| 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 (459,307 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: | |
|---|---|
| Black Ice | Dec 24 2012, 05:46 PM Post #1111 |
![]()
Drom King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How would a hump be too heavy for spinosaurus but not a muscular ridge.......when muscle weighs more than fat.......... |
![]() |
|
| Black Ice | Dec 24 2012, 05:48 PM Post #1112 |
![]()
Drom King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spinos jaws were not able to effectively kill anything larger than a fish, it has no hatchet mechanism and doesn't have a high enough bite force to severely hurt t.rex (seriously, these rexes have been found skull biting eachother and still surviving) andit would have to rear completely upwards to use those claws.... Which won't kill rex but just prolong the inevitable. Edited by Black Ice, Dec 24 2012, 05:51 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Dec 24 2012, 05:51 PM Post #1113 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Muscles are only marginally heavier than fat, and the volume difference between the hump and the ridge would be more than enough to cover the difference in densities |
![]() |
|
| Black Ice | Dec 24 2012, 05:52 PM Post #1114 |
![]()
Drom King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They both occupy the same space in the sail or whatever you want to call it. Unless your saying the sail or whatever changed shape to form a hump or ridge? An animal killing 2t fish doesn't need extra muscle. Edited by Black Ice, Dec 24 2012, 05:54 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Black Ice | Dec 24 2012, 06:02 PM Post #1115 |
![]()
Drom King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If spinosaurus had a hump of muscle, it would be forced due to its massive size, assume a quadrupedal stance, much like this![]() READ. |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Dec 24 2012, 06:29 PM Post #1116 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hmm, this part sounds very interesting for me , do you have any PROOF for that cause i have never heard about this before ? Or this base on your guts feeling like usual, if you don't reply, i would consider that you base those claims on your guts feeling
|
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Dec 24 2012, 07:02 PM Post #1117 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Your logic doesn't make any sense actually. You MUST remember that those are weight estimations for EXTINCT animal, not actual documented weight of a LIVING animal. If you want to get a weight range of an animal, for example a polar bear, then you just need to come to the north pole, using a helicopter and sedate any adult polar bears you could find, then you could WEIGH them literally to get their weight RANGE and average weight. While estimated weights are not documented weights, estimated weight is not an ACTUAL weight of an animal, it is basically just a guess, it depends on which method is better, more accurate, not on which has more method fallen on it In short, 4,5-9,5t is not an ACTUAL weight range of T rex, so your logic is off, your comparison between hippo and elephant is invalid. Weight estimation depends on more accurate method, not by the number of method it has, which is far difference from LIVING animal If one estimated method is better and more accurate than others, then it could beat all others
Your skull comparison, drawing base on Suchomimus proportion is not a SCIENTIFIC PROOF, you made up those things and call them a SCIENTIFIC PROOF ??. Look, i respect your work, but you must have scientists or scientific proof (like paper) to back up that 1,8m skull Spino. No matter what you, Fragillimus or Broly do, it doesn't change the FACT that 1,5m and 1,75m are the only VALID skull estimations of Spinosaurus. If you want to criticize the 1,75m skull, you would also need proof for that. And now you are accusing me of posting those 14,5m Spino without having any reason, those estimations are NOT MINE !. Why don't you ask Holtz, Paul, Cau and Dave Hone for how they could end up Spino reconstruction with such "ridiculously" large head ???. It doesn't matter what you think or what you do, i have 4 scientists to back myself, and you only have your own made up reconstruction as a scientific proof. I would happy to trust Holtz + Paul + Cau + Hone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Theropod at any days, any months, any years, any centuries |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Dec 24 2012, 07:13 PM Post #1118 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
To all people who think a 7-9t Spinosaurus would be way too slender: Do you know that Paul estimated a 15m Spinosaurus at 4t? Compared to this, Dal Sasso's 16-18m and 7-9t Spinosaurus would look quite bulky. Dal Sasso's Spinosaurus actually isn't that terribly slender, but it's tail makes up a big part of it's legth. ![]() Image source: http://www.reocities.com/Athens/bridge/4602/spinoskull.pdf So it isn't suprising that the volume measuring gave a 7-9t result (compare the volume with the T-rex below, than you'll see). Here the volume measuring method: ![]() Image source: http://dinoweb.ucoz.ru/_fr/4/A_new_method_to.pdf Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Dec 24 2012, 07:53 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Dec 24 2012, 08:15 PM Post #1119 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It needs the muscle to make fast strikes in the water, even 2 tonne fish are quite fast And a hump is similar to the ones bison have, while a muscular ridge would look something like this: |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 24 2012, 08:18 PM Post #1120 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, I wouldn´t happily embrace it at all, unless it is proven that the results are also higher if no additional tissue is added. However you cannot use it and compare it to the normal estimates for these other theropods. Giganotosaurus and carcharodontosaurus are 1-2m longer than T. rex, and just about any estimate puts them at a higher weight. The only way they aren´t is if you use the metod that exagerates the body mass for T. rex but do not apply it to them, thus I conclude if using the same metod these animals would be heavier. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 24 2012, 08:29 PM Post #1121 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
no, but a range of estimates. do i have to repeat myself? if one animal is estimates to be 4,5-9,5t and another one from 6-15t, which one is heavier? That´s the same as my example, just with more conservative or liberal metods instead of larger and smaller specimens.
