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
Allosaurus fragilis (Pack of 5) v Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
Topic Started: Oct 25 2012, 09:11 PM (19,012 Views)
DinosaurMichael
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Allosaurus fragilis (Pack of 5)
Allosaurus (play /ˌælɵˈsɔrəs/) is a genus of large theropod dinosaur that lived 155 to 150 million years ago during the late Jurassic period (Kimmeridgian to early Tithonian). Allosaurus was a large bipedal predator. Its skull was large and equipped with dozens of large, sharp teeth. It averaged 8.5 meters (28 ft) in length, though fragmentary remains suggest it could have reached over 12 meters (39 ft). Relative to the large and powerful hindlimbs, its three-fingered forelimbs were small, and the body was balanced by a long, heavy tail. As the most abundant large predator in the Morrison Formation, Allosaurus was at the top of the food chain, probably preying on contemporaneous large herbivorous dinosaurs and perhaps even other predators (e.g. Ceratosaurus). Potential prey included ornithopods, stegosaurids, and sauropods. Allosaurus was a typical large theropod, having a massive skull on a short neck, a long tail and reduced forelimbs. Allosaurus fragilis, the best-known species, had an average length of 8.5 meters (28 ft), with the largest definitive Allosaurus specimen (AMNH 680) estimated at 9.7 meters long (32 ft), and an estimated weight of 2.3 metric tons (2.5 short tons). In his 1976 monograph on Allosaurus, James Madsen mentioned a range of bone sizes which he interpreted to show a maximum length of 12 to 13 meters (40 to 43 ft). As with dinosaurs in general, weight estimates are debatable, and since 1980 have ranged between 1500 kilograms (3300 lb), 1000 to 4000 kilograms (2200 to 8800 lb), and 1010 kilograms (2230 lb) for modal adult weight (not maximum). John Foster, a specialist on the Morrison Formation, suggests that 1000 kg (2200 lb) is reasonable for large adults of A. fragilis, but that 700 kg (1500 lb) is a closer estimate for individuals represented by the average-sized thigh bones he has measured. Using the subadult specimen nicknamed "Big Al", researchers using computer modelling arrived at a best estimate of 1,500 kilograms (3,300 lb) for the individual, but by varying parameters they found a range from approximately 1,400 kilograms (3,100 lb) to approximately 2,000 kilograms (4,400 lb).

Posted Image
This picture will be used from now on when more than 1 Allosaurus is requested in a fight.

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

______________________________________________________________________________

Dark allosaurus
Oct 25 2012, 08:48 AM
3-6 allosaurus or as much needed vs spinosaurus
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
spinosaurus rex
Jan 31 2014, 12:05 AM
Drift
Jan 30 2014, 11:55 PM
Archer250
Oct 25 2012, 09:16 PM
Well a pack of Allosaurus would have probably hunted sauropods, so the Spinosaurus being bigger than 5 Allosauruses wouldn't have mattered much.
I still feel this has been severely overlooked
You seen to overlook that this is not a suropod. Its a carnivore that is NOT any more larger then the suropods the allosaurs hunted. Its a creature that is adapted to strike quikly, and has a supirier arsenal af weaponry then any similar sized suropod. Thats why it has the advantage
Yes and which do you think will tire first/get injured more, 5 separate animals or the lone target of which they are apparently accustomed to taking on in their habitat.

Quote:
 
it's a large spinosaurid that bites with enough force to break bone


There might be bodily damage but it's bite/skull is not designed to exert amounts of pressure designated to instantaneously take lives of smaller creatures by smashing the skeletal structure.Which is in fact why it's arms were of partial use attaining things from the water, a 50/50 if you will where no one feature is dominantly used to seize it.Only problem is these 5 are leagues more swift than something grazing the waterways floor
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
5 seperate animals are easier to dispatch because they can be taken one by one. A Spinosaurus would not have any trouble killing one Allosaurus, and its bite was in fact perfectly suited for catching something this size.

