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 (459,290 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:
dinosaur
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Jan 9 2013, 10:20 AM
dinosaur
Jan 9 2013, 04:28 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 8 2013, 04:43 PM
dinosaur
Jan 8 2013, 04:10 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 26 2012, 02:34 PM
dinosaur
Dec 26 2012, 04:52 AM
Just look at the size of the snout and head of Tyrannosaurus!  :o That should be a very useful weapon.
But is overcome by Spinosaurus' size and strength advantages...
And tyrannosaurus overcomes spinosaurus s abilities with skill, neck and leg muscles twice as powerful, and special weaponary.
Skill is irrelevant, Spinosaurus doesn't fight with it's neck, and Spinosaurus has stronger leg muscles, it needs to support a more massive body! How the hell can an animal only half the size have 2x stronger leg muscles!? Your "special weapons" for Tyrannosaurus are pure fantasy
Like this
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=rex+spino+revenge&um=1&hl=en&tbo=d&biw=1280&bih=876&tbm=isch&tbnid=DIEILjBRYwRW-M:&imgrefurl=http://teratophoneus.deviantart.com/art/Spino-vs-T-rex-the-revenge-205110459&docid=U2M194RxjbNuVM&imgurl=http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/106/e/6/spino_vs_t_rex_the_revenge_by_teratophoneus-d3e488r.jpg&w=900&h=675&ei=tGvsUK_YIMjyqwGE1IDoCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=2&vpy=90&dur=556&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=136&ty=112&sig=114265578592380353653&page=1&tbnh=140&tbnw=192&start=0&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:87
Wow... a drawing. That could have never happened anyway, because tyrannosaurus and spinosaurus lived at different times in different continents.
That image is known as TF. Tyrannosaurus FATALITY.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Maelstrom
Jan 11 2013, 01:25 AM
LophoFan14
Jan 10 2013, 08:48 PM
Maelstrom
Jan 10 2013, 03:06 AM
There hasn't been any comparisons on here for a while, so I tried to make one on GIMP.

Posted Image

Spino: 17 m (1.8 m skull)

T.rex: 12.3 m

Actuallu, T-Rex was 12,2 m. long. In the comparassion, it's far too tall. Use Hartmann's skeletal or this
That T.rex is Sue, who was 12.29 m long. As for it being tall these were the most accurate reconstructions I could find with skin on. Theres several other comparisons using Hartman's skeletals on previous pages, I think I made one too with them. I rather posted this one instead of a skeletal comparison (I can post if you want) because it has better aesthetics, it isn't too far anyway. T.rex isn't too tall it still measures slightly less than 4 m at the hip - maybe because it is rearing up it looks taller?
Those are from the promotional material of Jurassic Park 3 but with changed skin colors and some added details and while they look good they're not that accurate, just look at the hands, and Sue is actually closer to 3.5m than to 4m tall at the hip, so yes, it's too tall but I don't know if that is because of inaccurately disproportioned legs or because of scaling, the tail is certainly too short, so making it 12.3m will make the rest of the animal too big.

The Spinosaurus has all the JP inaccuracies, the spines should be tall for more, the head is that of Baryonyx and so on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
dinosaur
Jan 11 2013, 02:53 PM
Godzillaman
Jan 9 2013, 10:20 AM
dinosaur
Jan 9 2013, 04:28 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 8 2013, 04:43 PM
dinosaur
Jan 8 2013, 04:10 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 26 2012, 02:34 PM
dinosaur
Dec 26 2012, 04:52 AM
Just look at the size of the snout and head of Tyrannosaurus!  :o That should be a very useful weapon.
But is overcome by Spinosaurus' size and strength advantages...
And tyrannosaurus overcomes spinosaurus s abilities with skill, neck and leg muscles twice as powerful, and special weaponary.
Skill is irrelevant, Spinosaurus doesn't fight with it's neck, and Spinosaurus has stronger leg muscles, it needs to support a more massive body! How the hell can an animal only half the size have 2x stronger leg muscles!? Your "special weapons" for Tyrannosaurus are pure fantasy
Like this
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=rex+spino+revenge&um=1&hl=en&tbo=d&biw=1280&bih=876&tbm=isch&tbnid=DIEILjBRYwRW-M:&imgrefurl=http://teratophoneus.deviantart.com/art/Spino-vs-T-rex-the-revenge-205110459&docid=U2M194RxjbNuVM&imgurl=http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/106/e/6/spino_vs_t_rex_the_revenge_by_teratophoneus-d3e488r.jpg&w=900&h=675&ei=tGvsUK_YIMjyqwGE1IDoCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=2&vpy=90&dur=556&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=136&ty=112&sig=114265578592380353653&page=1&tbnh=140&tbnw=192&start=0&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:87
Wow... a drawing. That could have never happened anyway, because tyrannosaurus and spinosaurus lived at different times in different continents.
That image is known as TF. Tyrannosaurus FATALITY.
No, it's known as a biased drawing...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Since my other comparison used inaccurate reconstructions I made another one from skeletals. There is Scott Hartmans skeletal and there is Dal Sasso's, which actually looks a lot bigger in his comparison, because I scaled it to 1.8. If Dal Sasso's turn out to be more accurate, I think T.rex has the better chance.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Maelstrom
Jan 11 2013, 05:33 PM
Since my other comparison used inaccurate reconstructions I made another one from skeletals. There is Scott Hartmans skeletal and there is Dal Sasso's, which actually looks a lot bigger in his comparison, because I scaled it to 1.8. If Dal Sasso's turn out to be more accurate, I think T.rex has the better chance.