I have, it is Sereno´s 1998 description of Suchomimus which contains a skull restoration. Don´t tell me one did always need a scientist stating exactly what you want to show, otherwise some of bonys praised size charts are practically worthless. Take the Suchomimus skull and replace it´s rostrum with that of spinosaurus, scale it to appropriate rostral lenght (~99cm) and you see it is exactly as long as my reconstruction. Whatever base you criticise me on it definitely should be a better one than "but you have to show scientific proof!!!! Everything is worthless as long as not stated by a scientist!"
Yes, why question something if it is stated by omniscient gods? Firstly, I´m suggesting a similar size to holtz, Holtz estimate is 16m which I believe is lower bound basing on normal spinosauir proportions. I would happily favour estimates suggested by Holtz, Dal Sasso and Mortimer if they have an imo more logical base. Why cannot you give reasons why you think this reconstruction was better instead of always writing the same? |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Dec 24 2012, 08:31 PM Post #1122 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Look at ANY Spinosaurus skeletal... |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 24 2012, 08:31 PM Post #1123 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What about having a look at Hartmans skeletal, do you seriously think an animal that had enlarged spinous processes would have ones with so little skin in between if it was made for that purpose? the 2006 paper: NEW INFORMATION REGARDING THE HOLOTYPE OF SPINOSAURUS AEGYPTIACUS STROMER, 1915 contains some photos of the holotype just in case you want to see the spines. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 24 2012, 08:44 PM Post #1124 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You can, as long as you don´t only apply such metods to T. rex Greg Paul. Hartman and mortimer also gave far lower figures. I don´t deny there are very high (exagerated) estimates for other theropods as well, but no-one here uses them. What I think is biased is to take the new figure for sue that is very high and take the conservative figures for other animals. I personally think the laser scanned sue was recosntructed with far too much soft tissue (even in the min estimate), but there is nothign wrong with using it as long as you account for similarly liberal metods in other theropods. Funny enough the scanned skeleton doesn´t have gastralia and even with gastralia reconstructions by hartman or Greg Paul are far more slender. Could you quote the passage where that´s explained in the paper please? As long as you increase other animals mass as well there is no problem, the exact weights are a matter of debate of course
No, I don´t think an animal that is ~10t at 16m would have problems walking when a 9,5t 12,3m animal has. See the difference? It is spinos dimensional size that makes it so heavy, it isn´t excessively bulky.
That´s total BS, I support neither. unlike a 9,5t T. rex however such a spinosaurus wouldn´t look like a sausage. [/quote] I don´t think you are biased because you use that weight estimate, I think you are biased because you use it for T. rex but not higher estimates for other animals as well. Edited by theropod, Dec 24 2012, 08:46 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Dec 24 2012, 09:16 PM Post #1125 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
By "muscular crest", I meant a structure similar to that of the Arizonasaurus reconstruction, not a bison hump |
![]() |
|
| 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)







, do you have any PROOF for that cause i have never heard about this before ? Or this base on your guts feeling like usual, if you don't reply, i would consider that you base those claims on your guts feeling





2:23 AM Jul 14