 metres vs 17 metres (an average-sized Spinosaurus). Tyrannosaurus is now 82.4% of the size of Spinosaurus. Another Tyrannosaurus victory.
Even against a relatively large Spinosaurus (18 metres long), a 14 metre Tyrannosaurus is a likely victor due to the fact that it is still 77.7% of the size of Spinosaurus.
But now we run into a problem. UCMP 137538 is, as I stated before, a very large individual for a Tyrannosaurus.

Let's look at a slightly smaller, but still relatively large, Tyrannosaurus; MOR 008.
Based on AMNH 5027, MOR 008 would be 12.6 metres long, and based on Sue it would be 13.2 to 13.5 metres long.
So, let's put MOR 008 against a Spinosaurus that's toward the smaller end of the size range.
We now have 13.35 (the average of 13.2 and 13.5) metres against 16 metres.
Tyrannosaurus is now 83.4% of the size of Spinosaurus, and again, it is obviously the winner.
Now, let's try 13.35 against 17. Tyrannosaurus is now 78.5% of the size of Spinosaurus.
Finally, let's put 13.35 metres against 18 metres. Tyrannosaurus is 74.16% of the size of Spinosaurus. This is a closer fight, but I think Tyrannosaurus wins.

So UCMP 137538 and MOR 008 would most likely triumph against a Spinosaurus.

Now, we shoud try an FMNH PR2081-sized individual. We are now getting closer to the average size of Tyrannosaurus.
FMNH PR2081 is widely stated as being 12.8 metres long (although Wikipedia is now saying 12.3 for some reason; I'm going to say 12.8 for the moment).
So we start out with 12.8 metres against 16 metres. Tyrannosaurus is now 80% of the size of Spinosaurus, and, again, it wins.
Now, 12.8 metres against 17 metres; Tyrannosaurus is 75.29% of the size of Spinosaurus. This is another close fight, but Tyrannosaurus still has an advantage.
As for 12.8 metres against 18 metres, Tyrannosaurus is now 71.11% of the size of Spinosaurus. This is very close; possibly 55/45 for Tyrannosaurus or even 50/50.

Finally, let's try an average-sized Tyrannosaurus; AMNH 5027.
AMNH 5027 is currently being estimated at about 12.3 metres in length.
Now, 12.3 metres against 16 metres. Tyrannosaurus is 76.87% of the size of Spinosaurus. This looks like a Tyrannosaurus victory to me.
Next, let's try 12.3 metres against 17 metres. Tyrannosaurus is now 72.4% of the size of Spinosaurus. This seems to be quite equal, probably an extremely narrow Tyrannosaurus victory.
Finally, let's go for 12.3 metres against 18 metres. Tyrannosaurus is now 68.3% of the size of Spinosaurus, and Spinosaurus actually seems to have an advantage this time.

With size out of the way, now, consider weaponry.

Tyrannosaurus' bite is undeniably deadlier than that of Spinosaurus. Its teeth are more resilient, and more suited for slicing, ripping, and crushing. Its' bite force is also significantly higher.
Now, this is not to say by any means that Spinosaurus does not have a dangerous bite.
Its conical teeth are deeply rooted and resilient, but not as resilient as the teeth of Tyrannosaurus. Its bite is more for cutting and stabbing than for tearing and crushing.
So although Spinosaurus would certainly have a very nasty bite, Tyrannosaurus' jaw ability is superior.

As for arms, Tyrannosaurus doesn't have much ammunition in this department. Its arms are certainly strong, but too short to reach Spinosaurus unless Tyrannosaurus lifted its body almost vertically and moved into extreme close range to attack. Ignoring for the moment the fact that its hip joints would not allow it to do so, attacking with its front arms would be giving Spinosaurus a massive window of opportunity to attack that it would be certain to take advantage of. Spinosaurus' arms, meanwhile, are almost certainly powerful enough to use in battle, and you would not want to be hit by those claws, even if you were a Tyrannosaurus.

So I would say that this fight is relatively even, with a slight advantage to Tyrannosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Lord of the Allosaurs
Sep 10 2012, 03:36 AM
Verdugo
Sep 9 2012, 05:40 PM
Quote:
 
They said MAXIMUM for T rex, that means they probably included the fragmentary rexes, however average sharks are much smaller than they can be, because they grow only slowly and I think it's easier to say the size and weight of living animals, than extinct ones. Do you think their Sawfish data was made up?