Are you seriously suggesting a bite force equivalent to its own weight and some 10cm+ teeth are not going to be devastating to a 2t theropod?

And that is just part of the spinosaur’s arsenal, it happens to have a set of claws mounted on fairly powerful arms that are literally in the perfect position to get a hold on one of the allosaurids, and again, a grip by those claws would probably be fatal to such a relatively small animal.

It is a logical fallacy to assume Spinosaurus would be better off in this matchup if you gave it a T. rex’ head. In fact, it is better off having its own, relatively gracile jaws, which are fully sufficient to kill, but quicker to strike and catch.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

This fight depends on the size we using
If allosaurus was 10m 2000kg and spinosaurus was 16m 18000kg the spinosaurus whould win easyliy due being much bigger then all allosaurus combined
If allosaurus was 10m 2000kg and spinosaurus was 5000kg then allosaurus wins easyliy imo.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
There is no 5000kg adult Spinosaurus specimen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
99007742.com
Jun 13 2014, 08:03 PM
This fight depends on the size we using
If allosaurus was 10m 2000kg and spinosaurus was 16m 18000kg the spinosaurus whould win easyliy due being much bigger then all allosaurus combined
If allosaurus was 10m 2000kg and spinosaurus was 5000kg then allosaurus wins easyliy imo.
Your Allosaurus is anorexic, the weight figure corresponds to an animal ~8.5m long, not 10m.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinosuchus
Member Avatar
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Quote:
 
You seen to overlook that this is not a suropod. Its a carnivore that is NOT any more larger then the suropods the allosaurs hunted. Its a creature that is adapted to strike quikly, and has a supirier arsenal af weaponry then any similar sized suropod. Thats why it has the advantage


A sauropod would probably have a far greater chance against an allosaurus pack than an animal that did not even evolve alongside allosaurids or even suffered from intense competition from such group-hunting predators (its primary competition would be other large theropods as well as crocodylomorphs most likely, whether or not it coexisted is irrelevant). Besides, Jurassic allosaurs (assuming that you are talking about allosauria as a whole and not just allosaurus) had the capacity to take down sauropods as large as apatosaurus given enough size and a large enough group size (genera like epanterias and saurophoganax could probably do this). Allosaurus fragilis itself would have probably taken down animals like diplodocus (which was all in all STILL much larger than spinosaurus, reaching up to 90ish feet in length and ~15t)

As for your plight about weaponry, you see it really is a matter of opinion here as opposed to actual objective evidence. In terms of dental morphology and strength, spinosaurus’ teeth were fundamentally designed for the simple function of piercing and gripping and IMO should not at all be considered deadlier than more typical theropod dentition at parity (in the sense that you are implying). Both allosaurus and spinosaurus possessed completely differently-shaped dentition and jaws, and were specialized for not only completely different killing styles but different prey types altogether. Simply, the prey type for which spinosaurine snout morphology is evolved to cope with were large freshwater fish in the realm of probably around 10-15 feet in length at most (we have an abundance of evidence of fish from the same deposits as many spinosaurids, spinosaurus included, and its morphology correlates perfectly), while allosaurus would have specialized most likely in stegosaurs and occasionally sauropods. Simply, you are comparing two different tooth anatomies, two different prey specializations, and two different killing styles.

Quote:
 
I actually feel it's a bad comparison, and because it is. Remember this is not a sauropod it's a large spinosaurid that bites with enough force to break bone


What is this supposed to imply? As I have said, being a specialized carnivore for that matter does not necessarily make it more or less deadly. Sauropods coexisted alongside allosaurus, spinosaurus did not. Believe me, a single allosaurus would be in deep shit against something as large as spinosaurus (even at a maximum weight of around 4t or so), as the latter’s feeding consisted of simple impalation and clamping of much smaller animals. But yet, a group would likely be too much.

