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 (459,324 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:
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Oct 28 2012, 03:03 PM
Hey guys I'm new here, it's interesting to see t.rex vs spino is hotly debated here so I thought I'll share my perspective on this. First of all the new laser scan measurement is the most accurate method compared to the older equations. Another reason why T.rex's 9.5t new estimate is more reliable is simply because Sue's almost intact fossil find, which allows peeps to more accurately place the 3d meshes onto the digital skeleton accordingly. This method was used on an ostrich and the result came out very accurate so it's not unreasonable to apply the same to a T.rex. Of course there's always margin for errors but it's the closest to the real thing.
Now as far as Spino's weight is concerned, we can only hope to find a remain as complete as Sue's for an accurate measurement, so personally I'm not gonna take any weight estimates made for Spino at this stage, it could be anywhere from 7-18t but it's simply useless in this debate. On another hand we have a few more T.rexes bigger than Sue. The T.rex specimen UCMP137538 has a toe bone about 15% bigger than Sue's corresponding toe bone, which suggests an animal about 16.5t if you scale it up linearly. C.rex is also about 13t according to her bones that are 10% bigger than Sue's corresponding ones.
Here's a graph I made using all the largest specimens of each individual species for comparison, the number for Spinosaurus is a rough estimate only.
Posted Image
C. rex seems just a myth. However, 16t are too much for a bipedal, the same argument what debunks a 16t Spinosaurus, can also debunk a 16 Tyrannosaurus with ease.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Oct 28 2012, 03:03 PM
Hey guys I'm new here, it's interesting to see t.rex vs spino is hotly debated here so I thought I'll share my perspective on this. First of all the new laser scan measurement is the most accurate method compared to the older equations. Another reason why T.rex's 9.5t new estimate is more reliable is simply because Sue's almost intact fossil find, which allows peeps to more accurately place the 3d meshes onto the digital skeleton accordingly. This method was used on an ostrich and the result came out very accurate so it's not unreasonable to apply the same to a T.rex. Of course there's always margin for errors but it's the closest to the real thing.
Now as far as Spino's weight is concerned, we can only hope to find a remain as complete as Sue's for an accurate measurement, so personally I'm not gonna take any weight estimates made for Spino at this stage, it could be anywhere from 7-18t but it's simply useless in this debate. On another hand we have a few more T.rexes bigger than Sue. The T.rex specimen UCMP137538 has a toe bone about 15% bigger than Sue's corresponding toe bone, which suggests an animal about 16.5t if you scale it up linearly. C.rex is also about 13t according to her bones that are 10% bigger than Sue's corresponding ones.
Here's a graph I made using all the largest specimens of each individual species for comparison, the number for Spinosaurus is a rough estimate only.
Posted Image
Well, Jinfen, "C.rex" is no myth...

Bone crusher, I had already seen your chart elsewhere. Although spectacular, I will be cautious, especially about the Spinosaurus and the larger Tyrannosaurus.
This toebone is indeed hinting on something quite enormous but establish anything as a fact at this stade is dangerous.

Edit : I'm also skeptical about these body mass figures, though I m not against the most recent laser technic.
Edited by Grey, Oct 28 2012, 08:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Maybe "myth" was the wrong word. I wanted to say the size. Most scientists think it was at the same size as Sue, only Horner seems to think it was bigger.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Oct 28 2012, 08:50 PM
Maybe "myth" was the wrong word. I wanted to say the size. Most scientists think it was at the same size as Sue, only Horner seems to think it was bigger.
I agree there. I don't know if Horner still supports it.

But at least this shows that Sue-sized rexes are no freaks, like some "biased against rex" kids on the internet argue.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
There are many Sue-sized rexes, like UCMP 118742 & AMNH 5027.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Oct 28 2012, 09:05 PM
There are many Sue-sized rexes, like UCMP 118742 & AMNH 5027.
the former is smaller than sue going by its dimensions. Pecks rex is around the same size tough.