The maximum length for T rex should be 14+m base on UCMP 137538, i really don't know where do they get that 13,7m T rex from. So can you answer why the MAXIMUM weight for T rex is only 5,4 TONNES ???. They also stated that Giganotosaurus is the largest land carnovore of all time !
Not to mention that using Randall method to estimate size of Megalodon is probably outdated
I don't think that sawfish data is made up, but that is just an individual, you cannot use an individual as the average size of the whole species
UCMP 137538 is significantly larger than any other Tyrannosaurus specimens we have currently (except, potentially, for MOR 008).
I am of the opinion that the average size for Tyrannosaurus remains more or less the same despite the discovery of these large specimens; i.e. around 12.5 metres long.

As one of Spinosaurus' main advantages is its size, we need to look at a range of sizes for both animals.

The absolute minimum difference in size between the two is 14 metres for Tyrannosaurus and 16 metres for Spinosaurus.
In this case, Tyrannosaurus is 87.5% of the size of Spinosaurus. This is a clear victory for Tyrannosaurus.
Now, let's try 14 metres vs 17 metres (an average-sized Spinosaurus). Tyrannosaurus is now 82.4% of the size of Spinosaurus. Another Tyrannosaurus victory.
Even against a relatively large Spinosaurus (18 metres long), a 14 metre Tyrannosaurus is a likely victor due to the fact that it is still 77.7% of the size of Spinosaurus.
But now we run into a problem. UCMP 137538 is, as I stated before, a very large individual for a Tyrannosaurus.

Let's look at a slightly smaller, but still relatively large, Tyrannosaurus; MOR 008.
Based on AMNH 5027, MOR 008 would be 12.6 metres long, and based on Sue it would be 13.2 to 13.5 metres long.
So, let's put MOR 008 against a Spinosaurus that's toward the smaller end of the size range.
We now have 13.35 (the average of 13.2 and 13.5) metres against 16 metres.
Tyrannosaurus is now 83.4% of the size of Spinosaurus, and again, it is obviously the winner.
Now, let's try 13.35 against 17. Tyrannosaurus is now 78.5% of the size of Spinosaurus.
Finally, let's put 13.35 metres against 18 metres. Tyrannosaurus is 74.16% of the size of Spinosaurus. This is a closer fight, but I think Tyrannosaurus wins.

So UCMP 137538 and MOR 008 would most likely triumph against a Spinosaurus.

Now, we shoud try an FMNH PR2081-sized individual. We are now getting closer to the average size of Tyrannosaurus.
FMNH PR2081 is widely stated as being 12.8 metres long (although Wikipedia is now saying 12.3 for some reason; I'm going to say 12.8 for the moment).
So we start out with 12.8 metres against 16 metres. Tyrannosaurus is now 80% of the size of Spinosaurus, and, again, it wins.
Now, 12.8 metres against 17 metres; Tyrannosaurus is 75.29% of the size of Spinosaurus. This is another close fight, but Tyrannosaurus still has an advantage.
As for 12.8 metres against 18 metres, Tyrannosaurus is now 71.11% of the size of Spinosaurus. This is very close; possibly 55/45 for Tyrannosaurus or even 50/50.

Finally, let's try an average-sized Tyrannosaurus; AMNH 5027.
AMNH 5027 is currently being estimated at about 12.3 metres in length.
Now, 12.3 metres against 16 metres. Tyrannosaurus is 76.87% of the size of Spinosaurus. This looks like a Tyrannosaurus victory to me.
Next, let's try 12.3 metres against 17 metres. Tyrannosaurus is now 72.4% of the size of Spinosaurus. This seems to be quite equal, probably an extremely narrow Tyrannosaurus victory.
Finally, let's go for 12.3 metres against 18 metres. Tyrannosaurus is now 68.3% of the size of Spinosaurus, and Spinosaurus actually seems to have an advantage this time.

With size out of the way, now, consider weaponry.

