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 (459,330 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
[ *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Oct 8 2012, 11:09 PM
Sue's skeleton is fossilized!!!! That makes it far heavier than it would have been in life! :blink:
Fossilization isn't going to dramatically change the weight. If anything I would think living bone would weight more than a fossil anyway.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Gecko
Oct 9 2012, 12:25 AM
Fragillimus335
Oct 8 2012, 11:09 PM
Sue's skeleton is fossilized!!!! That makes it far heavier than it would have been in life! :blink:
Fossilization isn't going to dramatically change the weight. If anything I would think living bone would weight more than a fossil anyway.
That doesn't even make sense! Fossils are made of minerals which are more dense than bone...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Oct 9 2012, 12:39 AM
That doesn't even make sense! Fossils are made of minerals which are more dense than bone...
Being denser doesn't always equal being heavier. Living bone is pretty heavy...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Gecko
Oct 9 2012, 12:50 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Oct 9 2012, 12:39 AM
That doesn't even make sense! Fossils are made of minerals which are more dense than bone...
Being denser doesn't always equal being heavier. Living bone is pretty heavy...
No,No,No man you are seriously wrong on this point, fossilized bone is like 2-3 times as heavy as real bone!!! Look it up. And BTW, denser does=heavier.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Oct 9 2012, 01:18 AM
No,No,No man you are seriously wrong on this point, fossilized bone is like 2-3 times as heavy as real bone!!! Look it up. And BTW, denser does=heavier.
Source then? I googled it and couldn't find anything other than they're probably of comparable weight.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Even assuming it was as fat as in the "skinniest reconstruction" and really 9,1t, this would still mean we are imagining other theropods too light as well. But I still think even the skinniest one is exagerated in bulk
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Gecko
Oct 9 2012, 01:54 AM
Fragillimus335
Oct 9 2012, 01:18 AM
No,No,No man you are seriously wrong on this point, fossilized bone is like 2-3 times as heavy as real bone!!! Look it up. And BTW, denser does=heavier.
Source then? I googled it and couldn't find anything other than they're probably of comparable weight.
I literally went to paleontology class 20 min before I posted that comment, and we were learning about the differences between fossil bone and living bone. It's pretty much common sense that stone is much heavier than bone.

Edited by Fragillimus335, Oct 9 2012, 03:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
common sense and there cannot be any denial that at aproximately the same volume bone is much lighter than stone. gecko, serriously, being denser does equal being heavier in this case. why don you think have people been building their arrowtips of bone and antler and not of stone? being lighter! I have been constructing primitive weapons for quite a long time now and I can confirm that that is true. if you would replace some of the bone points on my arrows with ones made of flint they would be completely different.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shaochilong
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Gecko
Oct 9 2012, 12:50 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Oct 9 2012, 12:39 AM
That doesn't even make sense! Fossils are made of minerals which are more dense than bone...
Being denser doesn't always equal being heavier. Living bone is pretty heavy...
Fossilized bone is significantly heavier than living bone.
Denser = heavier. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
My mistake, you're right fossilized bone do weight more.

But fossilization causes the bone to double or even triple in weight?
Edited by Gecko, Oct 9 2012, 04:33 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
average bone density is 1500kg/m³
density of slate: 2800kg/m³

a significant difference

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
then add this to possible airsacs/ pneumatic cavitys that might be filled up with sediments...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Fossils aren't purely slate are they?

We have found soft tissues in them, haven't we?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
that does not mean they don´t have the density of the surrounding material. from my expierience most fossils do seem to have a rather higher density than the stone they are in, and soft tissues just like everything else in a FOSSIL is fossilized.
frgaillimus ought to know more about this, I have never had that much interest in geology, but they are certainly not very different from the surrounding minerals in terms of density
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Oct 9 2012, 04:44 AM
that does not mean they don´t have the density of the surrounding material. from my expierience most fossils do seem to have a rather higher density than the stone they are in, and soft tissues just like everything else in a FOSSIL is fossilized.
frgaillimus ought to know more about this, I have never had that much interest in geology, but they are certainly not very different from the surrounding minerals in terms of density
Yes, they are quite similar to the rock they fossilize in. No bone has ever been found with significant preserved soft tissue, despite what the media says. Fossil bones often weigh 2 times as much as living bone, and the vey thin walled, pneumatic theropod bones would show an even greater difference.
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.