| 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 (459,313 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: | |
|---|---|
| Jinfengopteryx | Dec 23 2012, 02:36 AM Post #1021 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have my doubts about the 1,5m skull legth: http://dml.cmnh.org/2007Mar/msg00292.html |
![]() |
|
| Vivyx | Dec 23 2012, 02:43 AM Post #1022 |
![]()
Felines, sharks, birds, arthropods
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
T-Rex with EASE. I don't see what the spinosaurus' incredibly weak jaws and even it's claws is going to do. |
![]() |
|
| dinosaur | Dec 23 2012, 03:06 AM Post #1023 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
U know something theropod and brolyeuphyfusion, AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!! I'm just explaining my thoughts. Trust me |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 23 2012, 03:45 AM Post #1024 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Verdugo and Grey: There is really nothing speculative in my scale. it is the spinosaurus rostrum with the rest of the skull reconstructed after Suchomimus. The lenght is exactly what it should be when just replacing the rostrum of Suchomimus with that of Spinosaurus. The robusticy is a matter of reconstruction, the rostrum is also exactly the width it should be, and the rest hasn´t been found. Note that Rayfield performed a 2 dimensional FEA on a number of theropod skulls and found that from a lateral view the rostrum of Spinosaurus is indeed even more fragile than that of Baryonyx (that of baryonyx and also Suchomimus is deeper). That is not surprising. Spinosaurus had a very robust mandible and that´s the part that has to withstand strong dorsoventral force. It is likely that the lateral expansion as seen in Spinosaurus´ rostrum is an adaption for withstanding lateral forces. Still, in absolute terms the skull likely isn´t what one calls weak. Also note that the bones such as the part of the maxilla below the antorbital fenestra seem to have been much thicker and more robust in Spinosaurus. I can easily make the posterior part broader if you want, it might just as well be 80cm instead of 50cm in width. This should however give you a good impression of the lenght and height, and so far I think it is one of only few dorsal view reconstructions. Btw the ongoing use of the term "badass" is a bit unscientific, isn´t it? In the end it is of course very important to note that the only parts that are actually known are the crest and the rostrum, nevertheless this is as close as anyone can come as it is based on another spinosaurs skull. it ought to be pretty precise as i did it in inkscape all the time having a grid and the photos of the specimen overlaid. Here is the Suchomimus skull: http://home.arcor.de/rocksquarter/se468700602a.jpg As far as the total size is concerned, I gave some logical arguments that one should first find counterarguments for. Is there substantial proof for Spinosaurus to have a proportionally significantly larger skull than it´s relatives? If not, it doesn´t look like Spinosaurus was below 16m in lenght, and that does indeed destroy the lifes of some guys who desperately want to make it inferior to T. rex by choosing the lowest possible size figure (and I´m not attacking Andrea Cau as I know Grey would kill me and also that scientists are not interested in such childish fight scenarios, they just show their opinions on an animal´s size, they don´t automatically make an estimate that invalidates all others). Claiming Dal Sassos figure to be "debunked" is frankly wrong, I´m sure that´s one of the rare occasions were Grey will agree with me. Verdugo: My scientific proof is more than obvious, it is really not my problem if the estimates you favour don´t account for normal spinosaurid proportions. Would you mind giving me a real scientific argument why you think Spinosaurus should have a proportionally longer rostrum than Suchomimus and a proportionally longer skull? So far I always just hear excuses like "unscientific" "debunked" ort things like that, so far you have NEVER ever actually given reasons. That´s a pretty low amount of scientific proof to suggest something like the total rebuttal of an estimate that was published in peer reviewed papers. Fragillimus: Thanks! dinosaur: I really don´t like being listed in the same sentence as Broly. Edited by theropod, Dec 23 2012, 04:50 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 23 2012, 03:51 AM Post #1025 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have to admitt regarding Rayfields 2011 study on theropod cranial strenght and the size of the remains our 3t guess was likely too much, I think 1-2t is more likely. imo it is most likely that in fights with other theropods (that almost certainly occurred) spinosaurus would have primarily relied on its arms and its size to overpower an opponent, then using the jaws to clamp down on the windpipe. they don´t seem to ahve the strenght to be effectively used for massive mechanical damage, but there is very little jaw strenght needed for a throathold. This together with its size would make it a very formidable opponent. It could also likely have used its jaws in grabbling to some degree as the lower jaw seems very robust and closer to the back the skull was certainly more sturdy. Edited by theropod, Dec 23 2012, 03:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 23 2012, 03:52 AM Post #1026 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Btw have a look at the grid and the size, compare it to the part where the antorbital fenestra starts on the specimen. It fits the reported measurements perfectly. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 23 2012, 04:23 AM Post #1027 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I´m not finished yet. Let´s see, who believes in the 1,5m reconstruction rather than the one based on Suchomimus or Dal sasso´s basing on Irritator?![]() It wouldn´t matter much for the size anyway as then the skull would simply become proportionally smaller, but honestly, who does seriously support the second reconstruction? Edited by theropod, Dec 23 2012, 04:51 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Fist of the North Shrimp | Dec 23 2012, 05:05 AM Post #1028 |
|
vá á orminum