Tyrannosaurus' bite is undeniably deadlier than that of Spinosaurus. Its teeth are more resilient, and more suited for slicing, ripping, and crushing. Its' bite force is also significantly higher.
Now, this is not to say by any means that Spinosaurus does not have a dangerous bite.
Its conical teeth are deeply rooted and resilient, but not as resilient as the teeth of Tyrannosaurus. Its bite is more for cutting and stabbing than for tearing and crushing.
So although Spinosaurus would certainly have a very nasty bite, Tyrannosaurus' jaw ability is superior.

As for arms, Tyrannosaurus doesn't have much ammunition in this department. Its arms are certainly strong, but too short to reach Spinosaurus unless Tyrannosaurus lifted its body almost vertically and moved into extreme close range to attack. Ignoring for the moment the fact that its hip joints would not allow it to do so, attacking with its front arms would be giving Spinosaurus a massive window of opportunity to attack that it would be certain to take advantage of. Spinosaurus' arms, meanwhile, are almost certainly powerful enough to use in battle, and you would not want to be hit by those claws, even if you were a Tyrannosaurus.

So I would say that this fight is relatively even, with a slight advantage to Tyrannosaurus.
Think about weight, not length when it comes to power. A 17 meter Spino would be around 200% heavier than a 12.5 meter Tyrannosaurus. Weight cubes with length.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What's your source for that? I don't want to say, that Spino wasn't 15t heavy, but I can't find any sources for it, exept for that 12,3-14m estimate. Even the 18m Spino is only estimated at 9t.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shaochilong
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Sep 10 2012, 04:14 AM
Lord of the Allosaurs
Sep 10 2012, 03:36 AM
Verdugo
Sep 9 2012, 05:40 PM
Quote:
 
They said MAXIMUM for T rex, that means they probably included the fragmentary rexes, however average sharks are much smaller than they can be, because they grow only slowly and I think it's easier to say the size and weight of living animals, than extinct ones. Do you think their Sawfish data was made up?

The maximum length for T rex should be 14+m base on UCMP 137538, i really don't know where do they get that 13,7m T rex from. So can you answer why the MAXIMUM weight for T rex is only 5,4 TONNES ???. They also stated that Giganotosaurus is the largest land carnovore of all time !
Not to mention that using Randall method to estimate size of Megalodon is probably outdated
I don't think that sawfish data is made up, but that is just an individual, you cannot use an individual as the average size of the whole species
UCMP 137538 is significantly larger than any other Tyrannosaurus specimens we have currently (except, potentially, for MOR 008).
I am of the opinion that the average size for Tyrannosaurus remains more or less the same despite the discovery of these large specimens; i.e. around 12.5 metres long.

As one of Spinosaurus' main advantages is its size, we need to look at a range of sizes for both animals.

The absolute minimum difference in size between the two is 14 metres for Tyrannosaurus and 16 metres for Spinosaurus.
In this case, Tyrannosaurus is 87.5% of the size of Spinosaurus. This is a clear victory for Tyrannosaurus.
Now, let's try 14 metres vs 17 metres (an average-sized Spinosaurus). Tyrannosaurus is now 82.4% of the size of Spinosaurus. Another Tyrannosaurus victory.
Even against a relatively large Spinosaurus (18 metres long), a 14 metre Tyrannosaurus is a likely victor due to the fact that it is still 77.7% of the size of Spinosaurus.
But now we run into a problem. UCMP 137538 is, as I stated before, a very large individual for a Tyrannosaurus.

Let's look at a slightly smaller, but still relatively large, Tyrannosaurus; MOR 008.
Based on AMNH 5027, MOR 008 would be 12.6 metres long, and based on Sue it would be 13.2 to 13.5 metres long.
So, let's put MOR 008 against a Spinosaurus that's toward the smaller end of the size range.
We now have 13.35 (the average of 13.2 and 13.5) metres against 16 metres.
Tyrannosaurus is now 83.4% of the size of Spinosaurus, and again, it is obviously the winner.
Now, let's try 13.35 against 17. Tyrannosaurus is now 78.5% of the size of Spinosaurus.
Finally, let's put 13.35 metres against 18 metres. Tyrannosaurus is 74.16% of the size of Spinosaurus. This is a closer fight, but I think Tyrannosaurus wins.

So UCMP 137538 and MOR 008 would most likely triumph against a Spinosaurus.

