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 (459,332 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:
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't like fanboys but it is normal to have specific likings for one or several types of animals. I don't become some ridiculous hater when I confront someone who not share my views.

By the way, the F-boy became the easiest and most pathetic counter-argumentation.

So no, a fanboy is still better than a hater. But justly, many haters are fanboys as well.
Edited by Grey, Oct 7 2012, 07:26 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
as I wrote, every fanboy is a hater as well, because fanboys naturally think "their animal" was by far "better" than every other animal
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Oct 7 2012, 07:27 PM
as I wrote, every fanboy is a hater as well, because fanboys naturally think "their animal" was by far "better" than every other animal
No, a fanboy is not necessary a hater as well, he just likes and hype his favorite beast more than others, he does not necessarily hate another(s) animal(s).
Edited by Grey, Oct 7 2012, 07:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Oct 7 2012, 07:22 PM
guys, spinosaurus was almost certainly taller than T. rex:

Quote:
 
Basing on Suchomimus MNN GDF500 which is 11m, weighs 2,9-4,8t [1] and has a skull 1,18m[2] and femur and tibia 1.075 m and 945 mm respectively, I get the following figures:

1,75m skull: 16,3m total lenght, 1,59m femur lenght, 1,4m tibial lenght, 9,4-15,6t total weight (the median of those is 12,5t)
1,95m skull: 18,1m total lenght, 1,76m femur lenght, 1,55m tibial lenght, 12,9-21,3t total weight (the median of those is 17,1t)

This should be regarded carefully tough, as the individual wasn´t adult [3] and thus could have had different proportions
References:
1. Sereno et al, 1998: A Long-Snouted Predatory Dinosaur from Africa and the Evolution of Spinosaurids
2. Therrien & Henderson, 2007: My theropod is bigger than yours … or not: estimating body size from skull length in theropods
3. DinoData: http://www.dinodata.info/index.php/topic,2425.msg2425.html#msg2425


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
I doubt that Spinosaurus femur and tibia would be just scaled up like that based on Suchomimus, larger animal usually has shorter legs than their smaller relative and due to being non-arctometatarsal, like Cau stated, Spinosaurus would have proportionately shorter leg than T rex. But i agree that Spinosaurus would be taller than T rex, but not by much

About Spinosaurus having bigger bite than T rex: I highly doubt about that

Posted Image
^ That is MSNM V4047 rostrum compare to a human(Andrea Cau) head from a different angle. The MSNM V4047 rostrum is certainly very long, almost 1m in length, but it's actually EXTREMELY narrow if you look at it from a different angle
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
From this viewpoint, it's true that Spinosaurus snout lacks of "badassness", despite my interest for it.

Nice pic Verdugo (RE4 player I guess).
Edited by Grey, Oct 7 2012, 09:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinosaurus won't be using it's bite to kill though...so even if Spinosaurus had the bite force of a human(which is impossibly low for an 11-tonne theropod), it would still win
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carcharadon
Member Avatar
Shark Toothed Reptile
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Being a hater is worse than being a fanboy, because there is no good reason to hate any animal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Oct 7 2012, 01:53 PM
Just stop cherry picking the info that gives Tyrannosaurus the advantage. Spinosaurus was almost twice the mass of Tyrannosaurus and was much taller.
How is that cherry picking? I can show you six more pictures and the results will be the same...

Tyrannosaurs are physically more impressive looking than Spinosaurs (Not counting the arms of course)

brolyeuphyfusion
 
((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


Sue's skeleton alone weight almost 2 tons. The new weight estimates (the laser scanned skeletons one) give Sue a minimum weight of 10 tons. The Field Museum says Sue is "more than 7 tons ".

