| 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 (459,309 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: | |
|---|---|
| MysteryMeat | Dec 24 2012, 05:32 AM Post #1081 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have posted these in another thread. The Min models looks fairly accurate. The area under the ribcage is accounting for gastralia, which are not mounted. Sue is just a large robust rex. Even if you shave off a bit of flesh around the torso, It's still not 7000kg. It would be more like 9000kg. I don't know why you guys continue to reject this figure. No one is saying rex's are averaging 9000kg. Stan's mean estimate is only 5900kg in this study. We are lucky to have so many t. rex specimens that we have a pretty good idea how big they got. But we have no idea how well MSNM V4047 represents S. aegyptiacus. But I agree that S. aegyptiacus is significantly larger than an average rex, since the immature holotype is a long as an average rex. It's still bigger than large rex individuals like Sue. Spino 60/100 |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 24 2012, 06:28 AM Post #1082 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I continue to reject it because: A: it seems to bulky for me personally B: several scientists reject it as well C: this metod gave far higher figures than others and we are not accounting for this in other theropods D: it reconstructs T. rex with an awful lot of tissue below the torso. No serious paleoartist would ever think of reconstructing the animal like that, it is a freakin´ sausage with legs! If T. rex is 9,5t, Giganotosaurus or Carcharodontosaurus are even heavier because that would mean all estimates where generally too low. However it seems far too bulky for any active bipedal predator, the portrayed animal could barely walk let alone run. |
![]() |
|
| Shaochilong | Dec 24 2012, 07:25 AM Post #1083 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Dec 24 2012, 07:54 AM Post #1084 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A. I'm not gonna argue with you on this since it's your personal taste. I can only say that I disagree with you. B. I have only read it on Mike Taylor's reaction, but he's no theropod expert. Who else have big problem with the number? C. That's not true. I am pretty sure you read the thread "Seebacher method and Henderson Method", you even commented. Seebacher's estimates Tyrannosaurus holotype to be 6651kg. Therrien and Henderson's estimate on AMNH 5027 is 7908-8422kg! And 5027 is a gracile "T. X". Their estimate on Sue is a whopping 9110-10200kg! The estimate on Carcha SGM Din-1 is 15000kg. So you cannot say higher mass estimates are "not accounting for this in other theropods". But you probably disregard those high estimates as well. It is true that the laser scan method has not been used on other genera. I have other numbers from Christiansen, Snivley, and others that I only read from references. Since I have not read all the actual papers, I reserve my judgment. D. I don't know if you looked closely at the images, or pictures of Sue's torso. It's got a chest literally like a barrel, about 2 meters wide. I guess calling it a sausage is pretty accurate. The "tissue below the torso" is accounting for the missing gastralia. These guys are scientists as well. Just because they ain't artists doesn't mean they don't know squad about dinosaur anatomy. In many skeletal drawings, the dorsal ribs are arranged at an diagonal angle with the distal end pointing towards the tail, giving the torso a more trimmed look. The mount makers have to arrange the ribs to they articulate with the verts so I think their depiction is valid as well. I said in earlier post that I would probably get rid off a little bit excess flesh around the torso, and be happy with a 9000kg Sue. I have no problem seeing higher weight estimates of large carcharodontosaurs. Giga holotype is about as long as Sue, but slimmer. Carchar neotype is enormous, I think it's longer but probably weighed around the same as Sue. I will happily accept a 5500kg acro, 8000kg MUCPv-CH1, and 9000kg SGM Din-1 So Spinosaurus could barely walk? I mean, it's a lot heavier than T. rex, probably with proportionally shorter legs. |
![]() |
|
| Shaochilong | Dec 24 2012, 07:57 AM Post #1085 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Please don't tell me you're Palaeosaurus.
That has to be one of the most stupid things I have ever seen on this forum. Useless? Hardly. Spinosaurus teeth are deeply rooted and resilient, and its bite force is stronger than that of any allosaur. From what I can understand, most people seem to be implying that the lack of serrations on Spinosaurus teeth prove that they were weak and of little use. Actually, very few modern predators have serrated teeth. Carnivorans don't, crocodilians don't, and what we would call seals and sea lions don't. Yet I don't see you calling any of those creatures' teeth "useless for causing extreme damage". In reality some of the most devastating bites in the modern world come from animals with no serrations on their teeth. Conical teeth are not as good at slicing as the steak-knife like teeth of allosauroids, but they are just as good at puncturing and stabbing, if not better.
What's a "T-rex"? Oh, you mean Tyrannosaurus. What's the common abbreviation for that? Oh, right, T. rex. No one is denying that tyrannosaur teeth are among the best of any animal's for crushing, if not the best of all time. However, a crushing bite is neither the only way of biting nor vastly superior to other biting styles. Each way of biting has its own advantages. To put this into a modern context, saying one method of biting is the best is like saying that there is one brand of car that is superior in every way to any other brand. Crushing bites are very damaging, of course, but to make a good bite you need to hold on for a long time. Stabbing and slashing bites are arguably a bit less damaging, but they can be made more quickly and are less risky. Going back to a modern analogy, you don't use a Ferrari to smash through a concrete wall.
