| 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: |
| Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM (459,318 Views) | |
| Wolf Eagle | Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM Post #1 |
![]()
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. ![]() 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).
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| theropod | Nov 10 2012, 09:22 PM Post #946 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
More importantly I suggest using less absulute terms when talking about the intelligence of animals with nothing but the braincase (not even that in spinos case) preserved to judge it from, such metods can be highly misleading and in fact "primitive" is still a subjective term and doesn´t necessarily equal being inferior in points such as intelligence. as an example, vertebrate fanatics do probably consider mollusks primitive, but modern Cephalopods are far more intelligent than the diverse evolutionary grade commonly known as "fish". The whole thing with spino breaking its back when being injured in the spinosus processes is downright silly and it was made up by mega beasts. Do bisons break their back when they wallow? no, they don´t, do you want to know why? No animal would evolve such a self-destruction-mechanism, if an animal developes a structure it is built to be useful, not the opposite. Thus either the shape of the back and stability of the spines was sufficient to keep everything in place, like in a bison, or the spines would have broken, without affecting the neural canal. But how can anyone believe breaking its spinosus processes could be life threatening for spinosaurus????? sorry, but thats frankly nothing but BS. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 10 2012, 09:22 PM Post #947 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is like assuming T. rex heavy skull would have made it topple over and die when facing an opponent. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 10 2012, 11:44 PM Post #948 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's baseless bs even. The spinal cord is not found in the neural spines, it's in the spinal column! I think that bs was made just to downgrade Spinosaurus... |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Nov 11 2012, 12:13 AM Post #949 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Mickey Mortimer doesn't make any estimates, she just uses the estimates from Dal Sasso and other scientists The maximum estimates until now belongs to Holtz, and he only gave it 16m long so i would suggest 16-m for Spinosaurus
You aren't making any sense either I shot down a 1 tonne polar bear like that And i said "There could be many freak 2-3 tonne specimens out there, this is just an average one" Does it make sense for you ?
|
![]() |
|
| Fragillimus335 | Nov 11 2012, 02:05 AM Post #950 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The chances of finding the absolute largest of any species is less than 1/100000000 of 1 percent. Especially one from the fossil record. Also I am making a reasonable jump of +/- 15-20% Not 300% like in your Polar bear story. Also there were surly Polar bears in the 1700-1800's that outweighed the 1 ton specimen by 15-20%. Do you see where I'm going here? |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Nov 11 2012, 02:13 AM Post #951 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No what i meant is assuming that i was the first to discover polar bear and i accidentally shot a 1 tonne polar bear then i think 1 tonne is an average size for polar bear, does it make sense for you ? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 11 2012, 03:03 AM Post #952 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not true, the maximum estimate belongs to Dal Sasso, and to remind you of that, he is appearantly confirming it at the moment. mortimer gives one of many figures, and how do you think does she choose which one to use? Holtz gave the lowest of the three estimates actually, and for me everything from 16 to 18m sounds reasonable, however 12,5-15,5m is too low. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Nov 11 2012, 03:44 AM Post #953 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The best thing is still how T-rex fanatics think Spino's sail was extremely thin and fragile, but it made up 1/3 of it's weight. So it prevented Spino from moving and made it extremely vunerable.
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Nov 11 2012, 07:21 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 11 2012, 02:32 PM Post #954 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tyrannosaurus fanboys make no sense...they even think that Tyrannosaurus can kill an Apatosaurus with 1 bite...the only way to stop this nonsense, is to rename Tyrannosaurus... |
![]() |
|
| Drift | Nov 11 2012, 06:22 PM Post #955 |
|
High Spined Lizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, I agree with you. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Nov 11 2012, 07:21 PM Post #956 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I guess that won't change anything, they will still think Spino was the weakest animal ever. |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Nov 11 2012, 08:03 PM Post #957 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No one know what Spinosaurus spines use for, but it is definitely not for muscles attachment, remember Planet Dinosaur show a Spinosaurus spine being bitten off by Carcharodontosaurus, how can Carcharodontosaurus manage to do that if Spinosaurus spines are attached with heavily muscles ? |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Nov 11 2012, 11:09 PM Post #958 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It could have eaten from a carcass, anyway I don't believe anymore in an attachment a sail seems more likely. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 11 2012, 11:14 PM Post #959 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, a sail is not likely, because of the structure of the spines...the spines are too close together to effectively span skin in between, and the spines are thick and robust, not suitable for a sail...a muscular ridge is more likely... |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Nov 11 2012, 11:15 PM Post #960 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't believe in a that think skin, by sail I ment like in the Arizonasaurus in the Museum am Löwentor. |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:23 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)



![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)







2:23 AM Jul 14