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 (459,307 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:
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
How would a hump be too heavy for spinosaurus but not a muscular ridge.......when muscle weighs more than fat..........
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Dec 24 2012, 04:49 PM
Bandog
Dec 24 2012, 04:37 PM
For some reason, your reply seems to clutch at hypothetical straws. Being a predator, do you not think it would be likely that spinosaurus would attack with its predatory weapons as animals do today?
In my view, keep in mind I don't know much about these animals, spinosaurus would win 70% of the time. Its potential height advantage means it would be able to access the back of trex' head and pin it with its greater strength and weight. I seriously doubt tyrannosaurus could outmanouvre it and get at the flanks. seeing that both were apex predators, i feel its reasonable that both would react agressivley to the others preference. Once down, spinosaurus would likely just ravage it from that point with its jaws and claws.
If tyrannosaurus was to win, it would be from a bite to spinosaurus snout, head or neck.
Are these scenarios plausible?
I find your scenarios plausible.

I think Tyrannosaurus could out maneuver Spinosaurus. Spino is has a very long body and a lot of mass.
It would be very slow turning around. And that back makes it even harder; it's not aerodynamic at all.

If Tyrannosaurus tries to attack the neck or head of Spino it would put itself within the range of Spino's jaws and claws. And you certainly won't kill a Spino by nibbling its tail or hip. I think the way for a rex to win is to attack the lower legs, and it could be quick enough to get out of the way when the spino is turning its long heavy body around. If the already slow spino is further immobilized, then rex has a chance.

But still, spino would naturally have a big advantage, and would win more time than not.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Black Ice
Dec 24 2012, 05:46 PM
How would a hump be too heavy for spinosaurus but not a muscular ridge.......when muscle weighs more than fat..........
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 24 2012, 05:51 PM
Black Ice
Dec 24 2012, 05:46 PM
How would a hump be too heavy for spinosaurus but not a muscular ridge.......when muscle weighs more than fat..........
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
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
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
Posted Image

READ.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 24 2012, 03:46 PM
Bandog
Dec 24 2012, 03:24 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 24 2012, 03:22 PM
Bandog
Dec 24 2012, 02:47 PM
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
Spinosaurus can shove/knock down the Tyrannosaurus then step on it
Surely that is not as far as you analyse these conflicts.
Well, considering the size difference between Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus, that is the most likely outcome.

Also keep in mind that Spinosaurus likely had a muscular ridge that made it even stronger. Spinosaurus' spines could not have formed a sail, they resemble the spines of bison more than the thin rods of Dimetrodon and Edaphosaurus. The spines of Spinosaurus are robust, and the space between them are too little to effectively span skin in between. A hump would be too heavy for a bipedal, leaving the muscular ridge as the most likely.

Also, the tall spines of Spinosaurus would make it look larger than it actually is, intimidating the Tyrannosaurus
Quote:
 
and the space between them are too little to effectively span skin in between

Hmm, this part sounds very interesting for me rolleyes , 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 lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Theropod
 
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?

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
Quote:
 
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.

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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
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.


Posted Image
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:


Posted Image
Image source: http://dinoweb.ucoz.ru/_fr/4/A_new_method_to.pdf
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Dec 24 2012, 07:53 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Black Ice
Dec 24 2012, 05:52 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 24 2012, 05:51 PM
Black Ice
Dec 24 2012, 05:46 PM
How would a hump be too heavy for spinosaurus but not a muscular ridge.......when muscle weighs more than fat..........
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
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.
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:

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Dec 24 2012, 11:02 AM
theropod
Dec 24 2012, 06:28 AM
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.
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.


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Dec 24 2012, 07:02 PM
Theropod
 
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?

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
Quote:
 
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.

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
Quote:
 
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

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.

Quote:
 
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.

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!"

Quote:
 
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

Yes, why question something if it is stated by omniscient gods? rolleyes
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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Dec 24 2012, 06:29 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 24 2012, 03:46 PM
Bandog
Dec 24 2012, 03:24 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 24 2012, 03:22 PM
Bandog
Dec 24 2012, 02:47 PM
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
Spinosaurus can shove/knock down the Tyrannosaurus then step on it
Surely that is not as far as you analyse these conflicts.
Well, considering the size difference between Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus, that is the most likely outcome.

Also keep in mind that Spinosaurus likely had a muscular ridge that made it even stronger. Spinosaurus' spines could not have formed a sail, they resemble the spines of bison more than the thin rods of Dimetrodon and Edaphosaurus. The spines of Spinosaurus are robust, and the space between them are too little to effectively span skin in between. A hump would be too heavy for a bipedal, leaving the muscular ridge as the most likely.

Also, the tall spines of Spinosaurus would make it look larger than it actually is, intimidating the Tyrannosaurus
Quote:
 
and the space between them are too little to effectively span skin in between

Hmm, this part sounds very interesting for me rolleyes , 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 lol
Look at ANY Spinosaurus skeletal...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Dec 24 2012, 06:29 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 24 2012, 03:46 PM
Bandog
Dec 24 2012, 03:24 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 24 2012, 03:22 PM
Bandog
Dec 24 2012, 02:47 PM
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
Spinosaurus can shove/knock down the Tyrannosaurus then step on it
Surely that is not as far as you analyse these conflicts.
Well, considering the size difference between Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus, that is the most likely outcome.

Also keep in mind that Spinosaurus likely had a muscular ridge that made it even stronger. Spinosaurus' spines could not have formed a sail, they resemble the spines of bison more than the thin rods of Dimetrodon and Edaphosaurus. The spines of Spinosaurus are robust, and the space between them are too little to effectively span skin in between. A hump would be too heavy for a bipedal, leaving the muscular ridge as the most likely.

Also, the tall spines of Spinosaurus would make it look larger than it actually is, intimidating the Tyrannosaurus
Quote:
 
and the space between them are too little to effectively span skin in between

Hmm, this part sounds very interesting for me rolleyes , 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 lol
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Dec 24 2012, 07:54 AM
theropod
Dec 24 2012, 06:28 AM
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.
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.
You can, as long as you don´t only apply such metods to T. rex
MysteryMeat
Dec 24 2012, 07:54 AM

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?
Greg Paul. Hartman and mortimer also gave far lower figures.
MysteryMeat
Dec 24 2012, 07:54 AM

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.
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.
MysteryMeat
Dec 24 2012, 07:54 AM

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.
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?
MysteryMeat
Dec 24 2012, 07:54 AM


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
As long as you increase other animals mass as well there is no problem, the exact weights are a matter of debate of course
MysteryMeat
Dec 24 2012, 07:54 AM

So Spinosaurus could barely walk? I mean, it's a lot heavier than T. rex, probably with proportionally shorter legs.

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.

Verdugo
Dec 24 2012, 03:04 PM
MysteryMeat
Dec 24 2012, 05:32 AM
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 rolleyes .

That´s total BS, I support neither. unlike a 9,5t T. rex however such a spinosaurus wouldn´t look like a sausage.


Verdugo
Dec 24 2012, 03:04 PM
@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

Posted Image
[/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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Black Ice
Dec 24 2012, 06:02 PM
If spinosaurus had a hump of muscle, it would be forced due to its massive size, assume a quadrupedal stance, much like this
Posted Image

READ.
By "muscular crest", I meant a structure similar to that of the Arizonasaurus reconstruction, not a bison hump
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.