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 (459,329 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:
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Oct 9 2012, 12:30 PM
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.
So you meant all Theropod should get 2-3 times lighter, right ?. So Sue would weigh ~ 3-4,5 tonnes ? rolleyes
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Oct 9 2012, 02:00 PM
Fragillimus335
Oct 9 2012, 12:30 PM
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.
So you meant all Theropod should get 2-3 times lighter, right ?. So Sue would weigh ~ 3-4,5 tonnes ? rolleyes
Of course not, it is very unlikely giant theropods and human had proportionally similar skeletal weights.... I think the largest tyrannosaurs (like Sue size) weighed 6-7.5 tons, like nearly every other respectable paleontologist.
Edited by Fragillimus335, Oct 9 2012, 02:04 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Oct 9 2012, 02:04 PM
Verdugo
Oct 9 2012, 02:00 PM
Fragillimus335
Oct 9 2012, 12:30 PM
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.
So you meant all Theropod should get 2-3 times lighter, right ?. So Sue would weigh ~ 3-4,5 tonnes ? rolleyes
Of course not, it is very unlikely giant theropods and human had proportionally similar skeletal weights.... I think the largest tyrannosaurs (like Sue size) weighed 6-7.5 tons, like nearly every other respectable paleontologist.
So you meant despite the look, Theropod would have proportionately lighter skeleton structure than human ? rolleyes
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Oct 9 2012, 02:36 PM
Fragillimus335
Oct 9 2012, 02:04 PM
Verdugo
Oct 9 2012, 02:00 PM
Fragillimus335
Oct 9 2012, 12:30 PM
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.
So you meant all Theropod should get 2-3 times lighter, right ?. So Sue would weigh ~ 3-4,5 tonnes ? rolleyes
Of course not, it is very unlikely giant theropods and human had proportionally similar skeletal weights.... I think the largest tyrannosaurs (like Sue size) weighed 6-7.5 tons, like nearly every other respectable paleontologist.
So you meant despite the look, Theropod would have proportionately lighter skeleton structure than human ? rolleyes
I'm not Fragillimus335 but yes, a theropod would have a proportionally lighter skeleton than a human, because of bone pneumaticity. Dinosaur bones are hollow but strong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Oct 9 2012, 03:07 PM
Verdugo
Oct 9 2012, 02:36 PM
Fragillimus335
Oct 9 2012, 02:04 PM
Verdugo
Oct 9 2012, 02:00 PM
Fragillimus335
Oct 9 2012, 12:30 PM
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.
So you meant all Theropod should get 2-3 times lighter, right ?. So Sue would weigh ~ 3-4,5 tonnes ? rolleyes
Of course not, it is very unlikely giant theropods and human had proportionally similar skeletal weights.... I think the largest tyrannosaurs (like Sue size) weighed 6-7.5 tons, like nearly every other respectable paleontologist.
So you meant despite the look, Theropod would have proportionately lighter skeleton structure than human ? rolleyes
I'm not Fragillimus335 but yes, a theropod would have a proportionally lighter skeleton than a human, because of bone pneumaticity. Dinosaur bones are hollow but strong.
Actually, Theropod bones are denser than mammal bones despite the fact it was hollow. Because bird bones are denser and stronger than mammal bones

Quote:
 
For centuries biologists have known that bird bones are hollow, and even elementary school children know that bird skeletons are lightweight to offset the high energy cost of flying. Nevertheless, many people are surprised to learn that bird skeletons do not actually weigh any less than the skeletons of similarly sized mammals. In other words, the skeleton of a two-ounce songbird weighs just as much as the skeleton of a two-ounce rodent.


Quote:
 
Bird biologists have known this for a long time, but it took a modern bat researcher, Elizabeth Dumont of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, to explain how bird skeletons can look so delicate and still be heavy. The answer is that bird bones are denser than mammal bones, which makes them heavy even though they are thin and sometimes even hollow.
Her findings, supported by bone density measurements, are published in the March 17 issue of Proceedings of the Royal Society B. As Dumont explains, "The fact that bird bones are denser than bones in mammals not only makes them heavier for their size, but it may also make them stiffer and stronger. This is a new way to think about how bird skeletons are specialized for flying and solves the riddle of why bird skeletons appear so lightweight and are still relatively heavy. This has never been explained fully and so has never gotten into the textbooks. I'd like to see that change."


Quote:
 
Dumont measured the density of the cranium, the upper arm bone or humerus and the thigh or femur bones in song birds, rodents and bats by measuring bone mass and volume. "I found that, on average, these bones are densest in birds, followed closely by bats. Many other studies have shown that as bone density increases, so do bone stiffness and strength. Maximizing stiffness and strength relative to weight are optimization strategies that are used in the design of strong and stiff but lightweight man-made airframes," she points out. Density is a measure of mass per unit of volume; dense bones are both heavier and stronger, much as a titanium toothpick would be stronger than a wooden one


Quote:
 
Galileo described bird bones as lightweight in 1683, Dumont says. Her new data help to dispel the common misconception that bird skeletons are lightweight relative to body mass. Instead, bird and bat skeletons only appear to be slender and delicate -- because they are dense, they are also heavy. Being dense, strong and stiff is one more way that birds' and bats'
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
That´s interesting, still calculating the weight by using the approximate ratio of skeletal weight to total weight from a hominid is extremely unreliable.