Quote:
 
UCMP137538 has a toe bone about 15%

Sorry, but it is 17% bigger than the respective toebone in sue (assuming it CAN actually be assigned to a phalanx), and this still makes it only 14,4m, not 15,3.

C. rex is so far unconfirmed and not better than those 2,4-3m spinosaurus skulls.

Sue has shrunk to 12,3 or at best 12,5m.

Where does that freak 14,7m mapusaurus come from? I thought basing on the largest three specimens and giganotosaurus it wouldn´t be unlikely to reach 14m (but still be at a lower weight than the giganotosaurus paratype if the latter was really 8% bigger).

We can assume the laser technology is the best (it undoubtedly is), but that doesn´t mean the estimates produced with it are the best. Creating the 3d mesh is still a matter of personal consideration fo the amount of bulk. and for me, all those figures seem stimply too high (because they base on bulkier recosntructions and not these skeletals).

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Oct 28 2012, 03:03 PM
Hey guys I'm new here, it's interesting to see t.rex vs spino is hotly debated here so I thought I'll share my perspective on this. First of all the new laser scan measurement is the most accurate method compared to the older equations. Another reason why T.rex's 9.5t new estimate is more reliable is simply because Sue's almost intact fossil find, which allows peeps to more accurately place the 3d meshes onto the digital skeleton accordingly. This method was used on an ostrich and the result came out very accurate so it's not unreasonable to apply the same to a T.rex. Of course there's always margin for errors but it's the closest to the real thing.
Now as far as Spino's weight is concerned, we can only hope to find a remain as complete as Sue's for an accurate measurement, so personally I'm not gonna take any weight estimates made for Spino at this stage, it could be anywhere from 7-18t but it's simply useless in this debate. On another hand we have a few more T.rexes bigger than Sue. The T.rex specimen UCMP137538 has a toe bone about 15% bigger than Sue's corresponding toe bone, which suggests an animal about 16.5t if you scale it up linearly. C.rex is also about 13t according to her bones that are 10% bigger than Sue's corresponding ones.
Here's a graph I made using all the largest specimens of each individual species for comparison, the number for Spinosaurus is a rough estimate only.
Posted Image
Good scale, but i think we should be more conservative about the size of these animals like 18m Spinosaurus, 14m MUCPv-95 or 12,8m Sue,...

UCMP 137538 is TOO fragmentary to estimate its size, even more fragmentary than MUCPv-95

EDIT: BTW i agree that the laser method is likely to be the most accurate method
Edited by Verdugo, Oct 28 2012, 09:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Oct 28 2012, 09:25 PM


C. rex is so far unconfirmed and not better than those 2,4-3m spinosaurus skulls.

I would rather say that C.rex is confirmed as, even though she's not subject to extensive research, she has been discovered by the team on actual paleontologist.

Private specimens are...private, thus with a reliability really fluctuating. The problem with these Spinosaurus is not that they are privately owned, but we have almost no images or interesting stuff about.

Even privately, some spectacular remains are subject to relative attention.

That said, I would not split on these Spinosaurus either. Jack Horner, despite the anger gained against him by some paleo-amateurs, remains one big authority. He based his depiction of Spinosaurus in the third Jurassic Park on this :

Actually I had seen a commercially collected lower jaw ( dentary) that was 4 feet long. Adding the surangular would make the jaw about 8 feet long. I estimated that an animal with an 8 foot skull would be about 60 feet in length.

So, nothing can be ruled out. Once again, we'll see that one of these days.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
It's good to see some are in agreement with the laser scan, I really hope they can collaborate with more museums for scanning especially on full restorations such as Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus. The beauty of 3d laser scan is that you can take every unique body proportion of a certain animal into account rather than relying on a single Allosaurus' body proportion. I have a feeling Giga, Carchy and Mapu would all be lighter than T.rex after the 3d scan, because compared to Rex, they are less bulky especially in the skull, neck and chest area. Also the hipbone of T.rex is massive compared to them which allows much bigger muscle attachment, thus much heavier thighs.
Posted Image
My info on Mapu however could be outdated since I haven't checked the latest update yet so I'll look more into it or someone can fill me in.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Good post bone crusher, however I suggest you another thread, like the one about Theropods Size.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
7Alx
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Both are known from only one bone. I meant UCMP 137538 and MUCPv-95.

