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 (459,306 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:
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 24 2012, 08:29 PM
I have, it is Sereno´s 1998 description of Suchomimus which contains a skull restoration.
You mean this one?
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wilsonja/JAW/Publications_files/Sereno%26al1998.pdf
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Dec 24 2012, 07:13 PM
Do you know that Paul estimated a 15m Spinosaurus at 4t?
Actually, Greg Paul estimated 10 tonnes for Spinosaurus...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 24 2012, 09:51 PM
Jinfengopteryx
Dec 24 2012, 07:13 PM
Do you know that Paul estimated a 15m Spinosaurus at 4t?
Actually, Greg Paul estimated 10 tonnes for Spinosaurus...
I was reffering to this:
Posted Image
http://dinoweb.ucoz.ru/_fr/4/My_theropod_is_.pdf
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Dec 24 2012, 10:16 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hey guys, will the claws of Spinosaurus do significant damage? Some people say it probably wouldn't but will it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Asaurus
Dec 24 2012, 10:19 PM
Hey guys, will the claws of Spinosaurus do significant damage? Some people say it probably wouldn't but will it?
No, unless it slashes the throat or gouges an eye...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Dec 24 2012, 09:18 PM
theropod
Dec 24 2012, 08:29 PM
I have, it is Sereno´s 1998 description of Suchomimus which contains a skull restoration.
You mean this one?
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wilsonja/JAW/Publications_files/Sereno%26al1998.pdf
yes (tough I found it on a different site not in PDF format and relied on PDF creator to download it-I´m really dumb, aren´t I?)

I posted a link to the skull reconstruction and mine was based on it.
Edited by theropod, Dec 25 2012, 12:54 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
here, as a christmas present for you:

Posted Image

Reconstruction of the skull of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus specimen MSNM V4047 (Dal Sasso, 2005) in dorsal and lateral view. Cranium restored after Suchomimus (Sereno et al, 1998), alternate version made to match the shape of Irritator more closely. Mmandible reconstructed basing on the holotype and Dal Sassos reconstruction.

It is particularly notable how much more robust the dentary is in any case when compared to the rostrum and even the cranium. Maybe the relatively great stresses expirienced by the rostrum in a dorsoventral direction and the comparatively massive mandible are adaptions for handlihg struggling fish, meaning the weight was held by the mandible while the cranium mainly expierienced lateral forces that it was more reinforced against. Also it is important to note the rostrum of spinosaurus might seem thin and weak, but it is a pretty massive piece of bone, and while not as deep as that of suchomimus or baryonyx it is probably less pneumatic, with thicker bones and undoubtedly broader.

Edited by theropod, Dec 25 2012, 01:31 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Dec 24 2012, 10:15 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 24 2012, 09:51 PM
Jinfengopteryx
Dec 24 2012, 07:13 PM
Do you know that Paul estimated a 15m Spinosaurus at 4t?
Actually, Greg Paul estimated 10 tonnes for Spinosaurus...
I was reffering to this:
Posted Image
http://dinoweb.ucoz.ru/_fr/4/My_theropod_is_.pdf
That estimate is 25 years old, made before we even found the new, adult, Spinosaurus specimen! Greg now puts Spinosaurus at a minimum of 10 tons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I know about this, but if you scale a 4t, 15m Spinosaurus to 16-18t, you will get less than 7-9t.
P.S. Does anyone have a source for 10t+? Because it sounds very logical.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Apparently, the 10-tonne estimate was for a 14-meter specimen...
http://s6.postimage.org/ho2y1jqg1/Spinosaurus_Greg_Paul.png
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Scaling Greg Paul's Spinosaurus to 17 meters in length would give us a ~17.9-tonne Spinosaurus
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Greg Paul. Hartman and mortimer also gave far lower figures.

That's not the same as rejecting a figure. Nobody's denying that lower estimates have been given, you don't have to tell me that. Gimme a quote from those people that actually saying they chose to reject the 9500kg figure.
Quote:
 
I don´t deny there are very high (exagerated) estimates for other theropods as well, but no-one here uses them.

We are not using 10000kg rex, or 20000kg. We are referring to a specific specimen.
Quote:
 
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?