W-R-O-N-G. A bite to the head, neck, or possibly even the chest would most likely kill Spinosaurus. There is no denying that. But "anywhere"? If Tyrannosaurus were to bite Spinosaurus on an arm or the tail, do you seriously think that would kill it? If so then you are utterly beyond reasoning.
Well that proves you're just a fanboy.
Such as? Tyrannosaurus' diet likely consisted mostly of hadrosaurs; any paleontologist who knows tyrannosaurids well would tell you that. Ceratopsians may have also been on the menu, but they were very dangerous and well-armed and would only have been occasional targets. The largest thryeophorans were altogether too dangerous for Tyrannosaurus to attack, while small ones were not that challenging in relative terms, as a theropod 6 times the weight (or more) of a thryeophoran would not have that much difficulty in flipping it over and exposing its soft belly. Sauropods are off the menu as the closest one to Tyrannosaurus is Alamosaurus, and unless it hunted in packs like Albertosaurus, it would have had difficulty taking down that giant.
If we're talking Tyrannosaurus in nature, then you're absolutely right, since the next-largest theropod in the same place and time as Tyrannosaurus was lion-sized. So in nature, the only thing that a healthy adult Tyrannosaurus would have to fear would be another Tyrannosaurus. Tyrannosaurus seem to have squabbled with one another, perhaps over hunting rights or mates, and it seems reasonable to assume that a smaller individual would back down when faced with a larger one. So, when confronted with a Spinosaurus that is 3 m longer than it at minimum, a Tyrannosaurus would be pretty thoroughly intimidated and back down. Edited by Shaochilong, Dec 24 2012, 07:59 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Dec 24 2012, 11:02 AM Post #1086 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So you're saying as long as giga or carchy is heavier, you would then happily embrace this method am I right? But for now you're simply clinging on your personal preference and ignoring and rejecting everything we say even against the logic. Giga and Carchy are similar length to T Rex yet slimmer in built, how can you be so sure they should be heavier? A bulkier and heavily built skeleton like Sue would obviously pack on more tissue than giga assuming we're adding them at the same rate. Anyway everyone else with any sense of logic and common sense should realize that by now bar broly. You can believe in whatever you want though. |
![]() |
|
| dinosaur | Dec 24 2012, 01:31 PM Post #1087 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh one more comment everyone. As far as i'm concerned, this is how the rex and spino battle will end up for me. Click here to find out. |
![]() |
|
| dinosaur | Dec 24 2012, 01:54 PM Post #1088 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Also, im not being quite a fanboy for Tyrannosaurus. I'm just confident it can take on any land creature, do to awesome weapons. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Dec 24 2012, 02:05 PM Post #1089 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Delusional. Tyrannosaurus is not a supernatural creature, it has limits and it's weapons are not the best... |
![]() |
|
| dinosaur | Dec 24 2012, 02:41 PM Post #1090 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Excuse me Lord of the Allosaurus, but are you trying to threaten me with that image you showed saying "Prepare to meet the fanboy's worst nightmare? ![]() I don't even know what that image is saying. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Dec 24 2012, 02:45 PM Post #1091 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That image is wrong and delusional, in reality, due to Spinosaurus' size and power, it would be the Spinosaurus that's roaring in victory, with the dead Tyrannosaurus at it's feet |
![]() |
|
| Bandog | Dec 24 2012, 02:47 PM Post #1092 |
![]()
Everything else is just a dog.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Can someone please explain to me how spinosaurus would win? Please don't just say size and power, be specific. I think this is a really close match |
![]() |
|
| dinosaur | Dec 24 2012, 02:47 PM Post #1093 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe Tyrannosaurus is not a supernatural creature for you brolyeuphyfusion. I see that in most of the topics involving spinosaurus, you always favor spino. |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Dec 24 2012, 03:04 PM Post #1094 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You meant Theropod and Broly, right ?. As far as i know, Theropod and Broly are the people UNABLE to accept that estimate and the reason for all of their excuse is T rex !. Yes, because they don't like it, you can see on other threads that Theropod and Broly would happy about the 500+ tonne Sauropod or 15+ tonne Spinosaurus but 9,5 tonne T rex is too obese for them .@Theropod: if you think i'm biased because i support this estimates, you can read some of my earlier posts when i first did reject the estimate because i thought it was too liberal, but now i just cannot find a single good reason to deny it, the flesh basically wraps the outline of the skeleton, there is no "additional fat" actually, this is the MIN ESTIMATE, the scientists themselves have stated that the in the MIN model, the muscles wraps very the model very tight, if Sue gets lighter, she would be a skinny ass, unhealthy specimen And Mike Taylor is not a Theropod expert (which he states on his profile) but he didn't reject the new 2011 method either
|
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Dec 24 2012, 03:06 PM Post #1095 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Please don't listen Broly, he is a fool and since you have debated with Broly, i guess you know how "smart" Broly really is |
![]() |
|
| 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)





Oh one more comment everyone.


.
2:23 AM Jul 14