AMNH 5027 is around size of holotype, slightly smaller than FMNH PR 2081.

LACM 23844 is another sue sized T. rex specimen, although Sue would be probably slightly heavier.

MOR 1126 is real. The second bone in the picture is from this specimen.
http://feww.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/journal-pone-0013419-g002.png
However i wouldn't say its size must be real. Same with MUCPv-95 and UCMP specimen.
Edited by 7Alx, Oct 28 2012, 10:36 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Oct 28 2012, 10:31 PM
It's good to see some are in agreement with the laser scan, I really hope they can collaborate with more museums for scanning especially on full restorations such as Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus. The beauty of 3d laser scan is that you can take every unique body proportion of a certain animal into account rather than relying on a single Allosaurus' body proportion. I have a feeling Giga, Carchy and Mapu would all be lighter than T.rex after the 3d scan, because compared to Rex, they are less bulky especially in the skull, neck and chest area. Also the hipbone of T.rex is massive compared to them which allows much bigger muscle attachment, thus much heavier thighs.
Posted Image
My info on Mapu however could be outdated since I haven't checked the latest update yet so I'll look more into it or someone can fill me in.
good post, where´s that image from?

I wouldn´t be that sure about it. giganotosaurus, carcharodontosaurus and mapusaurus are all fragmentary and their exact proportions and bulk are still a matter of debabe. They would also liklely have a slightly higher density.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Oct 28 2012, 10:31 PM
It's good to see some are in agreement with the laser scan, I really hope they can collaborate with more museums for scanning especially on full restorations such as Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus. The beauty of 3d laser scan is that you can take every unique body proportion of a certain animal into account rather than relying on a single Allosaurus' body proportion. I have a feeling Giga, Carchy and Mapu would all be lighter than T.rex after the 3d scan, because compared to Rex, they are less bulky especially in the skull, neck and chest area. Also the hipbone of T.rex is massive compared to them which allows much bigger muscle attachment, thus much heavier thighs.
Posted Image
My info on Mapu however could be outdated since I haven't checked the latest update yet so I'll look more into it or someone can fill me in.
Good Post, where did you get that from ??. Could you send us the link for that paper ? Please :)

I thought Sue and Giganotosaurus haven't been applied to the laser imaging method
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Oct 28 2012, 10:23 PM
theropod
Oct 28 2012, 09:25 PM


C. rex is so far unconfirmed and not better than those 2,4-3m spinosaurus skulls.

I would rather say that C.rex is confirmed as, even though she's not subject to extensive research, she has been discovered by the team on actual paleontologist.

Private specimens are...private, thus with a reliability really fluctuating. The problem with these Spinosaurus is not that they are privately owned, but we have almost no images or interesting stuff about.

Even privately, some spectacular remains are subject to relative attention.

That said, I would not split on these Spinosaurus either. Jack Horner, despite the anger gained against him by some paleo-amateurs, remains one big authority. He based his depiction of Spinosaurus in the third Jurassic Park on this :

Actually I had seen a commercially collected lower jaw ( dentary) that was 4 feet long. Adding the surangular would make the jaw about 8 feet long. I estimated that an animal with an 8 foot skull would be about 60 feet in length.

So, nothing can be ruled out. Once again, we'll see that one of these days.
They are all unconfirmed. of course it was discovered by actual palaeontologists. it´s EXISTENCE is totally confirmed, but it´s size isn´t. That was just an on-the field guess, nothing more, without any confirmation later on. IMO c. rex is one of the saddest example of fanboy and media exageration.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, C.rex was first estimated by Jack Horner. Medias and fanboys played with afterward.

C.rex is confirmed to be big, it is not confirmed and unlikely as I know to be as large as they first mentionned.

Dino Frey had also greatly exagerrated the size of the giant Mexican pliosaur in 2003, despite being no specialist about plesiosaurs, and I can confirm that he continued even a long time after.
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.