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why dont you use Irritator/ Angaturama? And please finally start to consider that a 6 meter Angaturama has a 80 centimeter skull. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 23 2012, 05:18 AM Post #1029 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You mean the private unpublished and unstudied specimen that I have only heard of through you and that has never been used by any scientist? I´m sorry, I rather stick to the animals that are known to science and well studied, namely Baryonyx and Suchomimus. why am I using these two for the skull? because they are also the ones I use for the body size! |
![]() |
|
| dino-ken | Dec 23 2012, 05:31 AM Post #1030 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
By some estimations - other putting near the upper end of T.rex's range at least in terms of it's weight. While I'll agree that Spino is longer (the question is how much longer)- I do not agree that Spino was at least double T.rex's mass. The largest estimates based of Baryonyx and Suchiomimus put Spinosaurus at about 16-18 meters in length and weighting between 12-23 tons. This would be 2.5-4 meters longer than the estimates for largest known specimens of T.rex and t the highest end of the estimates Spino would weigh about twice the highest estimates for Sue. So in this case - you would need to pit Spino against a pair of T. rexes However if Spino was like most other large theropods - then it's skull to body ratio would have been less than those of it's smaller relatives. It's like most giant Theropods the it Skull to Body length ratio would have been about 8-8.5 to 1. So a Spino with a 1.75 meter skull would have been about 14-14.8 meters and weighted about 7.7-9.2 tons. which would make it longer than T.rex but still in the same weight class as the Tyrant King. So therefore a fair fight. |
![]() |
|
| Fist of the North Shrimp | Dec 23 2012, 05:32 AM Post #1031 |
|
vá á orminum
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I mean the one that actually has a mount in a museum and has some press releases in portugese(I even posted link to them) and probably will have a paper next year. And using Suchomimus as an analogue for Spinosaurus is obviously not as good as using a closer relative. I do not use Sinraptor to reconstruct the skull of Carcharodontosaurus, either. I cannot help if you are to lazy(or whatever) to work on a correct and more detailed reconstuction (including GDI or another way to determine the weight). |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 23 2012, 05:34 AM Post #1032 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The problem is that Spinosaurs have different proportions from other theropods, and I think it is appropriate to speak of a major size advantage if the lower end estiamtes for spinosaurus are still a bit higher than the upper end for T. rex (keeping in mind we are talking about pretty big ranges here, T. rex´ upper end estimate is more than double it´s lower end, so is spinos´) |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 23 2012, 05:52 AM Post #1033 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think you are pretty lazy yourself, not doing anything but grumbling all the time and then expecting me to do exactly what you think is a "correct and detailed reconstruction", even a GDI which takes a lot of time and data to do. What do you want me to do, a peer reviewed paper? If I do all the stuff you want me to do I could do... And Sinraptor is far more distantly related to Carcharodontosaurus than Spinosaurus is to Suchomimus. Also there isn´t only a far greater amount of time and geographical range between the two, they are totally different in any regard including their built. The same cannot be said for Spinosaurus and Suchomimus, they are still pretty similar. For all we know this great Angatuarama (likely synonymous with Irritator btw) skeleton might have belonged to a juvenile (at least going by its size that´s actually likely), altering its proportions. How else do you explain it to differ that much? We cannot say, it is not studied properly, and until you give me proper information on it you can hardly expect me to use it rather than animals that are well studied and publicised. Dal Sasso already did a reconstruction based on Irritator, I couldn´t find proper material of it, I don´t have access to the description of it and I won´t pay 79 euro just to make you happy, so do it yourself if you are not content with my work! The same applies to size calculations based on the mysterious specimen of Angatuarama (of course, it would make the size drastically lower, no scientist studying spinosaurus has ever used it and we don´t even know whether it is a juvenile so why not use it!), or a graphical double integration which I don´t even have proper mutiview skeletals for. You are really annoying me MantisShrimp. I for my part prefer to make the skull reconstruction basing on the animals I also use for the size estimates, the ones whose body-skull size ratios we can estimate and thus the ones on whom we can make a skull reconstruction that ought to be closely linked to body size. |
![]() |
|
| Apex | Dec 23 2012, 06:35 AM Post #1034 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
spino wins because
|
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Dec 23 2012, 07:34 AM Post #1035 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think both are equally incorrect. You are reconstructing the posterior half of the skull base on Sucho. I don't think we even have jugal material from a Sucho, so it's mostly likely based on Baryonyx, which also lacks jugal and qudrajugal. So your reconstruction is pretty much based on guess work that is also based on guess work from what, other Megalosauroids that's not really closley related to Spinosaurus? That's like reconstructing Carchar's skull on not Concavenator, or Acro, but a Yangchuanosaurs. Why would you not use Irritator? It makes no sense to me. Irritator is closer related to Spinosaurus than either Suchomimus or Baryonyx. And the posterior half of the skull is almost completely preserved, see below: ![]() Reconstructed skull without distortion: ![]() I think the Del Sasso skull is pretty accurate, maybe the back half is a lil short, but not by much. Plus, we have this: ![]() The privately owned spino specimen that's been kept away from public, or academic access, so there's no way for an scientists to examine it unless they buy it through an auction. |
![]() |
|
| 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