Plus, spinosaurus 1. did not have the correct snout and tooth morphology for any sort of bone-crushing (regardless of how large, powerful, and tough-hided the fish it took were, they were no crocodilians or ankylosaurs for that matter), and 2. it has been proven that when basing its cranial morphology off of baryonyx its bite force would be moderate at best (probably in the realm of 2-3t according to Manabu Sakamoto).

Quote:
 
Yes and which do you think will tire first/get injured more, 5 separate animals or the lone target of which they are apparently accustomed to taking on in their habitat


Allosaurus was not “accustomed” for taking spinosaurus... They didn’t even coexist. Or you might just be referring to larger animals overall, in which case not only would allosaurus coexist with but it would also be structured for tackling

Quote:
 
There might be bodily damage but it's bite/skull is not designed to exert amounts of pressure designated to instantaneously take lives of smaller creatures by smashing the skeletal structure.Which is in fact why it's arms were of partial use attaining things from the water, a 50/50 if you will where no one feature is dominantly used to seize it.Only problem is these 5 are leagues more swift than something grazing the waterways floor


I don’t see what this is supposed to mean... Sure, spinosaurus could not crush bone effectively (at least to the extent as tyrannosaurids or robust-snouted crocodylomorphs for example), but again it was designed for completely different hunting through simple quick penetration; thus it did not need a high-capacity to grip. It is a common mistake to always assume that the stronger animal (in terms of biting strength) would have an advantage, because it is all about physical adaptation and size for the most part. Plus, spinosaurus would not ever be chasing down prey in the way that you are implying

But size aside, spinosaurus would be able to take one allosaurus EASILY, as mentioned by theropod, but you are talking about a group here. I feel as if 5 healthy allosaurus' would be too much for spinosaurus
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinosuchus
Jun 14 2014, 11:26 PM
Quote:
 
You seen to overlook that this is not a suropod. Its a carnivore that is NOT any more larger then the suropods the allosaurs hunted. Its a creature that is adapted to strike quikly, and has a supirier arsenal af weaponry then any similar sized suropod. Thats why it has the advantage


A sauropod would probably have a far greater chance against an allosaurus pack than an animal that did not even evolve alongside allosaurids or even suffered from intense competition from such group-hunting predators (its primary competition would be other large theropods as well as crocodylomorphs most likely, whether or not it coexisted is irrelevant). Besides, Jurassic allosaurs (assuming that you are talking about allosauria as a whole and not just allosaurus) had the capacity to take down sauropods as large as apatosaurus given enough size and a large enough group size (genera like epanterias and saurophoganax could probably do this). Allosaurus fragilis itself would have probably taken down animals like diplodocus (which was all in all STILL much larger than spinosaurus, reaching up to 90ish feet in length and ~15t)

As for your plight about weaponry, you see it really is a matter of opinion here as opposed to actual objective evidence. In terms of dental morphology and strength, spinosaurus’ teeth were fundamentally designed for the simple function of piercing and gripping and IMO should not at all be considered deadlier than more typical theropod dentition at parity (in the sense that you are implying). Both allosaurus and spinosaurus possessed completely differently-shaped dentition and jaws, and were specialized for not only completely different killing styles but different prey types altogether. Simply, the prey type for which spinosaurine snout morphology is evolved to cope with were large freshwater fish in the realm of probably around 10-15 feet in length at most (we have an abundance of evidence of fish from the same deposits as many spinosaurids, spinosaurus included, and its morphology correlates perfectly), while allosaurus would have specialized most likely in stegosaurs and occasionally sauropods. Simply, you are comparing two different tooth anatomies, two different prey specializations, and two different killing styles.

Quote:
 
I actually feel it's a bad comparison, and because it is. Remember this is not a sauropod it's a large spinosaurid that bites with enough force to break bone


What is this supposed to imply? As I have said, being a specialized carnivore for that matter does not necessarily make it more or less deadly. Sauropods coexisted alongside allosaurus, spinosaurus did not. Believe me, a single allosaurus would be in deep shit against something as large as spinosaurus (even at a maximum weight of around 4t or so), as the latter’s feeding consisted of simple impalation and clamping of much smaller animals. But yet, a group would likely be too much.

