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 (459,323 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:
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
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
Just about every specimen on this chart is exaggerated in weight and length.

Sue was 12.3-12.5 meters and 6-7 tons, Carchar was likely 13-14 meters and 6-8 tons, Spino was likely 16-18 meters and 14-18 tons....ect...ect.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carcharadon
Member Avatar
Shark Toothed Reptile
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Oct 28 2012, 03:03 PM
Posted Image
Oh god, a 15 m Tyrannosaurus weighing 16.5 tons? Really?
Edited by Carcharadon, Oct 29 2012, 11:49 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Oct 29 2012, 10:27 AM
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
Just about every specimen on this chart is exaggerated in weight and length.

Sue was 12.3-12.5 meters and 6-7 tons, Carchar was likely 13-14 meters and 6-8 tons, Spino was likely 16-18 meters and 14-18 tons....ect...ect.
If you even attempted at reading my post then you wouldn't bluntly call me exaggerating. Your weight data is severely outdated by old methods.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Oct 29 2012, 02:32 PM
Fragillimus335
Oct 29 2012, 10:27 AM
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
Just about every specimen on this chart is exaggerated in weight and length.

Sue was 12.3-12.5 meters and 6-7 tons, Carchar was likely 13-14 meters and 6-8 tons, Spino was likely 16-18 meters and 14-18 tons....ect...ect.
If you even attempted at reading my post then you wouldn't bluntly call me exaggerating. Your weight data is severely outdated by old methods.
You forgot to alter the fleshing of the skeletals to fit your new mass estimates, for example, your Tyrannosaurus skeletal is supposed to be a 6-tonne Tyrannosaurus, compare it to the model of a 9.5 tonne Tyrannosaurus, and you'll see the difference...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
it is not altered by old metods, it is about the weight of the portrayed animals, and not about the weight of some overly bulky estimates. the animals as portrayed would never be that heavy, Hartmans skeletal shows a 6,4t sue, not a 10,5t one
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Fat bottomed theropods you make the rockin' world go round!

Seriously, Sue did not weigh 9.5/10.5 tons....If you have seen the skeleton you would know that. It's mounted right next to a pair of 8 ton elephants, and it is definitely smaller, and it's a theropod...that means air sacs, and lots of them.
Edited by Fragillimus335, Oct 29 2012, 11:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
couldn´t you ask brochu which weight he thinks is reasonable for sue?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinoHunter
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Although Spino may have been significantly larger, it still should not want to be on the other end of a charging T-Rex. If t-Rex were to charge head-on at at spinosaurus, the spino's small brain would probably not be able to react in time and it wouldn't know what to do. It would likely end up getting knocked on its ass, but if it managed to remain standing it would probably be disoriented, an easy target for T-Rex's deadly bite. The only way I see spinosaur winning is if it gets a hold of T-Rex and clamp down on its neck with its jaws. If the spinosaurus were able to keep its jaws clamped on the t-Rex and get a firm grip on it, using its arms and mass it could maneuver the t-Rex to the ground and then ravage it with its claws and feet. But this is unlikely because t-Rex would be very wary near such a big spinosaurus, and wouldn't let spinosaur get close enough to attack. The only time they would be close enough is when t-Rex is attacking, at which point it would be too late for spinosaurus to make a move. T-Rex is just too much for spinosaur to handle and would win 70/30 or 80/20

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Oct 30 2012, 02:40 AM
couldn´t you ask brochu which weight he thinks is reasonable for sue?
He actually prefers weights of around 6 tons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Oct 29 2012, 11:09 PM
Fat bottomed theropods you make the rockin' world go round!

Seriously, Sue did not weigh 9.5/10.5 tons....If you have seen the skeleton you would know that. It's mounted right next to a pair of 8 ton elephants, and it is definitely smaller, and it's a theropod...that means air sacs, and lots of them.
The elephant is mounted with flesh and skin so obviously it'll look bigger than it really is. When you compare them all in skeleton you can see that T.rex is much bigger. So if a decent sized bull elephant weighs 6tons then it's easy to see a T.rex like Sue could weigh 9 tons+.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Oct 30 2012, 06:22 PM
Fragillimus335
Oct 29 2012, 11:09 PM
Fat bottomed theropods you make the rockin' world go round!

Seriously, Sue did not weigh 9.5/10.5 tons....If you have seen the skeleton you would know that. It's mounted right next to a pair of 8 ton elephants, and it is definitely smaller, and it's a theropod...that means air sacs, and lots of them.
The elephant is mounted with flesh and skin so obviously it'll look bigger than it really is. When you compare them all in skeleton you can see that T.rex is much bigger. So if a decent sized bull elephant weighs 6tons then it's easy to see a T.rex like Sue could weigh 9 tons+.
Posted Image
Try using a lateral view, a front view, and a top view, it's easier to get the sizes right that way...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yeah, the pic is potentially misleading, but to me, it is common knowledge that T.rex is bigger than most African elephants individuals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Oct 30 2012, 06:22 PM
Fragillimus335
Oct 29 2012, 11:09 PM
Fat bottomed theropods you make the rockin' world go round!

Seriously, Sue did not weigh 9.5/10.5 tons....If you have seen the skeleton you would know that. It's mounted right next to a pair of 8 ton elephants, and it is definitely smaller, and it's a theropod...that means air sacs, and lots of them.
The elephant is mounted with flesh and skin so obviously it'll look bigger than it really is. When you compare them all in skeleton you can see that T.rex is much bigger. So if a decent sized bull elephant weighs 6tons then it's easy to see a T.rex like Sue could weigh 9 tons+.
Posted Image
and who made that comparison?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Oct 30 2012, 06:54 PM
Yeah, the pic is potentially misleading, but to me, it is common knowledge that T.rex is bigger than most African elephants individuals.
Of course, that´s not surprising. after all, we are using sue and an average elephant. On the other hand, we can assume the T. rexes we found to be around average alltogether, but you cannot take larger individuals that you didn´t yet find into account.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
This one is better:
Posted Image
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.