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 (459,331 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
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Gecko
Oct 8 2012, 02:13 AM
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.
misunderstanding then, my ton is exactly 1000kg
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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
Your laser scanned skeleton estimate is flawed, don't use it. It assumes that Tyrannosaurus was a fat sausage.
If you have seen the model that the estimate is based on, you'll see what I mean...
Tyrannosaurus can't even hunt effectively at that level of fatness!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Oct 8 2012, 11:32 AM
Your laser scanned skeleton estimate is flawed, don't use it. It assumes that Tyrannosaurus was a fat sausage.
If you have seen the model that the estimate is based on, you'll see what I mean...
Tyrannosaurus can't even hunt effectively at that level of fatness!
How is it flawed? I agree the maximum weight is way too fat but the minimum weight (Which is 9502 kg) looks just fine.

Posted Image

I know it's not the best example but a human's skeleton weighs about 14% of their total weight. If Sue's weight was even slightly similar it would put her in the 9-10 ton range. (Sue's skeleton weighs 3,922 lbs)

@theropod my bad too, I forgot there is 2 different tons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Oct 8 2012, 01:35 AM
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
Quote:
 
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.

Larger animal (Theropod dinosaur) usually have shorter legs than smaller animal. For example, Sue would have proportionately shorter leg than smaller specimens of T rex. But Spinosaurus would still likely to be taller anyway.

But i recommended you should use an adult specimens of Spinosauridae to scale up the legs length, since juvenile theropod usually has longer legs than their adult. If you use the juvenile specimen to scale up, Spino legs length would likely to be overrestmated

Quote:
 
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.


I honestly don't know where do you get that 9,1 tonnes from ? The MIN mass from the new estimate is 9,5 tonnes, and the scientists from that study also stated that they would use the MIN mass as the best mass estimate of an animal because it's no good for a predator to get any heavier

WRONG ??. Why was it wrong ?. Because Spino fanboys and T rex haters stated it was WRONG ?. The new estimate was done by many scientists like Hutchinson, Bates, Molnar, Allen, Makovicky and Dave Hone also supports this estimate. So all the scientists failed and 2 wandering guys online are the only one right here rolleyes

Quote:
 
verdugo, where exactly did hone suggest 9t? and more importantly, was it guess, citing the study or his own estimate?


Posted Image

I think he seriously support the new estimate rolleyes

The new estimate actually doesn't make Sue much more robust than she really was

Posted Image
^ Sue is very robust and muscular built animal, even by T rex standard. The reason why Spino fanboys and T rex haters cannot accept this because they cannot image T rex would still be the king rolleyes

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
If you guys use 9.1 tonnes for Tyrannosaurus, then we must use 20.7 tonnes for Spinosaurus. If you are gonna use a liberal estimate for Tyrannosaurus, then we must also use liberals for toher theropods, otherwise, it would be bias.

Verdugo, the skeleton isn't the issue, it's how they fleshed it out, that's the issue. 9-tonne Tyrannosaurus is fat, fat, and more fat
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The problem is that this new estimate is not a liberal one but a conservative based on this method, 9,5 tons being the weight of the skinniest model.

Of course, others theropods need too this application.

However, I have the impression viewing the biologists comments and the pics that T.rex was really heavy built, with a wide chest, compared to the other guys.

I don't know but I have to say the comparison Spinosaurus/Tyrannosaurus really stroke my mind. Despite the really long and dense skull of Spinosaurus, T.rex snout is really formidably built.

Byt the way, I wonder if the head of T.rex wasn't even the heaviest of all theropods, seeing how wide and deep it is. Even adding the weight of all the teeth...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superpredator
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Oct 8 2012, 04:17 PM
Verdugo, the skeleton isn't the issue, it's how they fleshed it out, that's the issue. 9-tonne Tyrannosaurus is fat, fat, and more fat
It doesn't look like "fat, fat, and more fat", in fact it looks just about right, IMO (judging from the skeleton):
Posted Image
Yes, the maximum weight is incredibly retarded and biased, but the minimum weight looks perfect IMO.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
This new method is getting overused and overstated, I bet with that new method, Argentinosaurus would be larger than a blue whale...Grey, it is conservative in the standards of that method, but that method in itself, is a liberal one, just compare the model with Scott Hartman's Tyrannosaurus. Most estimates centered around 6 tonnes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Broly
 