Plus, spinosaurus 1. did not have the correct snout and tooth morphology for any sort of bone-crushing (regardless of how large, powerful, and tough-hided the fish it took were, they were no crocodilians or ankylosaurs for that matter), and 2. it has been proven that when basing its cranial morphology off of baryonyx its bite force would be moderate at best (probably in the realm of 2-3t according to Manabu Sakamoto).

Quote:
 
Yes and which do you think will tire first/get injured more, 5 separate animals or the lone target of which they are apparently accustomed to taking on in their habitat


Allosaurus was not “accustomed” for taking spinosaurus... They didn’t even coexist. Or you might just be referring to larger animals overall, in which case not only would allosaurus coexist with but it would also be structured for tackling

Quote:
 
There might be bodily damage but it's bite/skull is not designed to exert amounts of pressure designated to instantaneously take lives of smaller creatures by smashing the skeletal structure.Which is in fact why it's arms were of partial use attaining things from the water, a 50/50 if you will where no one feature is dominantly used to seize it.Only problem is these 5 are leagues more swift than something grazing the waterways floor


I don’t see what this is supposed to mean... Sure, spinosaurus could not crush bone effectively (at least to the extent as tyrannosaurids or robust-snouted crocodylomorphs for example), but again it was designed for completely different hunting through simple quick penetration; thus it did not need a high-capacity to grip. It is a common mistake to always assume that the stronger animal (in terms of biting strength) would have an advantage, because it is all about physical adaptation and size for the most part. Plus, spinosaurus would not ever be chasing down prey in the way that you are implying

But size aside, spinosaurus would be able to take one allosaurus EASILY, as mentioned by theropod, but you are talking about a group here. I feel as if 5 healthy allosaurus' would be too much for spinosaurus
are you new here? Its about time we get another dinosaur poster. Now, For the implantation of my quote, I would have to inform I was talking about a suropod ( peferably a diplopucid) of similar weights of spinosaurus ( in which I think spinosaurus would be more better armed). Of course not one of 15 tons. And from the sound of it, your only inference for suropods being able to take then is due to the types of predators it lived with. Spinosaurus lived with a very high consentration of carnivorous species ranging from carcharodontosaurs to smaller abliesosaurs. And spinosaurus lived with some crocodylomorphs as well. ( although sarcosuchus is debatable) such high consentration of predators and evidence that spinosaurs can be somewhat generalists with their diet, spinosaurus had some heavy competition as well, although some what reduced due to its primary diet.
And abput the bite force, although I agree spinosaurus doesn't have the most prominent adptions for biting, 2 tons is a crap load of force all together ( a bit childish, I know). That is still enough force to cripple an allosaur. And elongated, deeply rooted teeth are not as devestating as a serrated one, it sure will be if it is much bigger, which is the case with a spinosaurus and an allosaurus fragilis.

All in all, I think spinosaurus adaptions to striking fast and a high resistance to dorsoventral motion should allow it to carch an allosaur and crush/ impale it with its size and teeth. And I can see that happening with the others
Edited by spinosaurus rex, Jun 15 2014, 02:02 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
As for your plight about weaponry, you see it really is a matter of opinion here as opposed to actual objective evidence. In terms of dental morphology and strength, spinosaurus’ teeth were fundamentally designed for the simple function of piercing and gripping and IMO should not at all be considered deadlier than more typical theropod dentition at parity.

Yet they are absolutely more deadly than anything Diplodocus possessed. If the inference is that Allosaurus can take Diplodocus thus it can take Spinosaurus, then the latter's ability to quickly and easily dispatch individual Allosaurus is extremely important to consider, Diplodocus didn't have such a luxury.

