|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 8, 2009 1:56:16 GMT
Well, if you sent me more Battats to....examine, perhaps I'll come around.
I will go out on a limb **ducks** and say that the Battat stego is the awesomest pile of crap i have.........*8ducks again**
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jan 8, 2009 2:00:00 GMT
Here i go... -The arms of theropods had a very limited mobility and couldnt grab anything in front of them. Besides that, no, that scene of JP3· is totally absurd (like the whole movie), Spinosaurs couldn have any chance against T-rex or any other theropod of that size, since his build was not meant to fight and his jaws were too fragile to bite without risk something more big than half of his size. The size of Spino was just a intimidating weapon to survive against the true apex predator of his environment, Carcharodontosaurus, or Deltadromeos. -If you want to kill fast any theropod, no matter his size, just shoot to his "skinny" ankles with a machine gun. A big theropod who fall to the ground, is a dead theropod. -I felt sad when teton just ignored my bad guy speech. Saying a spinosaurs jaws are "fragile" is absolutely ridiculous. They are built almost exactly like a crocodiles, and they have the strongest bite force of any creature alive today. And a 55 foot Spino, could very well have a greater bite force than an 40 foot Rex. The very few spinosaurus/irritator skull fragments show that the spinosaurus' heads were meant for catching large fish, but were otherwise structurally weak. And if you look a crocodiles vs. spino, crocodiles have much wider heads, and thicker bone. I cannot fathom why you would say the spinos huge arms with formidible claws could not be used to defend itself. While it is true the fore limbs of other theropods became reduced with lack of use, it is the opposite for spinosaurids, that obviously used these arms, possibly for grappling large fish out of the water, as supposed by scientists concerning the Baryonyx. As the Spino fossils are sparce, it too may have had massive clawed forearms like Bary. Actually, it is unknown whether or not baryonyx's arms could have reached the mouth-- It was just assumed with no studies being done. They probably swatted fish out of the water with the claw, and then ate the fish that was stranded on dry land with their mouths'. Although a 40 foot Spino would be lighter than a 40 foot Rex, a 55-60 foot adult spino would clearly outweigh the rex and outlass it in every other way. Umm... From the fossils of other spinosaurids we have, it is pretty obvious that these were fairly slim animals, and very differently built than other theropods. We can't assume that they would "outweigh rex in every class". Of course, in most cases, carnivorous dinosaurs of similar size probably avoided each other rather than a fight to the death. *agrees* Good point. Why would they want to risk injuring themselves? I doubt any real paleontologist now believes a Rex would be superior to a fully grown adult spino based on the latest spino discoveries. It is almost a third larger than the Rex, with bigger jaws, bigger arms, bigger claws, bigger everything. And structurally weak jaws... And bigger isn't always better. There's a saying that goes "The bigger they are, the harder they fall". And rex was more muscled. More beefy(lol). It has the strongest known jaws of any known animal ever (right?). I love spinosaurus. It is my favorite dinosaur ever in the entire world and universe. I think it's cool. I love them. But I also hate all the beefy reconstructions of them pwning all other dinosaurs.
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 8, 2009 2:08:08 GMT
Here i go... -The arms of theropods had a very limited mobility and couldnt grab anything in front of them. Besides that, no, that scene of JP3· is totally absurd (like the whole movie), Spinosaurs couldn have any chance against T-rex or any other theropod of that size, since his build was not meant to fight and his jaws were too fragile to bite without risk something more big than half of his size. The size of Spino was just a intimidating weapon to survive against the true apex predator of his environment, Carcharodontosaurus, or Deltadromeos. -If you want to kill fast any theropod, no matter his size, just shoot to his "skinny" ankles with a machine gun. A big theropod who fall to the ground, is a dead theropod. -I felt sad when teton just ignored my bad guy speech. Saying a spinosaurs jaws are "fragile" is absolutely ridiculous. They are built almost exactly like a crocodiles, and they have the strongest bite force of any creature alive today. And a 55 foot Spino, could very well have a greater bite force than an 40 foot Rex. I cannot fathom why you would say the spinos huge arms with formidible claws could not be used to defend itself. While it is true the fore limbs of other theropods became reduced with lack of use, it is the opposite for spinosaurids, that obviously used these arms, possibly for grappling large fish out of the water, as supposed by scientists concerning the Baryonyx. As the Spino fossils are sparce, it too may have had massive clawed forearms like Bary. Although a 40 foot Spino would be lighter than a 40 foot Rex, a 55-60 foot adult spino would clearly outweigh the rex and outlass it in every other way. Of course, in most cases, carnivorous dinosaurs of similar size probably avoided each other rather than a fight to the death. I doubt any real paleontologist now believes a Rex would be superior to a fully grown adult spino based on the latest spino discoveries. It is almost a third larger than the Rex, with bigger jaws, bigger arms, bigger claws, bigger everything. *Trying to be patient with a spino fanboy ;D* What makes strong the jaws of a common crocodile is their weidth and their robust build, but the jaws of spinosaurids were narrower, just like the ghavials, who are pure fish eaters. The arms of a spinosarid were actually not so long as the JP model, and they couldn´t use it in a fight with another predator because the shoulder position dont allow them to do it. Their constitution is also less compact than any from other theropods, what should be indicative about their defensive skills. Besides that, a rottweiler is smaller than most dogs, and guess who would win in a fight.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jan 8, 2009 2:13:51 GMT
