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 (459,300 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:
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
All I know is that even the holotype of Spinosaurus had vertebra quite a bit longer than those of Sue. Also, the Dal Sasso specimen was a lot longer than that.... so, 12-14 meter estimates are pretty iffy. 16-18 remains the most likely.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Temnospondyl
Stegocephalia specialist.
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
My fighter comparing table structure:
1.Name
2.Length
3.Mass
4.Restoration
5.Advantages
6.Weakness

TyrannosaurusSpinosaurus
12 m.
4 - 7 tons from different sources
Posted Image
Power, speed, good crushing bite, serrated teeth(slicing adaptation)
unuseful arms.
14 - 17m. from different sources
maximally 11 tons
Posted Image
Size, big arms, conical teeth for holding.
Sail, that can be crushed (planet dinosaur episode 1)
Edited by Temnospondyl, Dec 28 2012, 04:51 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't think it would be easy to bite that sail, T-rex isn't tall enough.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
basically no other theropod could just bite the top of the sail, at best some of the shorter spines on the tail or base of the neck if they reared up as far as possible and spino didn´t.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
theropod
Dec 28 2012, 04:07 AM
Quote:
 
By the way MSNM V4047 is/would be the "Sue" of Spinosaurus.

no, do you know how few spinosaurus specimens we have?
We have 3 adult Spinosaurus specimens that have size estimates two of which estimates are in the 13-15 meter range. Only one of them possibly reached these giant sizes. Why is downsizing the skull unreasonable? A skull size of 1.5-1.9 m are all possible sizes. Also Suchomimus has a proportionally bigger head than Baryonyx why can't the same be for Spinosaurus and Suchomimus?

As for the Baryonyx skull size I'll get back to you on that. I'm on my phone right now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Gecko
Dec 28 2012, 05:30 AM
Also Suchomimus has a proportionally bigger head than Baryonyx why can't the same be for Spinosaurus and Suchomimus?
I think because Sucho's is more stretched (it has a longer snout).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Gecko
Dec 28 2012, 05:30 AM
theropod
Dec 28 2012, 04:07 AM
Quote:
 
By the way MSNM V4047 is/would be the "Sue" of Spinosaurus.

no, do you know how few spinosaurus specimens we have?
We have 3 adult Spinosaurus specimens that have size estimates two of which estimates are in the 13-15 meter range. Only one of them possibly reached these giant sizes. Why is downsizing the skull unreasonable? A skull size of 1.5-1.9 m are all possible sizes. Also Suchomimus has a proportionally bigger head than Baryonyx why can't the same be for Spinosaurus and Suchomimus?

As for the Baryonyx skull size I'll get back to you on that. I'm on my phone right now.
We have one, and possibly two adult Spinosaurus's. MSNM V4047 is probably an adult, and SAM 124 is iffy at best, due to being quite a bit smaller, and very fragmentary. The holotype is a juvenile, this is widely known. Also, Tyrannosaurus is known from ~30 skeletons, and it is the largest. V4047 is known from 1, or possibly 2 adults, and Sue is the largest. It was almost surely not a "Sue" individual....


Holotype, subadult- 12.5-14.5 meters, 5-7 tons
SAM 124, possible young adult- 14-15 meters, 9-10 tons
MSMN V4047, likely adult- 16-18 meters, 14-17 tons.
Edited by Fragillimus335, Dec 28 2012, 06:17 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Dec 28 2012, 06:16 AM
Gecko
Dec 28 2012, 05:30 AM
theropod
Dec 28 2012, 04:07 AM
Quote:
 
By the way MSNM V4047 is/would be the "Sue" of Spinosaurus.

no, do you know how few spinosaurus specimens we have?
We have 3 adult Spinosaurus specimens that have size estimates two of which estimates are in the 13-15 meter range. Only one of them possibly reached these giant sizes. Why is downsizing the skull unreasonable? A skull size of 1.5-1.9 m are all possible sizes. Also Suchomimus has a proportionally bigger head than Baryonyx why can't the same be for Spinosaurus and Suchomimus?