Not the I disagree that a coordinated pack could be the winner (although I don't actually agree either, I'm more on the fence), there is every reason to doubt that they would actually be coordinated in the first place. If the Allosaurus acted of their own accord and without coordination with each other, then Spinosaurus should easily be able to pick them off one-by-one.
And speaking in terms of slightly more realistic scenarios, even if the pack was coordinated, should one member be killed, that could probably convince the rest of the pack to simply back down to avoid further injury.
Edited by Spinodontosaurus, Jun 15 2014, 02:23 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinosuchus
Member Avatar
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Quote:
 
Now, For the implantation of my quote, I would have to inform I was talking about a suropod ( peferably a diplopucid) of similar weights of spinosaurus ( in which I think spinosaurus would be more better armed).


The tail of a diplodocid would be an ideal physical piece of weaponry for attacking groups of animals MUCH SMALLER THAN ITSELF. In terms of size, diplodocus is FAAAAAR larger than spinosaurus I'll have you know, aside from weight which, for carnegii, is probably a little bit higher (12t<). Assuming that they were of similar lengths as opposed to weights (knowing how diplodocids were not largely bulky as opposed to brachiosaurs or titanosaurs), then I can definitely see where you are coming from. But still, is there any real denying that a sauropod was far better designed for using brute physical strength to overpower a predator (or in this case, an opponent) than a spinosaurid which was not at all designed for any use of brute strength?

Using the term "better" to describe two completely different anatomical weapons is quite unreasonable, as they were designed for dealing with different things. Simply though, sauropod tails (or "weapons" for more generalization) are far better structured for dealing with groups of smaller predators, whereas spinosaurus' jaws were merely designed for attacking one at a time (albeit quickly and effectively)

Quote:
 
Spinosaurus lived with a very high consentration of carnivorous species ranging from carcharodontosaurs to smaller abliesosaurs. And spinosaurus lived with some crocodylomorphs as well. ( although sarcosuchus is debatable) such high consentration of predators and evidence that spinosaurs can be somewhat generalists with their diet, spinosaurus had some heavy competition as well, although some what reduced due to its primary diet.


Spinosaurus' primary competition would undoubtedly be semi-aquatic crocodylomorphs (as they would have both existed in freshwater regions. Sarcosuchus is a good example, although I would not favor spinosaurus over it in a matchup), as you pointed out, so naturally the competition in terms of other theropod would be diminished. The reason for niche development is to PREVENT competition, and spinosaurus differed DRASTICALLY from the carcharodontosaurs and abelisaurs that hunted on land during its time period (Albian-Cenomanian North Africa). But you are still forgetting that spinosaurus was not designed for taking on groups of animals (piscivorous animals that usually do so typically possess very small, "harmless" teeth and widened jaws to perform suction, and many even lack teeth at all such as baleen whales. Spinosaurus not only lacked a broadened snout but also possessed reasonably-sized conical dentition that was clearly designed for clamping onto ONE fish at a time)

Yes, I do agree that it was an opportunist hunter much like the majority of modern crocodilians; and it would easily be able to take one lone allosaurus without much hassle.

Quote:
 
And abput the bite force, although I agree spinosaurus doesn't have the most prominent adptions for biting, 2 tons is a crap load of force all together ( a bit childish, I know). That is still enough force to cripple an allosaur. And elongated, deeply rooted teeth are not as devestating as a serrated one, it sure will be if it is much bigger, which is the case with a spinosaurus and an allosaurus fragilis.


