| 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: |
| Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM (459,333 Views) | |
| Wolf Eagle | Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM Post #1 |
![]()
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. ![]() 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).
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Gecko | Oct 7 2012, 01:42 AM Post #721 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And what have you provided to the topic? The only thing I've seen you do is come into the topic in the middle of a debate and call who ever is even slightly favor Tyrannosaurus a "fanboy". Theropod has put up some excellent arguments but then you come in with "Herp derp T-rex fanboiz". Why don't post your reasons on why you think Spinosaurus would win instead of calling people fanboys. |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Oct 7 2012, 01:51 AM Post #722 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
NOT everything, evreything at its size range, not something much bigger. Have i ever stated T rex would kill a Sauropod with one bite ?. NO !, not even in T rex fanzone. ![]() ^ Sakamoto help me speak up what i think
|
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Oct 7 2012, 01:53 AM Post #723 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^ Hey Gecko, this is his explanation
|
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Oct 7 2012, 03:01 AM Post #724 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hey guys, Cau estimate for Spinosaurus is 14,4m not 12,5m
Edited by Verdugo, Oct 7 2012, 03:02 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 7 2012, 05:02 AM Post #725 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
did grey make that up then? |
![]() |
|
| Fragillimus335 | Oct 7 2012, 07:04 AM Post #726 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spinosaurus wins. This is why I think so. Tyrannosaurus's only useful advantage in this fight is moderately superior bite force. Every other advantage goes to Spinosaurus. It has an enormous weight, height, strength, gape, and reach advantage. Spinosaurus was twice as strong as Tyrannosaurus, that make this a mismatch. |
![]() |
|
| Gecko | Oct 7 2012, 01:40 PM Post #727 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tyrannosaurus's bite certainly was more than just "moderately" superior. Dr. Sakamoto suggests that Spinosaurus's bite was weak compared to Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus, whos bites were already lower than Tyrannosaurus's by "almost an order of magnitude". Weight and strength are also something Spinosaurus wouldn't have a big advantage in either. Spinosaurs were bulky but were no where near Tyrannosaurs. A 14-16 m Spinosaurus would probably wasn't much wider than Stan. Tyrannosaurus was extremely barrel chested, at parity Tyrannosaurus was without a doubt stronger and probably comparable in strength to even an 16-17 m Spinosaurus (At least Sue was). I'd think Tyrannosaurus would be within a few 1000 lbs of Spinosaurus. I doubt it had a big height advantage (If it even had one!). The newest info puts Spinosaurus's legs as being pretty short, and even scaling up from Baryonyx and Suchomimus doesn't make it over 1 meter taller. Source for Tyrannosaurus having a smaller gape than Spinosaurus? Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus certainly had a bigger gape but Spinosaurus? |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Oct 7 2012, 01:53 PM Post #728 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just stop cherry picking the info that gives Tyrannosaurus the advantage. Spinosaurus was almost twice the mass of Tyrannosaurus and was much taller. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Oct 7 2012, 02:06 PM Post #729 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
((17 / 11)3 ) * 3000 kg = 11073.6288505 kilograms ((16 / 11)3 ) * 3000 kg = 9232.15627348 kilograms ((18 / 11)3 ) * 3000 kg = 13145.0037566 kilograms Scaling from a 3-tonne, 11-meter Suchomimus yields ~11 tonnes for a 17-meter Spinosaurus, ~9.2 tonnes for a 16-meter individual, and ~13.1 tonnes for an 18-meter individual Edited by SpinoInWonderland, Oct 7 2012, 02:09 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Grey | Oct 7 2012, 04:42 PM Post #730 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Though I initially favor Spinosaurus, I have now my doubts in the ligth of what Sakamoto suggests in the bite force contest. Of course, a much weaker bite force does not make Spinosaurus weak but it questions its all mighty status of unbeattable land carnivore. And it shows that we should not too much give credential to the self-made calculations of guys on forum. I don't know how Sakamoto deduced this, but I know he worked and wrote an unpublished manuscript about Baryonix biting mechanism. I don't think he's claiming hazardous things there. My opinion at now is that both animals, with what we have today, would be engaged in quite a hard battle. Nowhere a mismatch. I can't wait for that the new method of estimate weight is applied to other theropods than T.rex and to see the results of this news Spinosaurus material from Kem Kem. |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Oct 7 2012, 04:58 PM Post #731 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hey Broly, can you stop being such a retarded T rex hater, you are not a Spino fanboy either. Hating an EXTINCT animal is getting really gay now
The rest of your claims have been criticized by Gecko, so i would only go for the height advantage. I highly doubt that Spinosaurus would have a height advantage here, of course it would be taller than T rex if you count the spine. Cau has stated that other Theropod at T rex size would likely to have shorter legs than T rex dude to the lack of arctometatarsal
|
![]() |
|
| Grey | Oct 7 2012, 05:06 PM Post #732 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
To hate an extinct animal is one the most absurd and ridiculous behavior I've seen. Especially for a so-called science and nature lover. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 7 2012, 07:11 PM Post #733 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
to be a fanboy isn´t better
Edited by theropod, Oct 7 2012, 07:11 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Grey | Oct 7 2012, 07:17 PM Post #734 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No. To be a fanboy is certainly childish and biased but this is still interest and passion for a life being. Some loves dogs more than anything else. Others love T.rex. To hate an animal, living or extinct, is ridiculous. In absolute terms, a fanboy is better than a hater. Edited by Grey, Oct 7 2012, 07:18 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 7 2012, 07:22 PM Post #735 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
guys, spinosaurus was almost certainly taller than T. rex:
The femur and tibia-measurements are all you need to know we are talking about a far taller animal. actometatarsus or no acrtometatarsus, spinosaurus is taller. grey, without fanboys broly wouoldn´t be a hater, and a fanboy does also behave exactly like a hater when anything challenges the animal he´s a fanboy of |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:24 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)



![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)







2:24 AM Jul 14