4,5t is the lower end for T. rex that has ever been calculated and everybody agrees about 6-7,5t being the most accepted estimate, as fragillimus already wrote

fun fact: I once saw a childrens documentary that really gave sue a 3t weight due to heigh bone pneumacity. maybe that based on a similarly flawed metodology...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Oct 9 2012, 03:34 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Oct 9 2012, 03:07 PM
Verdugo
Oct 9 2012, 02:36 PM
Fragillimus335
Oct 9 2012, 02:04 PM
Verdugo
Oct 9 2012, 02:00 PM
Fragillimus335
Oct 9 2012, 12:30 PM
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.
So you meant all Theropod should get 2-3 times lighter, right ?. So Sue would weigh ~ 3-4,5 tonnes ? rolleyes
Of course not, it is very unlikely giant theropods and human had proportionally similar skeletal weights.... I think the largest tyrannosaurs (like Sue size) weighed 6-7.5 tons, like nearly every other respectable paleontologist.
So you meant despite the look, Theropod would have proportionately lighter skeleton structure than human ? rolleyes
I'm not Fragillimus335 but yes, a theropod would have a proportionally lighter skeleton than a human, because of bone pneumaticity. Dinosaur bones are hollow but strong.
Actually, Theropod bones are denser than mammal bones despite the fact it was hollow. Because bird bones are denser and stronger than mammal bones

Quote:
 
For centuries biologists have known that bird bones are hollow, and even elementary school children know that bird skeletons are lightweight to offset the high energy cost of flying. Nevertheless, many people are surprised to learn that bird skeletons do not actually weigh any less than the skeletons of similarly sized mammals. In other words, the skeleton of a two-ounce songbird weighs just as much as the skeleton of a two-ounce rodent.


Quote:
 
Bird biologists have known this for a long time, but it took a modern bat researcher, Elizabeth Dumont of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, to explain how bird skeletons can look so delicate and still be heavy. The answer is that bird bones are denser than mammal bones, which makes them heavy even though they are thin and sometimes even hollow.
Her findings, supported by bone density measurements, are published in the March 17 issue of Proceedings of the Royal Society B. As Dumont explains, "The fact that bird bones are denser than bones in mammals not only makes them heavier for their size, but it may also make them stiffer and stronger. This is a new way to think about how bird skeletons are specialized for flying and solves the riddle of why bird skeletons appear so lightweight and are still relatively heavy. This has never been explained fully and so has never gotten into the textbooks. I'd like to see that change."


Quote:
 
Dumont measured the density of the cranium, the upper arm bone or humerus and the thigh or femur bones in song birds, rodents and bats by measuring bone mass and volume. "I found that, on average, these bones are densest in birds, followed closely by bats. Many other studies have shown that as bone density increases, so do bone stiffness and strength. Maximizing stiffness and strength relative to weight are optimization strategies that are used in the design of strong and stiff but lightweight man-made airframes," she points out. Density is a measure of mass per unit of volume; dense bones are both heavier and stronger, much as a titanium toothpick would be stronger than a wooden one


Quote:
 
Galileo described bird bones as lightweight in 1683, Dumont says. Her new data help to dispel the common misconception that bird skeletons are lightweight relative to body mass. Instead, bird and bat skeletons only appear to be slender and delicate -- because they are dense, they are also heavy. Being dense, strong and stiff is one more way that birds' and bats'
No, not because of lighter bones, but because of a different skeleton design. Do you really think all animals in the world have proportionately heavy skeletons to a human? And please don't forget that Tyrannosaurus had massive air sacs that would have made it lighter, both in the bones and in the body cavity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I think the pneumaticity of the bones themselves has been accounted for in that calculation.
BTW, if someone is interested: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00190.x/full
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I know the pneumacity has been accounted for, but the point is it affects how heavy fossilized bones are compared to normal ones.
The study did undoubtedly take airsacks ect. into account, that is absolutely clear, even tough it uses far too liberal amounts of tissue...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The point is, fossilized bone is heavier than un-fossilized bone....it is an undisputed fact.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Oct 10 2012, 12:28 AM
Verdugo
Oct 9 2012, 03:34 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Oct 9 2012, 03:07 PM
Verdugo
Oct 9 2012, 02:36 PM
Fragillimus335
Oct 9 2012, 02:04 PM
Verdugo
Oct 9 2012, 02:00 PM
Fragillimus335
Oct 9 2012, 12:30 PM
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.
So you meant all Theropod should get 2-3 times lighter, right ?. So Sue would weigh ~ 3-4,5 tonnes ? rolleyes
Of course not, it is very unlikely giant theropods and human had proportionally similar skeletal weights.... I think the largest tyrannosaurs (like Sue size) weighed 6-7.5 tons, like nearly every other respectable paleontologist.
So you meant despite the look, Theropod would have proportionately lighter skeleton structure than human ? rolleyes
I'm not Fragillimus335 but yes, a theropod would have a proportionally lighter skeleton than a human, because of bone pneumaticity. Dinosaur bones are hollow but strong.
Actually, Theropod bones are denser than mammal bones despite the fact it was hollow. Because bird bones are denser and stronger than mammal bones