As for the Baryonyx skull size I'll get back to you on that. I'm on my phone right now.
We have one, and possibly two adult Spinosaurus's. MSNM V4047 is probably an adult, and SAM 124 is iffy at best, due to being quite a bit smaller, and very fragmentary. The holotype is a juvenile, this is widely known. Also, Tyrannosaurus is known from ~30 skeletons, and it is the largest. V4047 is known from 1, or possibly 2 adults, and Sue is the largest. It was almost surely not a "Sue" individual....


Holotype, subadult- 12.5-14.5 meters, 5-7 tons
SAM 124, possible young adult- 14-15 meters, 9-10 tons
MSMN V4047, likely adult- 16-18 meters, 14-17 tons.


And what only like 6 or 7 of those Tyrannosaurus are close to being complete.

It's also funny that SAM 124 is "too fragmentary" but MSMN V4047 has the same amount and same parts discovered but it's perfectly ok to use.

Also source for holotype being subadult.
Edited by Gecko, Dec 28 2012, 07:01 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
T.rex reaching 12-13 m is a fact.

T.rex reaching 14,5 m is not a freaking fact.

This toebone can tell nothing at this point, proportions vary in individuals and no work has been performed on this to date, nor any professionnal has commented to my knowledge.

Spinosaurus reaching 17 m is not a fact.
14,5 m neither. All of this is just debattable and has absolutely not been confirmed to now.

T.rex weight varies depending the works but it was in the 6-9 tons range.

Weight estimates for Spinosaurus are simply a huge mess at this stage, depending of too many factors, as we don't have even one preserved specimen yeilding a confirmed body length estimate.

That's the actual facts there. Anyone can believe what he wants aferward, even 18 m ants with hat on the head...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
 
I find it highly strange that there where figures for incomplete skulls repeated in scientific literature as total skull lenght


Look no further than Therrien and Henderson (2007) they reported the "as preserved" total skull length of NCSM 14345 skull instead of the restored total skull length mentioned in the paper, however, the measurements in the paper seem like a mix of dorsal and total skull lengths...

I don't think this is the case though, the skull of Baryonyx is fragmentary and I highly doubt you can get an "incomplete length" out of it, what I think it is, is that the smaller measurement (0.915m) might be of this reconstruction of the skull while the larger (1.05m) is of reconstructions completed with Suchomimus, Hartman's Baryonyx has a skull that is ~1.05m in length.

Posted Image
Edited by blaze, Dec 28 2012, 09:03 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Gecko
Dec 28 2012, 06:59 AM
Fragillimus335
Dec 28 2012, 06:16 AM
Gecko
Dec 28 2012, 05:30 AM
theropod
Dec 28 2012, 04:07 AM
Quote:
 
By the way MSNM V4047 is/would be the "Sue" of Spinosaurus.

no, do you know how few spinosaurus specimens we have?
We have 3 adult Spinosaurus specimens that have size estimates two of which estimates are in the 13-15 meter range. Only one of them possibly reached these giant sizes. Why is downsizing the skull unreasonable? A skull size of 1.5-1.9 m are all possible sizes. Also Suchomimus has a proportionally bigger head than Baryonyx why can't the same be for Spinosaurus and Suchomimus?

As for the Baryonyx skull size I'll get back to you on that. I'm on my phone right now.
We have one, and possibly two adult Spinosaurus's. MSNM V4047 is probably an adult, and SAM 124 is iffy at best, due to being quite a bit smaller, and very fragmentary. The holotype is a juvenile, this is widely known. Also, Tyrannosaurus is known from ~30 skeletons, and it is the largest. V4047 is known from 1, or possibly 2 adults, and Sue is the largest. It was almost surely not a "Sue" individual....


Holotype, subadult- 12.5-14.5 meters, 5-7 tons
SAM 124, possible young adult- 14-15 meters, 9-10 tons
MSMN V4047, likely adult- 16-18 meters, 14-17 tons.


And what only like 6 or 7 of those Tyrannosaurus are close to being complete.

It's also funny that SAM 124 is "too fragmentary" but MSMN V4047 has the same amount and same parts discovered but it's perfectly ok to use.

Also source for holotype being subadult.
Your apparent hatred of Spinosaurus seems to blind you to basic concepts. SAM 124 is to fragmentary to determine its AGE, not its size.