@Verdugo nice find. Here's the Tyrannosaurus holotype skull in a similar pose.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Gecko
Oct 7 2012, 01:40 PM
Fragillimus335
Oct 7 2012, 07:04 AM
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.
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?
Spinosaurus was, at a very conservative 12 tons, more than 12,000 pounds heavier than Tyrannosaurus, that makes it far more massive/strong. Also Spinosaurs likely had stronger bites than Carcharodontosaurs. Spinosaurus is estimated to have a bite between 2-3 tons while rex is 3-6 tons. Also, scaling from such does make Spinosaurus much taller than Tyrannosaurus. The short legged Spinosaurus is a myth repeated by Tyrannosaurus lovers. And of course, Spinosaurus has a much longer skull than T-rex, suit stands to reason that it probably had a much larger gape.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Gecko
Oct 8 2012, 01:01 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Oct 7 2012, 01:53 PM
Just stop cherry picking the info that gives Tyrannosaurus the advantage. Spinosaurus was almost twice the mass of Tyrannosaurus and was much taller.
How is that cherry picking? I can show you six more pictures and the results will be the same...

Tyrannosaurs are physically more impressive looking than Spinosaurs (Not counting the arms of course)

brolyeuphyfusion
 
((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


Sue's skeleton alone weight almost 2 tons. The new weight estimates (the laser scanned skeletons one) give Sue a minimum weight of 10 tons. The Field Museum says Sue is "more than 7 tons ".

@Verdugo nice find. Here's the Tyrannosaurus holotype skull in a similar pose.
Posted Image
Really nice pic, Gecko agro . Now it is getting VERY ridiculous for Sue to weigh less than 7 tonnes. Dave Hone suggested Sue would weigh 9 tonnes, the new estimate gives Sue up to 9,5 tonnes.
Edited by Verdugo, Oct 8 2012, 01:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
A 9 ton Sue is ridiculous. It was nowhere near that fat. I've seen the skeleton in person, and my college professor, (Christopher Brochu) helped describe Sue, and he thinks it weighed 6-7 tons... MAX.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Oct 7 2012, 08:39 PM
theropod
Oct 7 2012, 07:22 PM
guys, spinosaurus was almost certainly taller than T. rex:

Quote:
 
Basing on Suchomimus MNN GDF500 which is 11m, weighs 2,9-4,8t [1] and has a skull 1,18m[2] and femur and tibia 1.075 m and 945 mm respectively, I get the following figures:

1,75m skull: 16,3m total lenght, 1,59m femur lenght, 1,4m tibial lenght, 9,4-15,6t total weight (the median of those is 12,5t)
1,95m skull: 18,1m total lenght, 1,76m femur lenght, 1,55m tibial lenght, 12,9-21,3t total weight (the median of those is 17,1t)

This should be regarded carefully tough, as the individual wasn´t adult [3] and thus could have had different proportions
References:
1. Sereno et al, 1998: A Long-Snouted Predatory Dinosaur from Africa and the Evolution of Spinosaurids
2. Therrien & Henderson, 2007: My theropod is bigger than yours … or not: estimating body size from skull length in theropods
3. DinoData: http://www.dinodata.info/index.php/topic,2425.msg2425.html#msg2425


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
I doubt that Spinosaurus femur and tibia would be just scaled up like that based on Suchomimus, larger animal usually has shorter legs than their smaller relative and due to being non-arctometatarsal, like Cau stated, Spinosaurus would have proportionately shorter leg than T rex. But i agree that Spinosaurus would be taller than T rex, but not by much

About Spinosaurus having bigger bite than T rex: I highly doubt about that

Posted Image
^ That is MSNM V4047 rostrum compare to a human(Andrea Cau) head from a different angle. The MSNM V4047 rostrum is certainly very long, almost 1m in length, but it's actually EXTREMELY narrow if you look at it from a different angle
Evidence for larger animals usually having shorter legs? This is not the case among theropods. At least when compared to length (definitely not weight) the legs of Giganotosaurus are longer than in allosaurus. They do certainly get shorter when compared to the body mass, because it is common that larger animals do get bulkier, but this was not included in my calculation.

no-one doubts that spinosaurus was PROPORTIONALLY shorter legged than T. rex (again, here it is compared to the lenght, not weight), but as we all know it was by far larger and thus with a high amount of certainity taller. even the most conservative estimates I calculated in that quote still place it at 16,3m and more than 9t, with a femur of nearly 1,6m, thus larger than any other theropods femur, even taking into account the extrapolated figure for the paratype of giganotosaurus.