Quote:
 
For centuries biologists have known that bird bones are hollow, and even elementary school children know that bird skeletons are lightweight to offset the high energy cost of flying. Nevertheless, many people are surprised to learn that bird skeletons do not actually weigh any less than the skeletons of similarly sized mammals. In other words, the skeleton of a two-ounce songbird weighs just as much as the skeleton of a two-ounce rodent.


Quote:
 
Bird biologists have known this for a long time, but it took a modern bat researcher, Elizabeth Dumont of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, to explain how bird skeletons can look so delicate and still be heavy. The answer is that bird bones are denser than mammal bones, which makes them heavy even though they are thin and sometimes even hollow.
Her findings, supported by bone density measurements, are published in the March 17 issue of Proceedings of the Royal Society B. As Dumont explains, "The fact that bird bones are denser than bones in mammals not only makes them heavier for their size, but it may also make them stiffer and stronger. This is a new way to think about how bird skeletons are specialized for flying and solves the riddle of why bird skeletons appear so lightweight and are still relatively heavy. This has never been explained fully and so has never gotten into the textbooks. I'd like to see that change."


Quote:
 
Dumont measured the density of the cranium, the upper arm bone or humerus and the thigh or femur bones in song birds, rodents and bats by measuring bone mass and volume. "I found that, on average, these bones are densest in birds, followed closely by bats. Many other studies have shown that as bone density increases, so do bone stiffness and strength. Maximizing stiffness and strength relative to weight are optimization strategies that are used in the design of strong and stiff but lightweight man-made airframes," she points out. Density is a measure of mass per unit of volume; dense bones are both heavier and stronger, much as a titanium toothpick would be stronger than a wooden one


Quote:
 
Galileo described bird bones as lightweight in 1683, Dumont says. Her new data help to dispel the common misconception that bird skeletons are lightweight relative to body mass. Instead, bird and bat skeletons only appear to be slender and delicate -- because they are dense, they are also heavy. Being dense, strong and stiff is one more way that birds' and bats'
No, not because of lighter bones, but because of a different skeleton design. Do you really think all animals in the world have proportionately heavy skeletons to a human? And please don't forget that Tyrannosaurus had massive air sacs that would have made it lighter, both in the bones and in the body cavity.

Quote:
 
No, not because of lighter bones, but because of a different skeleton design.


Do you notice this part ?. There's nothing to do with skeleton design here, also this study has proven that bird's skeleton would weigh as much as the skeleton of equal size mammal

Quote:
 
Dumont measured the density of the cranium, the upper arm bone or humerus and the thigh or femur bones in song birds, rodents and bats by measuring bone mass and volume. "I found that, on average, these bones are densest in birds, followed closely by bats.


Quote:
 
And please don't forget that Tyrannosaurus had massive air sacs that would have made it lighter, both in the bones and in the body cavity.


The 9,5 tonnes estimate for Sue has already included the air-sac you know rolleyes
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Yea, but it's grossly obese. It would not have been a powerful hunter at that weight, just a blob.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Oct 10 2012, 02:40 PM
Yea, but it's grossly obese. It would not have been a powerful hunter at that weight, just a blob.
So your 20+ tonnes Spinosaurus was a sitting duck right ? rolleyes
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
it was a fish eater, but he is not claiming anythign about a spinosaurus that heavy. and scaled down to T. rex lenght his 18t spinosaurus is only 5,7t...

definitely this is not greossly obese but far too low assuming T. rex was really 9,1t. this T. rex model does still seem too bulky imo, but assuming it was 9,1t other theropods would also be heavier than we tought, which i don´t believe in because they simply are not animals built for stability and weight support and all of them do have a relatively cursorial, slender built
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Oct 10 2012, 02:42 PM
Fragillimus335
Oct 10 2012, 02:40 PM
Yea, but it's grossly obese. It would not have been a powerful hunter at that weight, just a blob.
So your 20+ tonnes Spinosaurus was a sitting duck right ? rolleyes
Any theropod at 20 tonnes would collapse. That kind of mass is off-limits for bipedals
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.