Posted Image
The only notable difference is the fleshing and the extent of the ridge, they're almost the same size(Scott Hartman's one is a bit larger)

And this is worth a read:
http://skeletaldrawing.blogspot.com/2012/01/revisiting-fisher-king.html

The spines go over the tail, Scott Hartman's skeletal is more accurate...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Maelstrom
Jan 11 2013, 05:33 PM
Since my other comparison used inaccurate reconstructions I made another one from skeletals. There is Scott Hartmans skeletal and there is Dal Sasso's, which actually looks a lot bigger in his comparison, because I scaled it to 1.8. If Dal Sasso's turn out to be more accurate, I think T.rex has the better chance.

Posted Image
Is this just me, or does the skull in Hartmanns Spinosaurus look longer? (If yes, you should scale them at the same skull legth, not at the same body legth, because Hartmanns has a proportionally longer skull)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Jan 11 2013, 09:53 PM
Maelstrom
Jan 11 2013, 05:33 PM
Since my other comparison used inaccurate reconstructions I made another one from skeletals. There is Scott Hartmans skeletal and there is Dal Sasso's, which actually looks a lot bigger in his comparison, because I scaled it to 1.8. If Dal Sasso's turn out to be more accurate, I think T.rex has the better chance.

Posted Image
Is this just me, or does the skull in Hartmanns Spinosaurus look longer? (If yes, you should scale them at the same skull legth, not at the same body legth, because Hartmanns has a proportionally longer skull)
Scott Hartman put MSNM 4047's skull on IPHG 1912's body so scaling that skeletal to skull length would give you a subadult specimen, using a subadult Spinosaurus against a top tier Tyrannosaurus specimen is bias
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
No, Hartman created a skull that uses both MSNM V4047 and IPHG 1912 material without distorting the scale (that's it, it assumes they come from equally sized individuals), it is not Dal Sasso's skull reconstruction put in IPHG 1912 body. His Suchominus also has a longer head (around 1.4m) than other reconstructions, I haven't checked it but it seems the fossils still fit.
Edited by blaze, Jan 11 2013, 10:15 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
blaze
Jan 11 2013, 10:13 PM
No, Hartman created a skull that uses both MSNM V4047 and IPHG 1912 material without distorting the scale (that's it, it assumes they come from equally sized individuals), it is not Dal Sasso's skull reconstruction put in IPHG 1912 body. His Suchominus also has a longer head (around 1.4m) than other reconstructions, I haven't checked it but it seems the fossils still fit.
Assuming MSNM 4047 to be equal in size to the subadult specimen IPHG 1912 is kinda weird, I guess we can place Sue's head in Jane's body now, can we?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Again, assuming that Spinosaurus had a proportionally longer skull than relatives is baseless speculation

I'll see what I can dig up in the theropod database...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I couldn't find Suchomimus in the theropod database so here's the one for Baryonyx instead

Holotype- (BMNH R9951) (9.1 m, 1.7-2.7 tons) partial skull (915 mm)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Considering there is no overlapping material between MSNM V4047 and IPHG 1912 and there's no Spinosaurus specimen that preserves both (rostrum and dentary) is not weird, is being cautious and your example is beyond hyperbole. Dal Sasso doesn't even claim that MSNM V4047 is bigger than the holotype, he compares it to S. marrocanus (which is just a rostrum too IIRC).

And Baryonyx skull is not complete enough, the skull at 915mm is very likely this reconstruction:
Posted Image
Which I'm sure no one uses since Suchomimus was found (well, maybe JP3 did).
Edited by blaze, Jan 11 2013, 10:58 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Jan 11 2013, 09:53 PM
Maelstrom
Jan 11 2013, 05:33 PM
Since my other comparison used inaccurate reconstructions I made another one from skeletals. There is Scott Hartmans skeletal and there is Dal Sasso's, which actually looks a lot bigger in his comparison, because I scaled it to 1.8. If Dal Sasso's turn out to be more accurate, I think T.rex has the better chance.

Posted Image
Is this just me, or does the skull in Hartmanns Spinosaurus look longer? (If yes, you should scale them at the same skull legth, not at the same body legth, because Hartmanns has a proportionally longer skull)
The skull on the Hartman one is 1.9 m rather than 1.75 m. Didn't Fragillimus show how the skull would be more likely about 1.94 m if it was built like Hartmans? If Hartman was 1.75 m it would be a lot more robust and less like a Spinosaur. I didn't need to scale the other to 1.9 because Dal Sasso's doesn't look too robust and 'un-spinosaur like' at the other length.
Edited by Maelstrom, Jan 12 2013, 03:07 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kurtz
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tyrannosaurus take this, was lighter, faster and stockier
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 11 2013, 10:36 PM
I couldn't find Suchomimus in the theropod database so here's the one for Baryonyx instead

Holotype- (BMNH R9951) (9.1 m, 1.7-2.7 tons) partial skull (915 mm)
I can give you that table:
Posted Image
Source
Their own estimate (which you can ignore) is 10,31m, the skull and TL estimates by Sereno are 11m (TL) and 1,19 (SL). Seebacher estimated it at 3,8t. Here you see it in his table:
Posted Image
http://dinoweb.ucoz.ru/_fr/4/A_new_method_to.pdf
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.