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 (459,334 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:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
this is an absurdely shortened rear portion imo.

Posted Image
the specimen fits the snout of dal sassos reconstruction perfectly, there is nothing elongated about it. If at all, this recosntructions posterior portion is too short, and the snout is definitely anything but reconstructed too long.

it was probably at least that lenght and somewhat longer going by the photos of the private specimen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Oct 6 2012, 03:35 AM
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.
The more i study about Theropod, the more i realize why T rex deserve its title, just like why lion deserve its title. But since you just keep ignoring all the time, i gave you study from scientist, i gave you proof, paper from scientist, i gave you direct quote from scientist but for you, everything don't give you a 1,95m Spino skull, a 18m+ Spino or a Torvosaurus as bulky as T rex are all failed. You don't trust scientist, don't trust study from scientist, the only things you trust are your f***ing logics and your BEST friend Fragillimus. You never give anyone a source for your claim, and think people are idiots because they don't trust your claim. Honestly, everything Grey said about you is just getting more and more correct. The smartest thing i've ever do in this forum is ignoring you, it would save me a lot of time debating with f***ing sh*it like you

Theropod
 
The great difference: you are making up facts to make T. rex appear superior to others.


This what i stated before

Verdugo
 
I myself is a huge fan of T rex but does T rex deserve this title ?, NO and none Theropod deserve this. Just like you said "they are all unique in their own way" T rex may have the strongest bite, most muscular body and the best Ceratopians/Ankylosaur hunter but Carcharodontosauridae like Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus is a much better hunter when you talk about Sauropod. Carcharodontosauridae is a TRUE big game hunter, the most well-suited for tacking on a Sauropod. So what about Spinosaurus, eating fish doesn't mean it's less deadly than other Theropod. Can the "great" T rex hunt fish ? NO, T rex may need years to catch 1 fish. Spinosaurus without doubt is one of the best fishing Theropod, it's the fisher KING, not T rex, T rex is not the king of anything !
In short, i just wanna say every Theropod is good at their own aspect so ranking Theropod after their deadliness is completely NONESENSE for me.


I've never ever ever stated "T rex was a god" or "T rex was superior to anything" like the f***ing things you try to blame me
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superpredator
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ooh, some intense action going on here!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
verdugo: but you behave like you thought so!

Quote:
 
The more i study about Theropod, the more i realize why T rex deserve its title, just like why lion deserve its title. But since you just keep ignoring all the time, i gave you study from scientist, i gave you proof, paper from scientist, i gave you direct quote from scientist but for you, everything don't give you a 1,95m Spino skull, a 18m+ Spino or a Torvosaurus as bulky as T rex are all failed. You don't trust scientist, don't trust study from scientist, the only things you trust are your f***ing logics and your BEST friend Fragillimus. You never give anyone a source for your claim, and think people are idiots because they don't trust your claim. Honestly, everything Grey said about you is just getting more and more correct. The smartest thing i've ever do in this forum is ignoring you, it would save me a lot of time debating with f***ing sh*it like you

You cannot read, you cannot understand that exact logic, you rely on writing a confusing insult-misconstruction-mixture...

You are seriously getting desperate. Those are not my claims, only the corrections I have to do in yours. For example I permanently have to correct your thoughts on something a scientist claims because you give it a completely different meaning! (eg. "T. rex looks like around 20% of diplos weight"->you make it an enourmous monster much heavier and bulker than any other similar sized theropod ->I have to show the facts to you, most diplos are not even 20m and clearly much lighter than the slender 10-11,5t for a 26m one and "it seems like around 20% lighter when you see the skeletons next to each other" is not an estimate, it´s a guess)

Every claim which makes any animal similar to T. rex in strenght, bulk, size or bite force does automatically have no sources and is ignoring scientists, while you have not even understand the meaning of what they write. another example:
"T. rex had thick and rather blunt teeth for excerting strong bite force...T. rex teeth where sharp like a knife to effectively cut flesh and bone"
------fragillimus: that was contradictory
------you: how can it be contradictory? you are ignoring scientists and thionking you where better because scientists are saying T. rex is better and ho could they possibly be wrong in saying it had both blunt and sharp teeth in one?...

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Oct 6 2012, 07:18 PM
verdugo: but you behave like you thought so!

Quote:
 
The more i study about Theropod, the more i realize why T rex deserve its title, just like why lion deserve its title. But since you just keep ignoring all the time, i gave you study from scientist, i gave you proof, paper from scientist, i gave you direct quote from scientist but for you, everything don't give you a 1,95m Spino skull, a 18m+ Spino or a Torvosaurus as bulky as T rex are all failed. You don't trust scientist, don't trust study from scientist, the only things you trust are your f***ing logics and your BEST friend Fragillimus. You never give anyone a source for your claim, and think people are idiots because they don't trust your claim. Honestly, everything Grey said about you is just getting more and more correct. The smartest thing i've ever do in this forum is ignoring you, it would save me a lot of time debating with f***ing sh*it like you

You cannot read, you cannot understand that exact logic, you rely on writing a confusing insult-misconstruction-mixture...