It is widely known the holotype of Spinosaurus was a subadult/juvenile.

example #1

Example #2
Eric Hall wrote-

> I am new to the DML but have been reading from the archives for some time.
I have been fascinated by
> Mickey Mortimer's posts on Spinosaurus, in particular the mind-boggling
size estimates. But what I don't
> understand is why we believe the holotype specimen is a subadult. What is
it about a skeleton that would > lead one to make the assumption that it was
not fully grown, even on a specimen as large as that one was?

The dorsal neural arches are not fused to the centra. I don't see why
people ignore Spinosaurus' size, or claim it's uncertain that it was larger
than Tyrannosaurus. Dorsal central length is one of the best indicators of
total length, and Spinosaurus' were HUGE.

Mickey Mortimer


There are dozens more if you merely search "Spinosaurus holotype"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Dec 28 2012, 07:15 AM
T.rex reaching 12-13 m is a fact.

T.rex reaching 14,5 m is not a freaking fact.

This toebone can tell nothing at this point, proportions vary in individuals and no work has been performed on this to date, nor any professionnal has commented to my knowledge.

Spinosaurus reaching 17 m is not a fact.
14,5 m neither. All of this is just debattable and has absolutely not been confirmed to now.

T.rex weight varies depending the works but it was in the 6-9 tons range.

Weight estimates for Spinosaurus are simply a huge mess at this stage, depending of too many factors, as we don't have even one preserved specimen yeilding a confirmed body length estimate.

That's the actual facts there. Anyone can believe what he wants aferward, even 18 m ants with hat on the head...
for once a post of yours that I totally agree about! It happens from time to time and then it is even more enjoyable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Dec 28 2012, 08:53 AM
Your apparent hatred of Spinosaurus seems to blind you to basic concepts. SAM 124 is to fragmentary to determine its AGE, not its size.

It is widely known the holotype of Spinosaurus was a subadult/juvenile.

example #1

Example #2
Eric Hall wrote-

> I am new to the DML but have been reading from the archives for some time.
I have been fascinated by
> Mickey Mortimer's posts on Spinosaurus, in particular the mind-boggling
size estimates. But what I don't
> understand is why we believe the holotype specimen is a subadult. What is
it about a skeleton that would > lead one to make the assumption that it was
not fully grown, even on a specimen as large as that one was?

The dorsal neural arches are not fused to the centra. I don't see why
people ignore Spinosaurus' size, or claim it's uncertain that it was larger
than Tyrannosaurus. Dorsal central length is one of the best indicators of
total length, and Spinosaurus' were HUGE.

Mickey Mortimer


There are dozens more if you merely search "Spinosaurus holotype"
Yeah because I clearly said I hate Spinosaurus rolleyes ...

What I do hate is when people get overhyped about dinosaurs and come up with these giant sizes.

Why don't you continue reading that thread. Link.
Quote:
 
<The dorsal neural arches are not fused to the centra.>

Though it may not have been "immature," as even in some birds and
mammals, adulthood and maturity is still known with open neurocentral
sutures. SOME of the dorsals and the cervicals shown closed neurocentral
sutures.

<I don't see why people ignore Spinosaurus' size, or claim it's uncertain
that it was larger than Tyrannosaurus. Dorsal central length is one of
the best indicators of total length, and Spinosaurus' were HUGE.>

Though the centra are fairly long, note that in *Tyrannosaurus,*
cervical count is lower than in, say, *Dilophosaurus.* Dorsal and
cervical, as well as caudal counts, vary among species, and the estimates
should account for this, as well as that the vertebral counts in
*Baryonyx,* the most complete relative of *Spinosaurus,* is unknown. But
yes, Mickey's estimates take into account what would happen if you scaled
up *Baryonyx* up, and expanded the ribcage, suggestive a few extra hundred
kilos of mass beyond the scaled ratios. That's assuming there is a direct
scaling inferrence here, and *Spinosaurus* didn't depart somehow, and that
its femoral length, long-time the friend of allometric scalers and mass
estimates, is unknown. I beleive it was this that has lead to skeptics
stating the length and mass are relatively unknown and one shouldn't be
making easy comparisons.
=====
Jaime A. Headden


Clearly your "love" for giant dinosaurs seems to blind you to basic concepts

Nice cherry picking... :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 28 2012, 09:08 AM
Grey
Dec 28 2012, 07:15 AM
T.rex reaching 12-13 m is a fact.