Undoubtedly its bite and conical dentition combination would have been devastating to a lone allosaur of such size (around 25 feet or so in length; probably around 4-5 tons at bare maximum weight), but that is because its entire jaw anatomy is designed for hunting small animals (in relation to its own size of course); so any animal really that was THAT much smaller than spinosaurus would have been a definite prey item. This is one of the reasons why I favor spinosaurus against a lot of animals that it is much larger than, because its weaponry was simply designed for catching smallish creatures. I simply do not deny this. But as for bite force, it is quite irrelevant because, again, animals have their physical and ecological adaptations, and spinosaurus simply did not need immensely powerful jaws in this department because 1. its jaws were undoubtedly strong enough to grip the largish fish that made up the majority of its diet, and 2. its teeth were simply sharp and slender enough.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
The tail of a diplodocid would be an ideal physical piece of weaponry for attacking groups of animals MUCH SMALLER THAN ITSELF. In terms of size, diplodocus is FAAAAAR larger than spinosaurus I'll have you know, aside from weight which, for carnegii, is probably a little bit higher (12t<). Assuming that they were of similar lengths as opposed to weights (knowing how diplodocids were not largely bulky as opposed to brachiosaurs or titanosaurs), then I can definitely see where you are coming from. But still, is there any real denying that a sauropod was far better designed for using brute physical strength to overpower a predator (or in this case, an opponent) than a spinosaurid which was not at all designed for any use of brute strength?
Who tells you that it was not? What for would Spinosaurs use these→ for if not for excerting brute strenght?

Diplodocus is not larger than Spinosaurus, merely longer. The best estimates for Dippy are slightly over 10t.

Quote:
 
Using the term "better" to describe two completely different anatomical weapons is quite unreasonable, as they were designed for dealing with different things. Simply though, sauropod tails (or "weapons" for more generalization) are far better structured for dealing with groups of smaller predators, whereas spinosaurus' jaws were merely designed for attacking one at a time (albeit quickly and effectively)
Firstly Spinosaurus doesn’t just have its jaws, secondly, a Diplodocus tail is also not going to whip several Allosaurus’ at a time, and finally, Spinosaurus’ weaponery is likely both more precise and more powerful.

Quote:
 
Spinosaurus' primary competition would undoubtedly be semi-aquatic crocodylomorphs (as they would have both existed in freshwater regions. Sarcosuchus is a good example, although I would not favor spinosaurus over it in a matchup), as you pointed out, so naturally the competition in terms of other theropod would be diminished.
Diminished as long as it stayed in the water, which it evidently didn’t do all the time. And then there’s still predation from these giant theropods to consider…

Quote:
 
The reason for niche development is to PREVENT competition, and spinosaurus differed DRASTICALLY from the carcharodontosaurs and abelisaurs that hunted on land during its time period (Albian-Cenomanian North Africa). But you are still forgetting that spinosaurus was not designed for taking on groups of animals (piscivorous animals that usually do so typically possess very small, "harmless" teeth and widened jaws to perform suction, and many even lack teeth at all such as baleen whales. Spinosaurus not only lacked a broadened snout but also possessed reasonably-sized conical dentition that was clearly designed for clamping onto ONE fish at a time)
I hope you aren’t saying that it would need adaptions for filter-feeding in order to win against a group of smaller predators.

Quote:
 
around 25 feet or so in length; probably around 4-5 tons at bare maximum weight
WTF?

Quote:
 
Undoubtedly its bite and conical dentition combination would have been devastating to a lone allosaur of such size (), but that is because its entire jaw anatomy is designed for hunting small animals (in relation to its own size of course); so any animal really that was THAT much smaller than spinosaurus would have been a definite prey item. This is one of the reasons why I favor spinosaurus against a lot of animals that it is much larger than, because its weaponry was simply designed for catching smallish creatures. I simply do not deny this. But as for bite force, it is quite irrelevant because, again, animals have their physical and ecological adaptations, and spinosaurus simply did not need immensely powerful jaws in this department because 1. its jaws were undoubtedly strong enough to grip the largish fish that made up the majority of its diet, and 2. its teeth were simply sharp and slender enough.
Shouldn’t you be talking about how Spinosaurus would fare against a group of smaller carnosaurs and not about why it was well-adapted for piscivory.