^^ We don't really know anything about the shoulder positions in spinosaurus... And we don't know about "constitution" of their arms either. Hey, I'm a spino fanboy too... We aren't ALL bad!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 8, 2009 2:35:39 GMT
The shoulder blade position is the same in all theropods....cause its the same in birds too. And anyway, the arms were not that long to do something useful with it apart from grab fishes. Nah, youre not a real fanboy. You seem reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 8, 2009 3:39:08 GMT
This has nothing to do with being a "Fanboy". It has everything to do with a "Supertheropod" practically one third larger than any other. It is only "T-Rex fanboys" that are incapable of figuring out a theropod that much bigger than any other, and with some of the strongest, largest arms of any theropod would logically be the most formidable.
Yes, Spino has a narrower skull than a rex, but larger jaws, and its head is still so massive, that it is ridicuolous to equate it as "fragile". In fact "Super Croc" has a narrow skull like Spino, yet is acclaimed as a probable predator of large dinos.
Crocs eat fish, but they also take down larger prey than virtually other land predator.
Sorry fanboys..... there's a new 'king of the carnivorous dinos", and I don't know of any scientist that would dispute that since the new skull was found that suggest Spino grew to around 60 feet long.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 8, 2009 3:43:17 GMT
So, again I say, poor, poor, sloppy story telling. They were just too lazy to deal with it, or completely unable to work out a solution. Hence, the total mess we end up with. It was hardly a "total mess". It was HUGE blockbuster all over the world. I even saw it playing in a 'middle of nowhere' town in India! I have provided plausible solutions for every 'problem' cited, and most other people weren't bothered by these things either.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 8, 2009 5:20:54 GMT
I disagree. You are not correct sir. Spino was less than all that. It may have been longer, but it was not stronger. It has a long skull, but it is not all that strongly built, and had less bite force. The thing with the movie is just personal opinion, we all vary on that. But once again, if you have evidence to back you up, then by all means post it. Cite your sources, present articles and photos of the new discoveries. Show us all this. I would be more than happy to see it. It is easy to say these things, but you do not take the time to back up your statements. That is why you get such strong opposition to your statements. Just post some info, and talk to us...
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 8, 2009 5:59:30 GMT
Oh my, a T-Rex vs Spinosaurus argument. *Sigh* Can't we just like both of them? They are both awesome animals. Before I contribute to the conversation, I'd like to add that the actual story "A sound of thunder" is about them killing a Tyrannosaurus, not an Allosaurus. I've read it, they went to the Cretaceous. Anyway, Spinosaurus is a pretty incredible theropod, we must admit. I find the "Who would win in a fight" between rex and spino very childish. It has been discussed, over and over. Point is, who cares? We will never know... neverAs much as I hate derailing this thread, Spinosaurus as an extremely long theropod, reaching around 50 feet in length. Although, it was lightweight for such a huge creature, and its jaws were quite narrower and long. Being shaped like a Crocodiles, it becomes apparent they would have been great for catching large fish. Notice in a Crocodile, however, its jaws are extremely wide, and its teeth are short and stubby. Spinosaurus had narrow jaws, weaker neck muscles, and long, hollow teeth. It's entire anatomy was built for fish, but being an animal that lives to fish, it needs a large body to warn of predators (At the time there were Carchardontosaurs stalking around. These were nearly the size of Tyrannosaurus, mind you) It needed size to intimidate them as it most certainly couldn't fight them well. And it did, as we know. "It didn't need to be strong, it was massive. Tyrannosaurus on the other hand, like most Tyrannosaurids was not as long (As you will notice, Tyrannosaurids were not long theropods, but were quite robust, and powerful) It lived in a time at the peak of dinosaur evolution. Herbivores finally found their niche. They were either armored or had massive horns. Tyrannosaurus needed to a very equipped hunter. People used to ask me at school, "Why did T-Rex have such puny arms". In response to this, I'd say "Because it had a really big head. IT was basically a head hunter. Its jaws were massive, its teeth were massive, it had the strongest neck muscles of any predatory animal, it had stereoscopic vision, and it was powerful and fast.". It was built for biting through armor. It wasn't built for fishing. It was an active predator which could, most likely (Not being mean to Spino fans...I love Spino too) easily kill a Spinosaurus if it became desperate enough to mess with another large theropod.
