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 (459,335 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:
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Edit: @Fragillimus335

Even then, that's still bigger than the biggest estimate by .5 of meter.

G.S. Paul put Spinosaurus at 14 m TL, 10 tonnes
Holtz put Spinosarus at 16 m, and elephant for it's weight
"My Theropod is bigger than yours" had the upper end at 14.34 m and the smaller end at 12.57 m and 13-23 tons
Shartman puts the holotype at 14 m and if you scale up to a 1.75 m skull it comes at ∼15 m
David Hone also said Spinosaurus probably wasn't as big as what was initially published

The only source that has Spinosaurus at that size is the Dal Sasso paper they give the length at 16-18 m and 7-9 tons in weight. They mention that the Spinosaurus skull they found could have been 17 m.
Edited by Gecko, Oct 6 2012, 01:28 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Here's something interesting, a sub-adult Spinosaurus measuring ~30 feet long had most of the skull preserved. It is a private specimen, so sadly it cannot be studied. BUT, check out its skull, the snout is only 50% of the total length of the skull. If it were MSMN V4047 sized, it would be ~1.95-2 meters long. There probably wouldn't be that much otogenetic change from an animal this size to an adult.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
That´s pretty interesting! I for my part always thought that the skull reconstruction showing a very short rear part was rather odd and I personally liked your´s better. is there evidence for that picture to be a real specimen and not jsut reconstructed? I´d like some info on it!

Once more, what a shame that people lock away the few remains found of an animal that we need more material of. hiding important finds from the scientists and not allowing them to study the pieces should be considered a crime!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
like you are also making facts by yourself, for example "this skeletal is the most accurate" "this skull is wrong" "this guy is more reliable than this guy" "dr... stated it looked odd, that means it is inaccurate""everybody who believes spino was >16m is a fanboy because there is a skeletal which imo is the best that would indicate a smaller size"...


Like you also making facts by yourself, for example: "Spinosaurus is 18m + and 20 tonnes +"; "Torvosaurus has bite force comparible to T rex and can kill T rex with 1 bite"; "Binocular vision is not important and it is used for showing "; "Torvosaurus is as bulky, as robust, as muscular, as tall, as heavy as Sue"; "Hartman failed, Cau failed, Dave Hone just guessing",...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Oct 6 2012, 01:50 AM
That´s pretty interesting! I for my part always thought that the skull reconstruction showing a very short rear part was rather odd and I personally liked your´s better. is there evidence for that picture to be a real specimen and not jsut reconstructed? I´d like some info on it!

Once more, what a shame that people lock away the few remains found of an animal that we need more material of. hiding important finds from the scientists and not allowing them to study the pieces should be considered a crime!
Seriously, and especially when it's such an interesting and important specimen. Also thanks, I also had suspicions about such a short skull, and this specimen appears to confirm them. From what I can tell at least 70% of this specimen is real bone, only some of the rearmost portions were restored. The maxilla is pretty much complete, while the bottom jaw is mostly reconstructed.
Edited by Fragillimus335, Oct 6 2012, 03:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Jaime Headden has posted a bit on Spinosaurus. In this blog post he mentions Dal Sasso reconstructed the skull too long and gave it an over bite. He suggests a length of 1.6 m for the Dal Sasso Skull.

It also mentions "other undescribed skulls are known, but they are useless as either private specimens or potential chimaeric specimens"

That Spinosaurus look to be the same as this one, it was 27.5 ft (8.4 m) not 30 ft like you said it was.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
shorter than 1,75m? any idea how that would look? even 1,75m has a rather shortened rear portion...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Gecko
Oct 6 2012, 02:06 AM
Jaime Headden has posted a bit on Spinosaurus. In this blog post he mentions Dal Sasso reconstructed the skull too long and gave it an over bite. He suggests a length of 1.6 m for the Dal Sasso Skull.

It also mentions "other undescribed skulls are known, but they are useless as either private specimens or potential chimaeric specimens"

That Spinosaurus look to be the same as this one, it was 27.5 ft (8.4 m) not 30 ft like you said it was.
"~" means about, I assumed we were considering 27.5 feet to be pretty close to 30 feet. He also states that the skull could be 1.8 meters long with a slightly enlarged snout. Please, don't cherry-pick.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Oct 6 2012, 02:02 AM
Quote:
 
like you are also making facts by yourself, for example "this skeletal is the most accurate" "this skull is wrong" "this guy is more reliable than this guy" "dr... stated it looked odd, that means it is inaccurate""everybody who believes spino was >16m is a fanboy because there is a skeletal which imo is the best that would indicate a smaller size"...


Like you also making facts by yourself, for example: "Spinosaurus is 18m + and 20 tonnes +"; "Torvosaurus has bite force comparible to T rex and can kill T rex with 1 bite"; "Binocular vision is not important and it is used for showing "; "Torvosaurus is as bulky, as robust, as muscular, as tall, as heavy as Sue"; "Hartman failed, Cau failed, Dave Hone just guessing",...
Quote:
 
"Spinosaurus is 18m + and 20 tonnes +"

I never made any spinosaurus 20t, rather 12-15t for me, and if you cannot follow the reasoning behind the possible 18m estimate then that´s just sad and shows you don´t want to understand it.