The bottom line is, Spinosaurus’ bite and claws would both be devastating to any 8.5m, 2t theropod, and it undoubtedly posessed the qualities to catch it, since those are the same as the qualities required to catch another comparatively small and agile animal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ansram
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Archer250
Oct 25 2012, 09:16 PM
Well a pack of Allosaurus would have probably hunted sauropods, so the Spinosaurus being bigger than 5 Allosauruses wouldn't have mattered much.
The sauropods don't have any major defense except their size. Spinosaurus is much more than size alone - it can bite back, it can tear with its claws and so on. A pack of small carnivores taking on a large herbivore and another large carnivore aren't the same thing.

The outcome of the fight will essentially depend on whether Spino is quickly able to dispatch one or more Allosaurus to the abode of death. The longer the fight goes on, Spino's chances of winning diminish as the multiple wounds he will sustain will wear him out. If Spino is able to destroy two of the Allos quickly, then only three enemies remain, who will be no match for the Spino. Spino is so much taller than the allosaurus that the allosaurus will not be able to get at the neck of the spinosaurus - they would have to bite spinosaurus mainly on the flanks or on the legs. This will weaken the Spino but won't kill him easily. Allosaurus have to plan out a good strategy and they will win only if all of them are alive at the end. If Spino takes out a couple of Allos, then the rest of them will be destroyed as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Right now, I don't know how the spinosaurus would fare assuming that its maximum size estimation actually was lowered, and assuming that its mobility truly was lacking more-so than in previous reconstructions.

Biting would still be the same anatomically and physiologically: it would be very crippling to a theropod like allosaurus with enough precision (say, if the jaws were to clamp around the neck, which would most likely crush it in the sense of impalation), but it would likely be much more difficult to reach said precision.

ansram, ehh I wouldn't bet on legs being a valuable target (this can apply to any of allosaurus' prey, specifically large genera like brachiosaurus or apatosaurus)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Allosaurus fragilis will win this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
If we take the "average" A. fragilis (~1.6 tons) and multiply that by 5 we get 8 tons of combined mass
The new figure for S.aegyptiacus was 6-7 tons,so they have that advantage. Allosaurus should win this comfortably; there's just too many

P.S. 5 saurophaganax/ Epanterias would be a mismatch
Edited by Ceratodromeus, Dec 11 2014, 12:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheBeast
Member Avatar
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Allo wins easily. 1-2 are enough.
ansram
Oct 20 2014, 03:10 AM
Archer250
Oct 25 2012, 09:16 PM
Well a pack of Allosaurus would have probably hunted sauropods, so the Spinosaurus being bigger than 5 Allosauruses wouldn't have mattered much.
The sauropods don't have any major defense except their size. Spinosaurus is much more than size alone - it can bite back, it can tear with its claws and so on. A pack of small carnivores taking on a large herbivore and another large carnivore aren't the same thing.

The outcome of the fight will essentially depend on whether Spino is quickly able to dispatch one or more Allosaurus to the abode of death. The longer the fight goes on, Spino's chances of winning diminish as the multiple wounds he will sustain will wear him out. If Spino is able to destroy two of the Allos quickly, then only three enemies remain, who will be no match for the Spino. Spino is so much taller than the allosaurus that the allosaurus will not be able to get at the neck of the spinosaurus - they would have to bite spinosaurus mainly on the flanks or on the legs. This will weaken the Spino but won't kill him easily. Allosaurus have to plan out a good strategy and they will win only if all of them are alive at the end. If Spino takes out a couple of Allos, then the rest of them will be destroyed as well.
Nope. Spino is 18-17 while allo is 11-12. So they are not small. 5m is much, but if youre 2x faster and there's 5 of u than it would be kinda easy. U forgot that allo can jump 2-3 m so that really makes sence. So allo wins. Btw i like spino as much as i like allo. Just saying that i dont hate allo or spino. And yeah 2 allos are enough, while spino will take 3-2 of them. :P
Edited by TheBeast, Dec 23 2014, 02:58 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.