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 (459,289 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:
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Kurtz
Jan 12 2013, 01:34 AM
Tyrannosaurus take this, was lighter, faster and stockier
Where is the proof that it was faster than spinosaurus? Now, I realize that the spine of the spinosaurus would have easily hindered its speed movement, but is there any evidence to prove that tyrannosaurus was faster?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kurtz
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Jan 12 2013, 04:55 AM
Kurtz
Jan 12 2013, 01:34 AM
Tyrannosaurus take this, was lighter, faster and stockier
Where is the proof that it was faster than spinosaurus? Now, I realize that the spine of the spinosaurus would have easily hindered its speed movement, but is there any evidence to prove that tyrannosaurus was faster?
here:
new study that estimated the "speed limit" of nerve signals running through the dinosaur's body.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100629-science-dinosaurs-t-rex-nerves-elephants/
larger is dinosaur slower go
nerves are nerves

"T. rex Would Still Have Been Impressive.." Spino cause was larger not
Edited by Kurtz, Jan 12 2013, 05:03 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
blaze
Jan 11 2013, 10:45 PM
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).
Yes he does...

NEW INFORMATION ON THE SKULL OF THE ENIGMATIC THEROPOD SPINOSAURUS, WITH REMARKS ON ITS SIZE AND AFFINITIES

With regard to body size, a comparison between the known ements (lower jaw, ribs and dorsal centra) of the holotype of S. aegyptiacus (Stromer, 1915) with the Baryonychinae (Sereno et al., 1998; Charig and Milner, 1997), suggests that it was about 20–30% larger than Suchomimus and Baryonyx, rivalling in size other giant theropods such as Tyrannosaurus (Brochu, 2003) and the Carcharodontosauridae (Sereno et al. 1996; Calvo and Coria, 2000). Spinosaurus specimen MSNM V4047 is roughly 20% bigger than the holotype (Stromer, 1915); therefore, it represents potentially the largest known theropod dinosaur.
Edited by Fragillimus335, Jan 12 2013, 05:52 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dinosaur
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Kurtz
Jan 12 2013, 05:02 AM
Godzillaman
Jan 12 2013, 04:55 AM
Kurtz
Jan 12 2013, 01:34 AM
Tyrannosaurus take this, was lighter, faster and stockier
Where is the proof that it was faster than spinosaurus? Now, I realize that the spine of the spinosaurus would have easily hindered its speed movement, but is there any evidence to prove that tyrannosaurus was faster?
here:
new study that estimated the "speed limit" of nerve signals running through the dinosaur's body.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100629-science-dinosaurs-t-rex-nerves-elephants/
larger is dinosaur slower go
nerves are nerves

"T. rex Would Still Have Been Impressive.." Spino cause was larger not
:D :D YEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAA!!! t.Rex winner!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Please tell me you really aren't my age..........
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carcharadon
Member Avatar
Shark Toothed Reptile
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
dinosaur is definetly not 19, he is barely even half that old.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Fragillimus335
Jan 12 2013, 05:51 AM
blaze
Jan 11 2013, 10:45 PM
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).
Yes he does...

NEW INFORMATION ON THE SKULL OF THE ENIGMATIC THEROPOD SPINOSAURUS, WITH REMARKS ON ITS SIZE AND AFFINITIES

With regard to body size, a comparison between the known ements (lower jaw, ribs and dorsal centra) of the holotype of S. aegyptiacus (Stromer, 1915) with the Baryonychinae (Sereno et al., 1998; Charig and Milner, 1997), suggests that it was about 20–30% larger than Suchomimus and Baryonyx, rivalling in size other giant theropods such as Tyrannosaurus (Brochu, 2003) and the Carcharodontosauridae (Sereno et al. 1996; Calvo and Coria, 2000). Spinosaurus specimen MSNM V4047 is roughly 20% bigger than the holotype (Stromer, 1915); therefore, it represents potentially the largest known theropod dinosaur.
I think it's more than 20% longer. More like 30%. My estimate is 1.6m vs. 1.25m skull length.
When you scale up holotype by 20%, it doesn't really fit MSNM V4047.
Spinosaurus is weird though. There is no overlapping materials. MSNM V4047 might not even be S. aegyptiacus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't remember reading that in the actual paper though.