|
|
|
Post by itstwentybelow on Jan 8, 2009 6:05:47 GMT
No look, ningi, you're not listening to what's being said. Cordylus is right because size does not matter in this case. You have to look at what a rex's skull was designed to do as opposed to a spinosaur's. A rex had a very robust skull with attachments for massive jaw muscles because this was an animal designed to take down prey approaching its own size, like an Edmontosaurus. Then look at a Spinosaurus in comparison, a clear piscivore. Yes it's jaws were larger but that's because it had the long, hooked snout found in modern piscivorous reptiles like gharials, as well as the conical teeth. Spinosaurus probably ate some pretty hefty fish, and undoubtedly smaller dinosaurs if it came across them, but it wasn't designed to take down large animals. It just wasn't. Spinosaurids as a whole were much, much more gracile than Tyrannosaurids and that's a fact which can't be overlooked in this debate because it makes Spino's size a moot point. The large claw on both of Spino's forelimbs are reminiscent of Baryonyx, another piscivore, and were most probably used to catch fish instead of slash at prey, which explains the length of its forelimbs as well because they needed to be able to reach the water.
As far as Sarcosuchus goes, no where is it written that these animals were adapted for eating large dinosaurs. Sure, you can speculate that it did, but most credible evidence points to Sarcosuchus as being a large piscivore which because of its sheer size probably could have overpowered and eaten smaller animals but, like Spinosaurus, couldn't tackle larger terrestrial prey.
Now I'm no fanboy and I think that T.rex is generally very overrated because it's undoubtedly most people's "favorite dinosaur", but in this case it wins simply because I've taken the time to look at both sides, and as ridiculous as this whole scenario is, I KNOW that most paleontologists would agree. T.rex's anatomy simply allowed it to be an incredibly powerful animal. Spinosaurus, while undoubtedly powerful, just wasn't to the same degree. And for the record, just because a movie is popular doesn't make it good.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 8, 2009 6:13:25 GMT
I agree with completely. Although, I do not agree with the T-Rex being overrated. No animal is overrated. All animals are great, it just happens to be T-Rex with the most popular votes. Enough about this, can we please get back on subject? Please? Could a modern human, with the help of its fellow sapiens, take down a full grown Alamosaurus? Discuss!
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 8, 2009 6:14:46 GMT
Do my fellow modern humans get to use a tank?
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 8, 2009 6:20:21 GMT
^ Don't be silly! ;D
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 8, 2009 6:26:01 GMT
C'mon T, this whole thread has been silly for a long while now....
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 8, 2009 6:27:15 GMT
Agreed.
But seriously, do you think a group of early humans using spears could bring a massive Alamosaurus to its sauropod knees?