Quote:
 
"Torvosaurus has bite force comparible to T rex and can kill T rex with 1 bite"

seriously? you regard that as made up? I´m sorry for you, because if that is so unlikely for you you have just shown that you are a f*****

Quote:
 
Binocular vision is not important and it is used for showing

I don´t even understand your point, but then I guess I have never claimed it. it is not as important as you are making it to be for sure

Quote:
 
"Torvosaurus is as bulky, as robust, as muscular, as tall, as heavy as Sue"

12-13m torvosaurus would rival the largest T. rex in weight, that is by no means a "made up fact". as tall can not be roamed out, even tough at the same lenght it is heighly unlikely. as robust, bulky, muscular you don´t know those points, you are just using the most weak-looking reconstructions all the time. what you are basically doing all the time is assuming nothing could rival rexy in those points.


The great difference: you are making up facts to make T. rex appear superior to others. what you are claiming here are no far fetched assumptions or they are misconstructions. But everything that seems to rival your god is a made up fact for you, isn´t it?
I am only daring not to assume it to be automatically superior and in your opinion I´m biased because of that.

would you please give me any contradictions for the stuff you have just psoted, save for the things you have "made me up to have made up"?
tell me yourself, which inference is the biased one? "nothing can rival T. rex in any point" or "when nothing is indicating that there is no reason to suspect it to be superior"

me: giving you examples of how you are systematically making one animal superior to all others without a base in most points
you: giving examples of how I dare proclaim others could rival this animal somehow

who´s the biased one here? Even you should by now have seen that your arguments in these matters are getting weaker and weaker.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
7Alx
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rear portion of skull would look that short due long snout.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Oct 6 2012, 03:29 AM
"~" means about, I assumed we were considering 27.5 feet to be pretty close to 30 feet. He also states that the skull could be 1.8 meters long with a slightly enlarged snout. Please, don't cherry-pick.
3.5 ft is quite a bit of difference especially when using it to scale up an animal.

So you agree 1.8 m would be on an enlarged Spinosaurus skull? Doesn't that throws out your 1.9-2 meter skull? After all even on the big side it's only "1.8 m".
The blog post is suggesting Dal Sasso's reconstructed Skull is too long, but yet you want to make it even bigger? The 1.6 m skull looks a lot better and makes more sense. (Read the blog post)

What I did wasn't cherry picking, I was giving evidence against your claim (You think the Spinosaurus skull should be 1.9-2 m). What you did was cherry picking, you took the smallest Tyrannosaurus tooth (it wasn't even the whole tooth at that! It was a broken tip of a tooth.) and compared it to a large Crocodile tooth. Learn what the words mean before you use them.
Edited by Gecko, Oct 6 2012, 04:25 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Gecko
Oct 6 2012, 04:24 AM
Fragillimus335
Oct 6 2012, 03:29 AM
"~" means about, I assumed we were considering 27.5 feet to be pretty close to 30 feet. He also states that the skull could be 1.8 meters long with a slightly enlarged snout. Please, don't cherry-pick.
3.5 ft is quite a bit of difference especially when using it to scale up an animal.

So you agree 1.8 m would be on an enlarged Spinosaurus skull? Doesn't that throws out your 1.9-2 meter skull? After all even on the big side it's only "1.8 m".
The blog post is suggesting Dal Sasso's reconstructed Skull is too long, but yet you want to make it even bigger? The 1.6 m skull looks a lot better and makes more sense. (Read the blog post)

What I did wasn't cherry picking, I was giving evidence against your claim (You think the Spinosaurus skull should be 1.9-2 m). What you did was cherry picking, you took the smallest Tyrannosaurus tooth (it wasn't even the whole tooth at that! It was a broken tip of a tooth.) and compared it to a large Crocodile tooth. Learn what the words mean before you use them.
I was only comparing morphological difference, not size. Also, he is not suggesting the skull should be shorter, he is stating that the lower jaw might be to short in the scaled up composite.

My wording was bad, by enlarged, I meant lengthened.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
He's suggesting the whole reconstruction is wrong.

He said fom the post (Under this picture ) "Skull and silhouettes of Spinosaurus specimens. A, IPHG 1912 VIII 19, holotype of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus von Stromer, 1914; B, same silhouette in A with MSNM V4047 added to snout and silhouette modified to “fit”; C, same silhouette in B but scaled up to the actual size of MSNM V4047; D, same silhouette as in C but with snout elongated as in dal Sasso et al., 2005."

He said Dal Sasso reconstructed the snout too long. He's suggesting a 1.6 m length for MSNM V4047. Look at the last picture, using the scale bar for MSNM V4047 you get a 1.6 m skull(Which is what he suggested as a the length) and the snout is still 988 mm long.
Edited by Gecko, Oct 6 2012, 05:17 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Gecko
Oct 6 2012, 05:15 AM
He's suggesting the whole reconstruction is wrong.

He said fom the post (Under this picture ) "Skull and silhouettes of Spinosaurus specimens. A, IPHG 1912 VIII 19, holotype of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus von Stromer, 1914; B, same silhouette in A with MSNM V4047 added to snout and silhouette modified to “fit”; C, same silhouette in B but scaled up to the actual size of MSNM V4047; D, same silhouette as in C but with snout elongated as in dal Sasso et al., 2005."

He said Dal Sasso reconstructed the snout too long. He's suggesting a 1.6 m length for MSNM V4047. Look at the last picture, using the scale bar for MSNM V4047 you get a 1.6 m skull(Which is what he suggested as a the length) and the snout is still 988 mm long.
That last picture is pretty strangely proportioned. Not to mention, the preserved portion is not as long as is shown in the picture.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
It fits in perfectly...
Posted Image
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.