T.rex reaching 14,5 m is not a freaking fact.

This toebone can tell nothing at this point, proportions vary in individuals and no work has been performed on this to date, nor any professionnal has commented to my knowledge.

Spinosaurus reaching 17 m is not a fact.
14,5 m neither. All of this is just debattable and has absolutely not been confirmed to now.

T.rex weight varies depending the works but it was in the 6-9 tons range.

Weight estimates for Spinosaurus are simply a huge mess at this stage, depending of too many factors, as we don't have even one preserved specimen yeilding a confirmed body length estimate.

That's the actual facts there. Anyone can believe what he wants aferward, even 18 m ants with hat on the head...
for once a post of yours that I totally agree about! It happens from time to time and then it is even more enjoyable.
Well, this is what I use since a while now. I can just laugh when I see posters speaking as factual 17 m Spinosaurus and 14,5 m T.rex. Based on almost nothing or doubtfull, debattable datas.

This fictionnal fight simply cannot be solved yet, Spinosaurus is far too problematic at now.

A Tyrannosaurus/Giganotosaurus thread is way more simple to handle and do not rely too much on speculations, both opponent being plenty studied and known.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Gecko
Dec 28 2012, 09:13 AM
Fragillimus335
Dec 28 2012, 08:53 AM
Your apparent hatred of Spinosaurus seems to blind you to basic concepts. SAM 124 is to fragmentary to determine its AGE, not its size.

It is widely known the holotype of Spinosaurus was a subadult/juvenile.

example #1

Example #2
Eric Hall wrote-

> I am new to the DML but have been reading from the archives for some time.
I have been fascinated by
> Mickey Mortimer's posts on Spinosaurus, in particular the mind-boggling
size estimates. But what I don't
> understand is why we believe the holotype specimen is a subadult. What is
it about a skeleton that would > lead one to make the assumption that it was
not fully grown, even on a specimen as large as that one was?

The dorsal neural arches are not fused to the centra. I don't see why
people ignore Spinosaurus' size, or claim it's uncertain that it was larger
than Tyrannosaurus. Dorsal central length is one of the best indicators of
total length, and Spinosaurus' were HUGE.

Mickey Mortimer


There are dozens more if you merely search "Spinosaurus holotype"
Yeah because I clearly said I hate Spinosaurus rolleyes ...

What I do hate is when people get overhyped about dinosaurs and come up with these giant sizes.

Why don't you continue reading that thread. Link.
Quote:
 
<The dorsal neural arches are not fused to the centra.>

Though it may not have been "immature," as even in some birds and
mammals, adulthood and maturity is still known with open neurocentral
sutures. SOME of the dorsals and the cervicals shown closed neurocentral
sutures.

<I don't see why people ignore Spinosaurus' size, or claim it's uncertain
that it was larger than Tyrannosaurus. Dorsal central length is one of
the best indicators of total length, and Spinosaurus' were HUGE.>

Though the centra are fairly long, note that in *Tyrannosaurus,*
cervical count is lower than in, say, *Dilophosaurus.* Dorsal and
cervical, as well as caudal counts, vary among species, and the estimates
should account for this, as well as that the vertebral counts in
*Baryonyx,* the most complete relative of *Spinosaurus,* is unknown. But
yes, Mickey's estimates take into account what would happen if you scaled
up *Baryonyx* up, and expanded the ribcage, suggestive a few extra hundred
kilos of mass beyond the scaled ratios. That's assuming there is a direct
scaling inferrence here, and *Spinosaurus* didn't depart somehow, and that
its femoral length, long-time the friend of allometric scalers and mass
estimates, is unknown. I beleive it was this that has lead to skeptics
stating the length and mass are relatively unknown and one shouldn't be
making easy comparisons.
=====
Jaime A. Headden


Clearly your "love" for giant dinosaurs seems to blind you to basic concepts

Nice cherry picking... :D
What part of that quote changed anything I stated?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.