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 (459,316 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:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It is not just about neck muscles, logically the spines would serve as an attachment point all over the back, and you cannot actually see whether they are meant to form a sail, a hump or a muscle attachment in a lateral view.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Nov 12 2012, 12:47 AM
theropod
Nov 12 2012, 12:18 AM
Black Ice
Nov 12 2012, 12:15 AM
Theropod, i know i keep entering, then leaving this debate for quite a while, then entering. I'll stop that now. But just one question. Have you refuted the possibility of the sail being just a fat reservr?
refute is too much, but certainly I gave reasons why that´d be unlikely. A crest like that would not be able to store a sufficient amount of fat to be useful, and if it was thicker than that, it would be too heavy for a bipedal. We all know why a sail is not likely, so the only logical assumption is a muscle attachment, probably not over the whole height of the structure, but at least around the base.
Muscles attachment doesn't make any sense either

Posted Image

There is NO reconstruction of Spinosaurus give it muscles attachment like that

Animals with neck muscles attachment only need enlarged spines at forward dorsal vertebrate not enlarged spines at caudal vertebrate like Spinosaurus

And Spinosaurus neck muscles would be very enormous (if it had), definitely bigger than Archaeotherium neck muscles and probably the biggest neck muscles attachment ever. Just look at the whole structure of Spinosaurus

Posted Image

And compare that to Archaeotherium

Posted Image

Archaeotherium spines are puny compare to Spinosaurus, yet it is built like tank with enormous neck muscles
And of course it would totally dward archaeotherium, as the latter was only the size of a lion...spinosaurus neck muscles alone woulöd be larger than the whole entelodont!

What do you mean with "if it had"? every animal that has a neck does also have neck muscles. I´d assume an animal regularly pulling things out of the water would likely evolve a stronger complexus muscle and overall back musculature. What other selective pressure can you see in spinosaurs, apart from fish eating, possibly supporting an immense size and living in wetlands?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
And of course it would totally dward archaeotherium, as the latter was only the size of a lion...spinosaurus neck muscles alone woulöd be larger than the whole entelodont!

Are you trying to misunderstood me ?. When i said bigger, i meant PROPORTIONALLY bigger, everyone know that Spinosaurus neck muscles is bigger than Archaeotherium due to its sheer size
Quote:
 
What do you mean with "if it had"? every animal that has a neck does also have neck muscles. I´d assume an animal regularly pulling things out of the water would likely evolve a stronger complexus muscle and overall back musculature. What other selective pressure can you see in spinosaurs, apart from fish eating, possibly supporting an immense size and living in wetlands?

I meant neck muscles ATTACHMENT like those of Archaeotherium, of course Spinosaurus had neck muscles.

Spinosaurus neck muscles attachment would be to massive and heavy if it had. The purpose for tall neural spines (in animal that have muslces attachment) is to increase the surface for neck muscles attachment, so the taller the neural spines the more muscles attachment

Spinosaurus tallest neural spines are at the caudal vertebrate, while animals that have attachment usually have tallest neural spines at the forward of dorsal vertebrate, between the shoulder blades. Spinosaurus doesn't seem to have muscles attachment

NO reconstructions show that neck muscles attachment stuff:

Hartman doesn't have
Posted Image

Neither does Planet dinosaur
Posted Image

And Cau
Posted Image

And Arizonasaurus itself
Posted Image

Planet dinosaur Spinosaurus shows a thick ridge of whatever:
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
it doesn´t interest me wether that is shown in PD or not, its just a freaking reconstruction (note that it is a reconstruction, not a photo or a schematic view of the known features as far as the soft parts are concerned). Something being reconstructed or not doesn´t have to do with it being likely or not likely, it´s what you call artistic freedom.

Lets have a look at Archaeotherium (an animal the size of a medium sized lion, with the skull size of a large saltie...):

Posted Image

The only difference is that the spines are ranging over a greater lenght, but just like in spinosaurus they form a ropunded shape, resulting in more or less the same result for being used as an attachment.

So why don´t you give me an alternate explanation for what the spines may have been used for? Muscle attachment is thus far the most likely thing. You cannot just use the excuse "but these reconstructions don´t show it like that!!!!!" over and over again. give me real features suggesting otherwise and real explanations, not just your logic that if it is not shown like that it cannot be true!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admantus
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Spino's "sail" was either a big fat store or a huge muscle attachment.
Edited by Admantus, Nov 16 2012, 11:07 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Or both?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Would it be useful to store jsut a little bit of fat? usually fat storages are far larger than what would be possible for a bipedal, because they are only useful for the animal when they can store enough fat.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genao87
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
I bet that sail had many uses, with such a huge size for Spino, im betting it help keep his large balance. Also like in planet dinosaur showed, while swimming, it help him swim better with more control...and third there is a possibility that it was used as a sexual display for males to attract females. during mating season, i think blood flooded the sail when a male is trying to attract a female. Changing color and possibly get a little inflated.