Ok it does say it but how he came to that conclusion is not detailed and it doesn't count the more closely related Irritator, any way, this is the quote

With regard to body size, a comparison between the known elements
(lower jaw, ribs and dorsal centra) of the holotype of S.
aegyptiacus (Stromer, 1915) with the Baryonychinae (Sereno et
al., 1998; Charig and Milner, 1997), suggests that it was about
20–30% larger than Suchomimus and Baryonyx, rivalling in size
other giant theropods such as Tyrannosaurus (Brochu, 2003) and
the Carcharodontosauridae (Sereno et al. 1996; Calvo and Coria,
2000). Spinosaurus specimen MSNM V4047 is roughly 20% bigger
than the holotype (Stromer, 1915);



@Misterymeat, 1.25m for the holotype's skull? isn't that the size of suchomimus skull? ... and, I don't know, how feasible is that the dentary occupies 76% of the total skull length?
Edited by blaze, Jan 12 2013, 10:43 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Kurtz
Jan 12 2013, 01:34 AM
Tyrannosaurus take this, was lighter, faster and stockier
How will those help it here?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
blaze
Jan 12 2013, 10:14 AM
@Misterymeat, 1.25m for the holotype's skull? isn't that the size of suchomimus skull? ... and, I don't know, how feasible is that the dentary occupies 76% of the total skull length?
Suchomimus' skull, as reconstructed in Sereno's paper, is only about 100cm long. And Baryonyx seems to be smaller. So I think my estimate of 125cm is pretty good.
Also the preserved dentary is 75-80cm long. The exact size is unknown, Stromer only stated that it is over 75cm long. So it's only 60% of skull length.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Did he really state that? what I get from Smith et al. (2006) is that the plates show this numbers.
The two measurements given in the caption are ‘‘95 cm long’’ and possibly ‘‘75 cm long.’’

I can't even make what the text says, and even if I could I don't know german haha but it doesn't seem far fetched to think, 95cm is greatest preserved length and 75 could be, say, the toothrow? why else would it be a bigger measurement there?

mmm is it really 1m? I know from the Sarcosuchus paper that Sereno is not very good with scalebars, getting back to Suchomimus, in the reconstruction, the preserved premaxilla-maxilla is 76cm long but in the skeletal below is 85cm, there's a 12% difference right there, in the same paper... if only had he actually mentioned how much it actually measured...
Edited by blaze, Jan 12 2013, 03:08 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
blaze
Jan 12 2013, 02:47 PM
Did he really state that? what I get from Smith et al. (2006) is that the plates show this numbers.
The two measurements given in the caption are ‘‘95 cm long’’ and possibly ‘‘75 cm long.’’

I can't even make what the text says, and even if I could I don't know german haha but it doesn't seem far fetched to think, 95cm is greatest preserved length and 75 could be, say, the toothrow? why else would it be a bigger measurement there?

mmm If Suchomimus skull is only 1m... why everyone else has been reconstructing it at least 1.2m? I know from the Sarcosuchus paper that Sereno is not very good with scalebars, getting back to Suchomimus, in the reconstruction, the preserved premaxilla-maxilla is 76cm long but in the skeletal below is 85cm, there's a 12% difference right there, in the same paper... if only had he actually mentioned how much it actually measured...
Yeah I have an English translated version:
"Only the dentary and splenial are preserved in natural articulation on both mandibular rami in
a length of over 75 cm, and there is also perhaps an isolated left angular."

Also judging by the figures, the length is in the ballpark of 70-80cm.
The tooth row is less than 60cm actually.
It's definitely not 95cm, that would make holotype skull about as big as MSNM V4047.

There could be slightly different ways of reconstructing sucho skull. There shouldn't be a 20cm difference.
I don't trust t he skeletal drawing at all. The skull drawing looks more technical and accurate.
Sometimes length could be measured along the surface of the bone creating discrepancy between published numbers and photos/drawings.


I did post my own reconstruction of holotype skull, before people spammed the shit out of this thread:
Posted Image
Edited by MysteryMeat, Jan 12 2013, 03:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Jan 12 2013, 03:14 PM
I did post my own reconstruction of holotype skull, before people spammed the shit out of this thread:
Posted Image
Spinosaurus has a crest...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
check the comparison I postet in the dinosaur size comparison threath please. A 95cm dentary would make the holotypes skull 1,55m as opposed to a 1,8m MNSN based on the rostrum.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kurtz
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
dinosaur
Jan 12 2013, 08:32 AM
Kurtz
Jan 12 2013, 05:02 AM
Godzillaman
Jan 12 2013, 04:55 AM
Kurtz
Jan 12 2013, 01:34 AM
Tyrannosaurus take this, was lighter, faster and stockier
Where is the proof that it was faster than spinosaurus? Now, I realize that the spine of the spinosaurus would have easily hindered its speed movement, but is there any evidence to prove that tyrannosaurus was faster?
here:
new study that estimated the "speed limit" of nerve signals running through the dinosaur's body.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100629-science-dinosaurs-t-rex-nerves-elephants/
larger is dinosaur slower go
nerves are nerves

"T. rex Would Still Have Been Impressive.." Spino cause was larger not
:D :D YEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAA!!! t.Rex winner!!
plus t rex had a stronger bite, more manoeuvrable head.

Spino seems more flexible in overall body, more would have been able to use the front legs (mostly because of the stability on the ground-Not to wrestle trex) but is too slow and less compact than t rex.
The skull of the spino seems more suited to hunt prey such as fish, or at least prey with limbs relatively narrower than those of T Rex.
Assuming that both hunted very




Edited by Kurtz, Jan 12 2013, 11:59 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.