Haven't read the whole paper. It's online with open access, just google it. If I could find time to do a comparison between the mounted skeleton vs. drawings vs. Sue osteology photos I would.
Probably after the new years though. It's pretty obvious though the ribs are positioned differently, which could account for some silhouette discrepancy.
Quote:
 
As long as you increase other animals mass as well there is no problem, the exact weights are a matter of debate of course

Well then, do you agree that giga holotype is bigger than a small rex like Stan, but smaller than a large rex like Sue. While spino MSNM V4047 probably was about twice as big as Stan
Quote:
 
there is nothign wrong with using it as long as you account for similarly liberal metods in other theropods

Quote:
 
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.

You are contradicting yourself here. You use what you believe to be a far too liberal number for sue but an extremely conservative number for Spino.
If you use 12.3m, 9.5t, use 16m, 16t spino, since you believe both are absurd.
Do you even believe in a 16m, 10t spino?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 24 2012, 09:16 PM
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
It wouldn't make a difference, spinosaurus it too big to be able to have a ridge of muscle and still be bipedal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Dec 25 2012, 03:59 AM
Quote:
 
Greg Paul. Hartman and mortimer also gave far lower figures.

That's not the same as rejecting a figure. Nobody's denying that lower estimates have been given, you don't have to tell me that. Gimme a quote from those people that actually saying they chose to reject the 9500kg figure.
Quote:
 
I don´t deny there are very high (exagerated) estimates for other theropods as well, but no-one here uses them.

We are not using 10000kg rex, or 20000kg. We are referring to a specific specimen.
Quote:
 
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?

Haven't read the whole paper. It's online with open access, just google it. If I could find time to do a comparison between the mounted skeleton vs. drawings vs. Sue osteology photos I would.
Probably after the new years though. It's pretty obvious though the ribs are positioned differently, which could account for some silhouette discrepancy.
Quote:
 
As long as you increase other animals mass as well there is no problem, the exact weights are a matter of debate of course

Well then, do you agree that giga holotype is bigger than a small rex like Stan, but smaller than a large rex like Sue. While spino MSNM V4047 probably was about twice as big as Stan
Quote:
 
there is nothign wrong with using it as long as you account for similarly liberal metods in other theropods

Quote:
 
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.

You are contradicting yourself here. You use what you believe to be a far too liberal number for sue but an extremely conservative number for Spino.
If you use 12.3m, 9.5t, use 16m, 16t spino, since you believe both are absurd.
Do you even believe in a 16m, 10t spino?
Quote:
 
That's not the same as rejecting a figure. Nobody's denying that lower estimates have been given, you don't have to tell me that. Gimme a quote from those people that actually saying they chose to reject the 9500kg figure.

I already posted a comment greg Paul made on the PLOS one study, i don´t know for the rest but this already shows my point that there are other estimates and not all agree with the figure.

Quote:
 
We are not using 10000kg rex, or 20000kg. We are referring to a specific specimen.

I don´t know what you mean by that, what does it have to do with what I wrote?

Quote:
 
Haven't read the whole paper. It's online with open access, just google it. If I could find time to do a comparison between the mounted skeleton vs. drawings vs. Sue osteology photos I would.
Probably after the new years though. It's pretty obvious though the ribs are positioned differently, which could account for some silhouette discrepancy.

I once made a comparison of the scan from the study, it´s wraps and hartmans version, it ought to be somewhere here on this board and also in my gallery.

Quote:
 
Well then, do you agree that giga holotype is bigger than a small rex like Stan, but smaller than a large rex like Sue. While spino MSNM V4047 probably was about twice as big as Stan

Understand what I mean? we can debate whether T. rex should be heavier than Giganotosaurus if it bases on bulk and size, but we cannot state so only comparing this T. rex figure to a low figure for Giganotosaurus. It is clear the metod would increase giganotosaurus mass estimate jsut as much as that for T. rex, but the question is which estimate to use.

Quote:
 
You are contradicting yourself here. You use what you believe to be a far too liberal number for sue but an extremely conservative number for Spino.
If you use 12.3m, 9.5t, use 16m, 16t spino, since you believe both are absurd.
Do you even believe in a 16m, 10t spino?

Well, of course such a heavy spinosaurus would also have problems walking imo, but I don´t see what is your point then. I´m not contradicting my point, I´m not believing spinosaurus to have been that bulky either. if 9,5t sue has problems walking, 16t spino also has, but I believe in neither.

imo the 16-18m range for spino is quite good, with weight figures of ~10-13,5t (to be compared to a 8t max for giganotosaurus and carcharodontosaurus and a 6,5t sue)
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.