Verdugo, the skeleton isn't the issue, it's how they fleshed it out, that's the issue. 9-tonne Tyrannosaurus is fat, fat, and more fat


Why the skeleton isn't the issue ? Sue need to be at LEAST as robust as her skeleton, you cannot be skinnier than your skeleton, right ?. The new estimate put flesh wrap around the skeleton perfectly, i don't see any liberal part (i am talking about the MIN estimate of course). And i won't call it fat, it's actually muscles. Sue would like to be built like this in real life

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
No, not COTD! That's the most inaccurate documentary ever!

And many paleoartists managed to make Sue as robust as it's skeleton, without making it too massive. Look at Scott Hartman's version of Tyrannosaurus, that's what I imagine it to fleshed-out like.
Edited by SpinoInWonderland, Oct 8 2012, 08:15 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carcharadon
Member Avatar
Shark Toothed Reptile
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I can show you guys a much fatter estimate
And i know what you guys are gonna say about this

From Ultimate Debate - Round 5
Quote:
 
Read Sue's maximal on weight on this
Posted Image
Convert 18489 kg to pounds, using this
The result = 40761.26765538465. That's over 20 tons

20 tons..... heavier than Spinosaurus...... is enough to win lol lol lol lol
Edited by Carcharadon, Oct 8 2012, 11:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Gecko
Oct 8 2012, 12:54 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Oct 8 2012, 11:32 AM
Your laser scanned skeleton estimate is flawed, don't use it. It assumes that Tyrannosaurus was a fat sausage.
If you have seen the model that the estimate is based on, you'll see what I mean...
Tyrannosaurus can't even hunt effectively at that level of fatness!
How is it flawed? I agree the maximum weight is way too fat but the minimum weight (Which is 9502 kg) looks just fine.

Posted Image

I know it's not the best example but a human's skeleton weighs about 14% of their total weight. If Sue's weight was even slightly similar it would put her in the 9-10 ton range. (Sue's skeleton weighs 3,922 lbs)

@theropod my bad too, I forgot there is 2 different tons.
Sue's skeleton is fossilized!!!! That makes it far heavier than it would have been in life! :blink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Oct 8 2012, 08:13 PM
No, not COTD! That's the most inaccurate documentary ever!

And many paleoartists managed to make Sue as robust as it's skeleton, without making it too massive. Look at Scott Hartman's version of Tyrannosaurus, that's what I imagine it to fleshed-out like.
Quote:
 
No, not COTD! That's the most inaccurate documentary ever!

Yes, COTD is quite inaccurate, but i don't see any flaws with that picture, at least when compare to the new estimate

Quote:
 
Look at Scott Hartman's version of Tyrannosaurus, that's what I imagine it to fleshed-out like


Sue could have built like that, but she wouldn't be lighter
Posted Image

This a scale from Gecko based on Hartman reconstructions and scale bar so it wouldn't have any flaws here. Sue is clearly much more robust than Giganotosaurus holotype, bigger in whole dimension. Giganotosaurus is estimated to be ~ 6,5 tonnes

Posted Image

Posted Image

It's REALLY HIGHLY UNLIKELY for Sue to weigh only as little as 6 tonnes like you suggested
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dark allosaurus
Oct 8 2012, 11:03 PM
I can show you guys a much fatter estimate
And i know what you guys are gonna say about this

From Ultimate Debate - Round 5
Quote:
 
Read Sue's maximal on weight on this
Posted Image
Convert 18489 kg to pounds, using this
The result = 40761.26765538465. That's over 20 tons

20 tons..... heavier than Spinosaurus...... is enough to win lol lol lol lol
Lol, an 18-tonne Sue would crack it's own legs on the spot, and collapse, leaving the Spinosaurus to just hit it until it dies lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
Click image for a larger view

Tyrannosaurus = 12.25 meters long
Spinosaurus = 17 meters long, 175 cm skull
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.