| 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 (459,310 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 | Dec 23 2012, 08:51 PM Post #1066 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The facts are, most estimates are well below the 9,5t (Mortimer, Paul, Hartman, Brochu...), and they are not outdated but actually all quite recent (I could name pretty long lists of earlier estimates if you want). It is the 9,5t estimate that was only published once and since then cited by many people that didn´t actually verify it, and because of that you are appearantly coming to the conclusion we should use it also because it is the highest of course. At the same time however you are ignoring similarly liberal metods for other animals and the existence of lower estimates for Tyrannosaurus. Please tell me, do you seriously think that is objective? If animal A has a range of estimates going from 4,5-9,5t, and animal B has a range from 6-15t, how logical is it to use 9,5t for animal A and 6t for animal B? the lwoer weight range of elephants is below the upper weight range of hippos, does that mean the hippo is the heavier animal in most cases? |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Dec 23 2012, 11:00 PM Post #1067 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ok Theropod, the reason why I use that 9.5t is because it's the most sophisticated and detailed method which involves actual skeleton proportion rather than relying on a simple unified scale model method. Now people can keep on making estimates every year using the same method but they will be still trapped in this linear equation, and consequently not getting the actual proportion right. I'm not saying I would use it because it's the highest estimate for T Rex, in fact it's not the highest estimate. If the 3d scan has yielded a lower estimate say 5 tons for Sue then I would happily embrace it simply due to its accuracy and more scrutinized measurement. Why don't you just wait for them to scan a Giga or Carchy in the future and see what they have come up. Chances are they would be also higher than the current figure since carcharodontosauride body proportion is bulkier than Allosauride, so I wont be surprised if giga ended up 8 or 9 tons also or slightly below Sue. My personal bet is that giga is 8.5 tons since it's not as bulky as Sue according to Hartman's drawing. The few cm difference in length shouldn't affect much in weight either. So there, I'm not biased to Tyrannosaurus and I just want the most accurate data. Even when it sounds new and different than older ones. Hope you can put some thoughts into this bud. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Dec 23 2012, 11:08 PM Post #1068 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How about you don't use Sue all the time, Sue does not represent the typical Tyrannosaurus... |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Dec 23 2012, 11:48 PM Post #1069 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just get out of this thread broly, don't know why you aren't banned yet.![]() Anyway here's a comparison not sure if it's already been done or not. Hartman's Spino though based on the holotype, was in fact 17m in length if measuring from the curve. So it's the fully grown version vs Sue. I'm surprised at such a length disadvantage Sue still managed to look bigger in the neck, wider skull, bigger calves and thicker tail. It also stands virtually the same height as Spino. Spino may have the overall weight advantage but it really shows just how bulky and robustly built T Rex was at parity length. |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Dec 23 2012, 11:59 PM Post #1070 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spineless.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 24 2012, 12:01 AM Post #1071 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You appearantly have the believe that all estimates save for the one putting T. rex at 9,5t were mere oversimplyfied linear equasions... Greg Paul based his estimates on volumetric analyses according to his site. Your favourite metod, making a comparison with skeletals, obviously shows if T. rex was 9,5t others must have been underestimated as well. Other weight estimates base on actual proportions as well, get over it. Do you seriously think until now all weight estimates where based on thigns like femur lenght equasions? This is not a matter of how bulky the animals were built, most estimates ought to account for that already, it is a matter of how much bulkier ther made T. rex-which has absolutely nothign to do with new metodologies but jsut with imagination of an animals soft tissue. Plenty of evidence points out to T. rex in fact not being 9,5t. it wouldn´t be 9,5t if the ones with this great new metod hadn´t given it some tons of fat or whatever below the ribcage, is that so difficult to see? So if you give other theropods additional tissue as well, they will also get heavier. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Dec 24 2012, 12:01 AM Post #1072 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That was not necessary, I was just saying that Sue was not the typical Tyrannosaurus, obviously you are Palaeosaurus... |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Dec 24 2012, 12:08 AM Post #1073 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And if you seriously think I am just going to surrender and let the Tyrannosaurus bias win over, you are wrong bone crusher, I will not let Palaeosaurus' influence win the day, just admit that the Spinosaurus was large enough to turn the battle in it's favor... [sarcasm]But then again, Tyrannosaurus beats Diplodocus, so what can Spinosaurus do [/sarcasm]
|
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Dec 24 2012, 12:31 AM Post #1074 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Greg's drawing is off, the t rex tail was way too skinny, the gastralia was also very compressed which does not follow a straight line as in Hartman's. And without scanning them you can't get nearly as accurate as a 3d scanned data set, not even close, too much guesstimate are involved. It's like you can do math by head but not nearly as accurate as using a calculator. The tissue layer for the 3d model when subtracting the expanded ribcage (the 9.5 tons figure is excluding the exaggerated ribcage) matches very well with Hartman's drawing overall so you are the one who should get over it. Sue really did weigh 9.5 tons. And like I said, just wait for giga's scan, it could very well get higher but most likely below Sue since giga is less bulkier from it's skeleton restoration. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 24 2012, 01:12 AM Post #1075 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
you will never learn it. I can do what I want, you keep ignoring the fact that the model has lots of tissue below its ribcage that is not accounted for in other theropods. If sue is 9,5t, giganotosaurus or spinosaurus will also get higher meaning they will still be similar as before when compared to sue. |
![]() |
|
| Black Ice | Dec 24 2012, 01:37 AM Post #1076 |
![]()
Drom King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But theropods may be built similiar, but as with their skeletal differences, maybe they have different constitutions than others? Some may have had more fat/muscle on a certain areas than others. It's not good to say if one animal had added tissue in one spot to make it weigh more that others should have to in the exact same spot to be fair. Edited by Black Ice, Dec 24 2012, 01:38 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 24 2012, 04:29 AM Post #1077 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There is zero evidence suggesting T. rex was the only animal that had soft tissue to this extent (I don´t believe theropods had anywhere near as much of cousrse). If one reconstructs T. rex with it, in order to be fair it is necessary to do the same with other animals, unless there is proof suggesting they didn´t have it while T. rex had (anyone noticing the absence of it?). |
![]() |
|
| Black Ice | Dec 24 2012, 04:31 AM Post #1078 |
![]()
Drom King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm just saying, T.rex being as bulky as it is should of course weigh more than similiar sized more slender built theropods. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 24 2012, 04:35 AM Post #1079 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, than similar sized ones. That is completely irrelevant, this is about using the moe liberal new figure for T. rex and not also assuming it would make opthers heavier. The estimates do always have to correspond to the size and bulk of an animal, but it isn´t fair to assume massive amounts of additional weight in an animal which wheren´t added to the animals you are comparing it to on a merely hypothetical basis. Of course a 12m T. rex is far heavier than a 12m Allosaurus or even Spinosaurus, not the slightest doubt about that, but that doesn´t mean we should give the already bulkier T. rex additional 2t of fat tissue while not doing the same with allosaurus, does it? |
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Dec 24 2012, 04:47 AM Post #1080 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() Looks like a pedal phalanx IV_III to me. Maybe you should describe it and name it a new species. |
![]() |
|
| 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