Now, we shoud try an FMNH PR2081-sized individual. We are now getting closer to the average size of Tyrannosaurus.
FMNH PR2081 is widely stated as being 12.8 metres long (although Wikipedia is now saying 12.3 for some reason; I'm going to say 12.8 for the moment).
So we start out with 12.8 metres against 16 metres. Tyrannosaurus is now 80% of the size of Spinosaurus, and, again, it wins.
Now, 12.8 metres against 17 metres; Tyrannosaurus is 75.29% of the size of Spinosaurus. This is another close fight, but Tyrannosaurus still has an advantage.
As for 12.8 metres against 18 metres, Tyrannosaurus is now 71.11% of the size of Spinosaurus. This is very close; possibly 55/45 for Tyrannosaurus or even 50/50.

Finally, let's try an average-sized Tyrannosaurus; AMNH 5027.
AMNH 5027 is currently being estimated at about 12.3 metres in length.
Now, 12.3 metres against 16 metres. Tyrannosaurus is 76.87% of the size of Spinosaurus. This looks like a Tyrannosaurus victory to me.
Next, let's try 12.3 metres against 17 metres. Tyrannosaurus is now 72.4% of the size of Spinosaurus. This seems to be quite equal, probably an extremely narrow Tyrannosaurus victory.
Finally, let's go for 12.3 metres against 18 metres. Tyrannosaurus is now 68.3% of the size of Spinosaurus, and Spinosaurus actually seems to have an advantage this time.

With size out of the way, now, consider weaponry.

Tyrannosaurus' bite is undeniably deadlier than that of Spinosaurus. Its teeth are more resilient, and more suited for slicing, ripping, and crushing. Its' bite force is also significantly higher.
Now, this is not to say by any means that Spinosaurus does not have a dangerous bite.
Its conical teeth are deeply rooted and resilient, but not as resilient as the teeth of Tyrannosaurus. Its bite is more for cutting and stabbing than for tearing and crushing.
So although Spinosaurus would certainly have a very nasty bite, Tyrannosaurus' jaw ability is superior.

As for arms, Tyrannosaurus doesn't have much ammunition in this department. Its arms are certainly strong, but too short to reach Spinosaurus unless Tyrannosaurus lifted its body almost vertically and moved into extreme close range to attack. Ignoring for the moment the fact that its hip joints would not allow it to do so, attacking with its front arms would be giving Spinosaurus a massive window of opportunity to attack that it would be certain to take advantage of. Spinosaurus' arms, meanwhile, are almost certainly powerful enough to use in battle, and you would not want to be hit by those claws, even if you were a Tyrannosaurus.

So I would say that this fight is relatively even, with a slight advantage to Tyrannosaurus.
Think about weight, not length when it comes to power. A 17 meter Spino would be around 200% heavier than a 12.5 meter Tyrannosaurus. Weight cubes with length.
You're actually right in that weight should be used rather than length. What are Spinosaurus' current weight estimates? If a 17 metre long Spinosaurus is indeed 200% of the weight of Tyrannosaurus, then I believe Spinosaurus would have a bit of an advantage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Sep 10 2012, 02:48 AM
yes it was a typing error, that´s true. yes, I regard the last solution as unlikely myself, but the other two are pretty likely.

fragillimus, what are the characters that are used to distinguish an IV-2 from another phalanx? are there any at all?

If there are any, they would probably be based on proportional robusticity, or the articulation planes between the bones. Which sadly is very hard to see in the limited number of photographs we have of these specimens.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Sep 10 2012, 04:16 AM
What's your source for that? I don't want to say, that Spino wasn't 15t heavy, but I can't find any sources for it, exept for that 12,3-14m estimate. Even the 18m Spino is only estimated at 9t.
The 7-9 ton weight estimates were derived from an incorrect method. Scaling from an 11 meter, ~4 ton Suchomimus, a 17 meter Spinosaurus, being more robust overall, and possessing a large crest, would weigh a little more than 3.7 times the weight of the Suchomimus, or around ~15.2 tons. I also tend to think this would give it more than a "slight" advantage over Tyrannosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I did that scale on my own already and I got the same result, but somehow the mentioned max weight is always*just*9t.
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.