Could be also used to store fat and water, like a camel's hump. im not saying it was used for all of this but those are possibilities and i think again there was more than 1 use for the sail.
Edited by genao87, Nov 18 2012, 12:36 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
This thread is competing with Lion vs Tiger and Livyatan melvillei vs C. megalodon for the dumpest fanboy war on the forum (but imo this one is more one sided while in the other two both sides have a lot of fanboys)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genao87
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Nov 18 2012, 12:47 AM
This thread is competing with Lion vs Tiger and Livyatan melvillei vs C. megalodon for the dumpest fanboy war on the forum (but imo this one is more one sided while in the other two both sides have a lot of fanboys)
lol, where did this post came from?

in the topic for fanboys, there is very little fanboyism for Spino, more like alot of Haters for the animal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Nov 18 2012, 12:47 AM
This thread is competing with Lion vs Tiger and Livyatan melvillei vs C. megalodon for the dumpest fanboy war on the forum (but imo this one is more one sided while in the other two both sides have a lot of fanboys)
Why is it when people never agree with your points they have to be the fanboys of an animal? Tyrannosaurus rex is my LEAST favorite theropod yet IMO i think it can take down a spinosaurus. Everyone uses this "fanboy" term way to generalistically.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Black Ice
Nov 18 2012, 01:05 AM
theropod
Nov 18 2012, 12:47 AM
This thread is competing with Lion vs Tiger and Livyatan melvillei vs C. megalodon for the dumpest fanboy war on the forum (but imo this one is more one sided while in the other two both sides have a lot of fanboys)
Why is it when people never agree with your points they have to be the fanboys of an animal? Tyrannosaurus rex is my LEAST favorite theropod yet IMO i think it can take down a spinosaurus. Everyone uses this "fanboy" term way to generalistically.
You do realize that many people here think that Tyrannosaurus can kill Spinosaurus easily, do you? Tyrannosaurus is massively overrated here...
Edited by SpinoInWonderland, Nov 18 2012, 01:14 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yes but what I'm saying is some that do favor t.rex for ACTUAL reasons ain't fanboys like theropods trying to generalize this whole thread.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Nov 13 2012, 01:08 AM
it doesn´t interest me wether that is shown in PD or not, its just a freaking reconstruction (note that it is a reconstruction, not a photo or a schematic view of the known features as far as the soft parts are concerned). Something being reconstructed or not doesn´t have to do with it being likely or not likely, it´s what you call artistic freedom.

Lets have a look at Archaeotherium (an animal the size of a medium sized lion, with the skull size of a large saltie...):

Posted Image

The only difference is that the spines are ranging over a greater lenght, but just like in spinosaurus they form a ropunded shape, resulting in more or less the same result for being used as an attachment.

So why don´t you give me an alternate explanation for what the spines may have been used for? Muscle attachment is thus far the most likely thing. You cannot just use the excuse "but these reconstructions don´t show it like that!!!!!" over and over again. give me real features suggesting otherwise and real explanations, not just your logic that if it is not shown like that it cannot be true!

The point is here, you always support the idea for "neck muscle attachment", but your own Spinosaurus reconstruction doesn't have anything like neck muscles attachment

Posted Image

It seems like you don't understand what is neck muscles attachment

If you want neck muscles attachment, then it would have to form up a hump to support the muscles and the muscles attachment would have to a run from the tallest point of the spines to the back of the neck

And if you want neck muscles attachment, you would have to reconstruct it like this

Posted Image
Drawing from Carlosdino Deviantart
Well, my PC is dead, so I can't use Photoshop to draw. Therefore, I can not finish more facilities for ghansen89 [link] and daikaju [link] project, or a own drawing that was planning about Spinosaurus.
So, along with Spinosaurus, here are some sketches of different designs for this animal, the result of a few chats with unlobogris [link]
A: "Classical Spinosaurus", with a sail on the back
B: "Humped Spinosaurus", wherein the sail is replaced by a hump of fat and muscle
C & D: "Whale Spinosaurus". New studies suggest that the sail could be longer than previously thought, so a fusiform shape would be more appropriate for a semi-aquatic life. Pure speculation, but very interesting.


Note the C&D reconstruction, that is the neck muscles attachment, it match up perfectly with the reconstruction Archaeotherium i show you. So if you think the "neck muscles attachment" is good, you have a mental problem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo, I´m supporting a MUSCLE attachment, not specifically a neck muscle attachment, and imo it would rather look like the one seen in fragillimus reconstructions than the one in the cartoon. What I´m not supporting is your hyper thin neck and huge head!

and btw a not so traditional reconstruction is appearantly so ridiculous for you that you think someone believing in it would have a mental problem, on the other hand you are always arguing a somewhat whalelike T. rex, at least in terms of blubber...



Sorry BI if you think I´m overgeneralizing, but my opponent here does so as well. And at least I have not yet seen convincing non-biased reasons for this whole "t. rex wins easily"-stuff or for the "no, spino was only 14m, new research has DEBUNKED everything!!!!!".
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.