Quote:
 
The new weight estimates (the laser scanned skeletons one) give Sue a minimum weight of 10 tons

sorry, this is frankly wrong. they give it a weight of 9,1t and that is so far the highest of the values in their study that has actually found acceptance among some people. the estimates above it where never regarded as representing a correct weight.

And again, in the years mass estimates have always centered below 7t. This 9t T. rex is totally exagerated in bulk and it doesn´t match any other related-theropod-mass-estimate.


verdugo, where exactly did hone suggest 9t? and more importantly, was it guess, citing the study or his own estimate?
if you think below 7t is ridiculous, what do you think about nother theropods? if you want to tell it from seeing their skulls, what about this one?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Q7Oq_jSEyUA/TsOcwSrIEZI/AAAAAAAAGuU/Vv0A5nghaWQ/s1600/carcharodontosaurus.jpg

they all would get much heavier using that logic. Ridiculous is only your assumption "look, this T. rex skull is impressive! so it has to be very heavy!" without taking into account that you then obviously underestimated every theropods weight
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
theropod
Oct 8 2012, 01:35 AM
Quote:
 
The new weight estimates (the laser scanned skeletons one) give Sue a minimum weight of 10 tons

sorry, this is frankly wrong. they give it a weight of 9,1t and that is so far the highest of the values in their study that has actually found acceptance among some people. the estimates above it where never regarded as representing a correct weight.

And again, in the years mass estimates have always centered below 7t. This 9t T. rex is totally exagerated in bulk and it doesn´t match any other related-theropod-mass-estimate.


verdugo, where exactly did hone suggest 9t? and more importantly, was it guess, citing the study or his own estimate?
if you think below 7t is ridiculous, what do you think about nother theropods? if you want to tell it from seeing their skulls, what about this one?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Q7Oq_jSEyUA/TsOcwSrIEZI/AAAAAAAAGuU/Vv0A5nghaWQ/s1600/carcharodontosaurus.jpg

they all would get much heavier using that logic. Ridiculous is only your assumption "look, this T. rex skull is impressive! so it has to be very heavy!" without taking into account that you then obviously underestimated every theropods weight
Wrong? If I'm not mistaken 9502 kg is 10.4 tons and thats the minimum weight.
Posted Image

Tyrannosaurus weighed more than the other giant theropods(with the exception of Spinosaurus). Tyrannosaurus was much wider then them, that's why they're heavier. David Hone mentioned on a few of the ask a biologists pages that Tyrannosaurus was probably the heaviest of the 3 big one.

For one that Carcharodontosaurus was reconstructed way too long. Giganotosaurus recently had it's skull down sized to 1.56 m, Carcharodontosaurus would have been smaller. Two, Tyrannosaurus's skull is twice as wide as other theropod skulls (Even more with Spinosaurus's slender skull). Why don't you post a picture of that skull from the front and see how wide it is...
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Tyrannosaurus:
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Tyrannosaurus's skull is almost 3 times as wide. Carcharodontosaurus may have been a few cm longer but that's about it. This image is to scale.
Edited by Gecko, Oct 8 2012, 02:30 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
In term of skull/head/jaws robustness, I'm quite convinced by the Tyrannosaurus argumentation.

I was impressed by the density and surprisingly robust structure of Spinosaurus reconstruction skull, but looking at their respective structure, which the key IMO to determine the greatest killer, I understand why T.rex has still its supporters.

Spinosaurus problem is that it remains after all a very enigmatic creature, with no real consensus about its size, the shape/length of its skull, its weaponry potency...

And ultimately the common image we have of it could be drastically changed in the next publication...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
7Alx
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dal Sasso's Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.