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 8, 2009 6:29:35 GMT
I don't see it, no. But, never underestimate those early humans. I would not have seen hunting mammoths, or building pyramids. Those early humans were **crazy** folks.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jan 8, 2009 7:11:40 GMT
I can smell the end of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 8, 2009 11:24:00 GMT
Ning, youre being a fanboy because youre defying the logic. Don´t worry, this is not irreversible. For the third time: apart from other mentioned points, the arms were not useful for a fight . Only therizinosaurids or iguanodontids -who were semi quadruped-, could use it for self-defense. We have the jaws of Spinosaurus. Same thing that Baryonyx. All spinosaurids were specialized in fish. These are real facts that screw all the opinions of people brainwashed by JP3: www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2008/5768.htmlRemember that there was already one dominant super predator in his ecosystem, carcharodontosaurus. Carcharodontosaurid clearly had the adaptations to take down very large prey, and we can assume they could. Its a unsense that spinosaurus filled the same role, cause it never happens. Two coexisting organism never share the same niche, or one of both get extinct very fast. If you dont have enough with fossil proofs to prove that he didnt chase big prey, here is another you can´t refute. Could a modern human, with the help of its fellow sapiens, take down a full grown Alamosaurus? Discuss! Sure! prepare a trap that rips the small sauropod head from the tiny end of his neck when he pass over it, and wait until it comes. Why shoot that bulky body? Easier than any T-rex ;D
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 8, 2009 12:41:52 GMT
No look, ningi, you're not listening to what's being said. Cordylus is right because size does not matter in this case. You have to look at what a rex's skull was designed to do as opposed to a spinosaur's. A rex had a very robust skull with attachments for massive jaw muscles because this was an animal designed to take down prey approaching its own size, like an Edmontosaurus. Then look at a Spinosaurus in comparison, a clear piscivore. Yes it's jaws were larger but that's because it had the long, hooked snout found in modern piscivorous reptiles like gharials, as well as the conical teeth. Spinosaurus probably ate some pretty hefty fish, and undoubtedly smaller dinosaurs if it came across them, but it wasn't designed to take down large animals. It just wasn't. Spinosaurids as a whole were much, much more gracile than Tyrannosaurids and that's a fact which can't be overlooked in this debate because it makes Spino's size a moot point. The large claw on both of Spino's forelimbs are reminiscent of Baryonyx, another piscivore, and were most probably used to catch fish instead of slash at prey, which explains the length of its forelimbs as well because they needed to be able to reach the water. As far as Sarcosuchus goes, no where is it written that these animals were adapted for eating large dinosaurs. Sure, you can speculate that it did, but most credible evidence points to Sarcosuchus as being a large piscivore which because of its sheer size probably could have overpowered and eaten smaller animals but, like Spinosaurus, couldn't tackle larger terrestrial prey. Now I'm no fanboy and I think that T.rex is generally very overrated because it's undoubtedly most people's "favorite dinosaur", but in this case it wins simply because I've taken the time to look at both sides, and as ridiculous as this whole scenario is, I KNOW that most paleontologists would agree. T.rex's anatomy simply allowed it to be an incredibly powerful animal. Spinosaurus, while undoubtedly powerful, just wasn't to the same degree. And for the record, just because a movie is popular doesn't make it good. You really aren't looking at both sides, you are looking at outdated information like Paul, written when we were unsure Spino was any larger than the Holotype, ca. 45 feet. With the Milan skull, we now have estimates of 55 to 65 feet, I have even seen 70 to 80 feet being seriously suggested. We are approcahing a theropod almost TWICE as big as a T-Rex. And why would the first adult Spino skull found be representative of the largest specimen?. Just look at the size ratios of T-Rex's found. The milan skull could be from and 'average', 'medium' Spino. Paul was right, at 45 feet, spino would be lighter than a 40 ft Rex. But at 65 feet it would be far heavier, and this is in the scientific literature. There is a lot more here than just length, with every foot of length, the creatures overall bulk enlarges, including jaw muscles. The crocodiles that take down wildebeasts twice their weight have conical teeth. By you "logic" that can't do that because their teeth are designed to catch fish. This is only important in their Juvenile state. Several crocs have fairly narrow snouts and this does not prevent them from taking large mammalian prey. No scientist would say spinos skull is as specialized as a ghavial's. In fact, the narrowness of the spino's jaws are more of an optical illusion. Reconstruct the new spino skull, and place it side by side with the biggest rex skull and look down at them. The Rex won't be much wider. And haven't you heard? A celebrated paleontologist has convinced millions that tyrannosaurus was just a scavenger, and he has better dinosaur paleontology credentials than anyone on this forum I am sure. Keep up with the latest information, not 20 year old books. And the real paleontologists on the JP staff that 'approved' a giant Spino 'winning' the fight between Rex know more about dinosaurs than fanboy dinosaur toy collectors.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 8, 2009 12:50:48 GMT
I disagree. You are not correct sir. Spino was less than all that. It may have been longer, but it was not stronger. It has a long skull, but it is not all that strongly built, and had less bite force. The thing with the movie is just personal opinion, we all vary on that. But once again, if you have evidence to back you up, then by all means post it. Cite your sources, present articles and photos of the new discoveries. Show us all this. I would be more than happy to see it. It is easy to say these things, but you do not take the time to back up your statements. That is why you get such strong opposition to your statements. Just post some info, and talk to us... Even Wiki confirms the existence of the new, adult super-sized spinosaur. The origial ca. 45 foot spino of JP that the advisor-scientists believed was more than a match for an average adult T-Rex, died a teenager. If Spielberg had the TRUE size of an adult Spino, that really uneven fight would not have even been considered...... he would probably have shown the Rex prudently fleeing in terror, for after all, he tried to make the dinos real, not just movie monsters.. None of you seem to grasp that with that much length, comes that much more bulk as well. Maybe looking at your toy collections will help you all see this.
|
|