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 (459,305 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:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Black Ice
Dec 25 2012, 04:29 AM
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.
A ridge of muscle doesn´t ahve to be very thick and heavy, not much thicker than a sail actually.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 25 2012, 08:07 AM
Black Ice
Dec 25 2012, 04:29 AM
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.
A ridge of muscle doesn´t ahve to be very thick and heavy, not much thicker than a sail actually.
It would still force a quadrupedal stance in spinosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheROC
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
I notice we rarely seem to get overhead views of animals, and thus most visual comparisons of any kind are from their profiles.


Dorsal views are important too, and its unfortunate that the two don't accompany each other more often.

Here's a dorsal comparison of a 12 meter T.Rex, an equal length Spinosaurus (obviously the t.rex's tail is curved a bit and its head and neck not fully parallel to the ground), and a full sized one.

Posted Image


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Black Ice
Dec 25 2012, 08:31 AM
theropod
Dec 25 2012, 08:07 AM
Black Ice
Dec 25 2012, 04:29 AM
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.
A ridge of muscle doesn´t ahve to be very thick and heavy, not much thicker than a sail actually.
It would still force a quadrupedal stance in spinosaurus.
Do you really think so? don't forget apart from that spinosaurs wheren't that bulky, if an animal like T.rex, which has a far more compact chest could still stand, I dont see a reason for a spinosaur with some spines that have muscles attached to them to be incapable of bipedalism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
TheROC
Dec 25 2012, 09:40 AM
I notice we rarely seem to get overhead views of animals, and thus most visual comparisons of any kind are from their profiles.


Dorsal views are important too, and its unfortunate that the two don't accompany each other more often.

Here's a dorsal comparison of a 12 meter T.Rex, an equal length Spinosaurus (obviously the t.rex's tail is curved a bit and its head and neck not fully parallel to the ground), and a full sized one.

Posted Image


nice scale! how long is that spino?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 24 2012, 08:18 PM
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.
Now you're just spilling BS, giga was 12.2m according to the latest data while Sue was 12.3m, where the hell did a 1-2m longer specimen come from? What do you mean just about any estimate? Giga is about the weight of an average T Rex, so if we also apply the 3d method on the holotype it would probably be 8 -8.5 tons roughly the same as Stan but still lighter than Sue.
You really sound like you're desperate for giga or carchy to be heavier for some reason.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 25 2012, 01:30 AM
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.

Dear god that skull from the dorsal view looked pathetically thin. Really makes me think if T Rex can just crush Spino's skull outright with a full powered bite.
Edited by bone crusher, Dec 25 2012, 10:19 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheROC
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 25 2012, 09:47 AM
TheROC
Dec 25 2012, 09:40 AM
I notice we rarely seem to get overhead views of animals, and thus most visual comparisons of any kind are from their profiles.


Dorsal views are important too, and its unfortunate that the two don't accompany each other more often.

Here's a dorsal comparison of a 12 meter T.Rex, an equal length Spinosaurus (obviously the t.rex's tail is curved a bit and its head and neck not fully parallel to the ground), and a full sized one.

Posted Image


nice scale! how long is that spino?
between 17-18 meters
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Against a 17m Spino, I can see T Rex UCMP 137538 be the only theropod up for the task. The size discrepancy is just too big for the rest.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Dec 25 2012, 02:03 AM
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.
The 4 ton estimate wasn't made because of a length disparity, but because of a simple underestimation. The holotype spino was roughly 12-14 meters long, and any theropod that size is quite a bit more than 4 tons!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheROC
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
The 10 tons at 18 meters makes absolutely no sense. that would require spinosaurids to weigh multiple times less than typical theropods at equal lengths. they do not. as you can see, weight estimates for equal sized baryonyx and allosaurus are more or less the same.

To put this '10 tons at 18 meters' idea to rest, let us look at struthiomimus;

Posted Image

It's pretty much an ostrich with a long tail and arms, and thus it has a similar weight estimate to what ostriches attain.

Let's take a struthiomimus of 14 feet in length and 330 lbs, and make it 18 meters long. How much would it weigh then? By simple square-cube scaling, we'd see that it would weigh 12.1 tons.

Look at that struthio skeleton, and tell me how gracile it is compared to more typical theropods.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Thanks for the example Roc, sometimes the simplest explanation has the greatest impact! Even a 16 meter Struthio would weigh ~8.6 tons! IMHO, Spinosaurus being 16-18 meters long, would weigh 15-17 tons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dinosaur
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 24 2012, 04:10 PM
dinosaur
Dec 24 2012, 02:47 PM
Maybe Tyrannosaurus is not a supernatural creature for you brolyeuphyfusion. :unsure:
Tyrannosaurus is not a supernatural creature, that is fact, don't deny it, Tyrannosaurus is only a normal animal

You always set up the Tyrannosaurus as the dinosaurian version of superman when in reality, it has limitations and certainly cannot take on every other land animal unlike what you think
I don't think so. ;) Rexy is trong enough.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 25 2012, 09:45 AM
Black Ice
Dec 25 2012, 08:31 AM
theropod
Dec 25 2012, 08:07 AM
Black Ice
Dec 25 2012, 04:29 AM
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.
A ridge of muscle doesn´t ahve to be very thick and heavy, not much thicker than a sail actually.
It would still force a quadrupedal stance in spinosaurus.
Do you really think so? don't forget apart from that spinosaurs wheren't that bulky, if an animal like T.rex, which has a far more compact chest could still stand, I dont see a reason for a spinosaur with some spines that have muscles attached to them to be incapable of bipedalism.
Spinosaurus is much bigger than t.rex. That is all your proof their. Added in the study I posted it said that if spinosaurus DID need extra muscle to power its neck, then its weird how t.rex didn't have a ridge then either since its skull was much more heavy and powerful. Spinosaurus it too big to have a muscular ridge and still be a bipedal. It was most likely a heat disapating tool like stegosaurus back plates or similiar, or maybe even used just as visual displays to attract mates
Edited by Black Ice, Dec 25 2012, 02:49 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Steg's plates were probably not primarily developed for thermoregulation, and neither was Spino's crest. I suspect both were primarily for display, with muscular attachment as a bonus for Spinosaurus.
Edited by Fragillimus335, Dec 25 2012, 02:57 PM.
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.