You are seriously getting desperate. Those are not my claims, only the corrections I have to do in yours. For example I permanently have to correct your thoughts on something a scientist claims because you give it a completely different meaning! (eg. "T. rex looks like around 20% of diplos weight"->you make it an enourmous monster much heavier and bulker than any other similar sized theropod ->I have to show the facts to you, most diplos are not even 20m and clearly much lighter than the slender 10-11,5t for a 26m one and "it seems like around 20% lighter when you see the skeletons next to each other" is not an estimate, it´s a guess)

Every claim which makes any animal similar to T. rex in strenght, bulk, size or bite force does automatically have no sources and is ignoring scientists, while you have not even understand the meaning of what they write. another example:
"T. rex had thick and rather blunt teeth for excerting strong bite force...T. rex teeth where sharp like a knife to effectively cut flesh and bone"
------fragillimus: that was contradictory
------you: how can it be contradictory? you are ignoring scientists and thionking you where better because scientists are saying T. rex is better and ho could they possibly be wrong in saying it had both blunt and sharp teeth in one?...

Quote:
 
Every claim which makes any animal similar to T. rex in strenght, bulk, size or bite force does automatically have no sources and is ignoring scientists, while you have not even understand the meaning of what they write. another example:
"T. rex had thick and rather blunt teeth for excerting strong bite force...T. rex teeth where sharp like a knife to effectively cut flesh and bone"
------fragillimus: that was contradictory
------you: how can it be contradictory? you are ignoring scientists and thionking you where better because scientists are saying T. rex is better and ho could they possibly be wrong in saying it had both blunt and sharp teeth in one?...


WTF ????. How can it be contradictory ???

""They were fairly dull and wide, almost like bananas," said Reichel. "If the teeth were flat, knife-like and sharp, they could have snapped if the prey struggled violently when T. rex's jaws first clamped down.""

Do you notice "IF" ??
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
what is contradictory are the claims "they where extremely thick, dull and strong"-like it can be read there and the claims "they where sharp edged cutting tools". IF I´m not mistaken, both claims where used in that discussion, or not?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Oct 6 2012, 07:35 PM
what is contradictory are the claims "they where extremely thick, dull and strong"-like it can be read there and the claims "they where sharp edged cutting tools". IF I´m not mistaken, both claims where used in that discussion, or not?
I've never claimed T rex teeth were sharp like knife, you can see on my post so yes you are mistaken. If you still think i made up the word "IF" by myself

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
still? are you now starting to accuse me of claiming things I never wrote?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Oct 6 2012, 08:09 PM
still? are you now starting to accuse me of claiming things I never wrote?
No, i think Fragillimus misunderstood me because he didn't read the "IF" word

So what are you trying to prove ?. I've never stated T rex teeth were both sharp and blunt. You tried to prove that Fragillimus was right about everything because he thinks T rex wasn't heterodont and what Reichel described about T rex teeth was constradictory ??
Edited by Verdugo, Oct 6 2012, 10:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Oct 6 2012, 10:05 PM
theropod
Oct 6 2012, 08:09 PM
still? are you now starting to accuse me of claiming things I never wrote?
No, i think Fragillimus misunderstood me because he didn't read the "IF" word

So what are you trying to prove ?. I've never stated T rex teeth were both sharp and blunt. You tried to prove that Fragillimus was right about everything because he thinks T rex wasn't heterodont and what Reichel described about T rex teeth was constradictory ??
Stop bringing up the heterodont thing, I know Tyrannosaurus was a heterodont, but it's teeth didn't vary to the extent seen in must heterodonts. Also the reason you were being contradictory was not a direct quote. Throughout the entire argument you argued that because a rex's teeth were serrated and good for slicing, they were superior to those of a croc. When you thought I said that Tyrannosaurus teeth were weak, you then claimed they were thick and dull for crushing....That's the contradictory part.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Oct 6 2012, 10:41 PM
Verdugo
Oct 6 2012, 10:05 PM
theropod
Oct 6 2012, 08:09 PM
still? are you now starting to accuse me of claiming things I never wrote?
No, i think Fragillimus misunderstood me because he didn't read the "IF" word

So what are you trying to prove ?. I've never stated T rex teeth were both sharp and blunt. You tried to prove that Fragillimus was right about everything because he thinks T rex wasn't heterodont and what Reichel described about T rex teeth was constradictory ??
Stop bringing up the heterodont thing, I know Tyrannosaurus was a heterodont, but it's teeth didn't vary to the extent seen in must heterodonts. Also the reason you were being contradictory was not a direct quote. Throughout the entire argument you argued that because a rex's teeth were serrated and good for slicing, they were superior to those of a croc. When you thought I said that Tyrannosaurus teeth were weak, you then claimed they were thick and dull for crushing....That's the contradictory part.
What ???. T rex teeth were serrated to slice meat, what's wrong with that. Yes, it's not as good as shark or Carcharodontosauridae in term of slicing capability, but it still can cut meat better than crocodile, you tried to prove that T rex teeth are unable to cut meat. T rex teeth are designed for both slicing and crushing, but it lean toward crushing, i honestly don't understand what contradictory with that
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
what is contradictory is the claim of it being both an excellent meat slicer and able to withstand forces just as good as a croc with conical teeth
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Theropod
 
what is contradictory is the claim of it being both an excellent meat slicer and able to withstand forces just as good as a croc with conical teeth


What ???. I've never claimed it was an EXCELLENT meat SLICER, you can read all my posts. I just want to prove that T rex teeth can SLICE meat, it's not good but not unable. Can you guys stop making things ?
Edited by Verdugo, Oct 7 2012, 01:12 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
then why are you assuming it would be so incredibly effective and able to kill everything with one bite while other theropods cannot do that iyo?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I wonder when will this end...Spinosaurus wins, but Tyrannosaurus' fans keep denying it...
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.