|
Post by kuni on Jan 9, 2009 3:37:51 GMT
Rex v. Spino is far less interesting than the original question. Spino v. Carchar is slightly better, but not much. I'm sure that fights probably took place, but not often -- the muscular arms and claws of a spinosaur were quite dangerous.
No large predator is going to risk getting disemboweled if it can help it, so fights were likely limited to extremely one-sided affairs (due to disease, old age, youth, etc) or were unfortunate testosterone-fueled attacks during mating season that were likely fatal or very painful to both participants.
|
|
|
Post by Ajax on Jan 9, 2009 3:55:49 GMT
Did I just hear Stoneage stick up for Tyrannosaurus? I must be crazy. ;D No, It was only your imagination. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 9, 2009 4:24:47 GMT
I don't know man... ;D
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 9, 2009 4:53:11 GMT
Rex v. Spino is far less interesting than the original question. Spino v. Carchar is slightly better, but not much. I'm sure that fights probably took place, but not often -- the muscular arms and claws of a spinosaur were quite dangerous. No large predator is going to risk getting disemboweled if it can help it, so fights were likely limited to extremely one-sided affairs (due to disease, old age, youth, etc) or were unfortunate testosterone-fueled attacks during mating season that were likely fatal or very painful to both participants. Plus, it appears right now that they were going after different types of prey, so competition fore food would not have been as much of an issue..... I am a bit weary of the rex spino thing too. While looking for evidence, I ran across **many** boards discussing this very issue, all with the same results as here. All seem to give up at the end. One interesting point though. Well two. I have been reading that the rex killed in JP 3 was in fact intended to be the juvie rex from lost World, only a bit older. If it was, and was sub adult, then the spino would have been too, judging by size. And, a juvie rex would not have had as much combat experience, and perhaps would have been easier pickings for a more experienced spino. The other thought that struck me was a question posed on one of those boards. It was asked if a rex could be biting through steel light poles and such, as in Lost World, then why did they apparently have NO effect against the spino. There was no blood or damage etc to the spino. Surely, even if it lost that contest, a t-rex would have managed to inflict SOME harm to it?
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 9, 2009 5:05:35 GMT
It was a fake movie, not a scientific documentary. Steve Spielberg turnd many people against JP by killing T-Rex. He pushed T-Rex down the rank in Jp,and thus made lotsa kids mad. ;D
Anyway, Tyrannosaurus, judging by Spinosaurus' neck, would have easily crushed its windpipe, and most likely its entire neck. Having a massive skull, providing a lot of room for a powerful bite, would have crushed bone easily.
|
|
|
Post by Ajax on Jan 9, 2009 5:11:19 GMT
It was a fake movie, not a scientific documentary. Steve Spielberg turnd many people against JP by killing T-Rex. He pushed T-Rex down the rank in Jp,and thus made lotsa kids mad. ;D Anyway, Tyrannosaurus, judging by Spinosaurus' neck, would have easily crushed its windpipe, and most likely its entire neck. Having a massive skull, providing a lot of room for a powerful bite, would have crushed bone easily. Yes, Yes, Trex is better than Spino we get the picture.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 9, 2009 5:19:49 GMT
No he's not. I pitty the fool who thinks any animals is better then another. Look Ajax, its very difficult to explain an animal's traits while trying not to sound too biased. Yes, I LOVE T-Rex and favor him easily over my second favorite dinosaur even, but I most certainly don't think him better then Spinosaurus. Not at all.
|
|
|
Post by Ajax on Jan 9, 2009 6:00:12 GMT
No he's not. I pitty the fool who thinks any animals is better then another. Look Ajax, its very difficult to explain an animal's traits while trying not to sound too biased. Yes, I LOVE T-Rex and favor him easily over my second favorite dinosaur even, but I most certainly don't think him better then Spinosaurus. Not at all. I pity the fool who praises the same dinosaur over and over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by Ajax on Jan 9, 2009 6:04:47 GMT
Yes, Yes, Trex is better than Spino we get the picture. [/quote] Oh BTW, This comment was sarcasim, something i thought you were a pro at.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 9, 2009 6:20:36 GMT
I can't smell sarcasm. ;D ;D
Hey T-Rex is uber..in fact I've drawn T-Rex for 2 weeks in a row...no...kinda variation... ;D
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 9, 2009 8:11:43 GMT
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. Seriously? WIkipedia is your reference? And we grasp things just fine. Some of us just avoid a very stupid topic (which isn't even what this thread is supposed to be about, but has also proven to be rather pointless). And I agree with Tomhet--this thread is teetering... Why am I not surpised you do not understand how to use wikipedia? True, the articles themselves may not be written by "experts", but his is unimiportant, but the references are. Ignore the article if you like, and simply scroll down to the references. I am surprised that somebody who 'likes dinosaurs' would not be aware of the fossils from the undisputed, largest theropod ever discovered.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 9, 2009 8:18:38 GMT
Rex v. Spino is far less interesting than the original question. Spino v. Carchar is slightly better, but not much. I'm sure that fights probably took place, but not often -- the muscular arms and claws of a spinosaur were quite dangerous. No large predator is going to risk getting disemboweled if it can help it, so fights were likely limited to extremely one-sided affairs (due to disease, old age, youth, etc) or were unfortunate testosterone-fueled attacks during mating season that were likely fatal or very painful to both participants. Plus, it appears right now that they were going after different types of prey, so competition fore food would not have been as much of an issue..... I am a bit weary of the rex spino thing too. While looking for evidence, I ran across **many** boards discussing this very issue, all with the same results as here. All seem to give up at the end. One interesting point though. Well two. I have been reading that the rex killed in JP 3 was in fact intended to be the juvie rex from lost World, only a bit older. If it was, and was sub adult, then the spino would have been too, judging by size. And, a juvie rex would not have had as much combat experience, and perhaps would have been easier pickings for a more experienced spino. The other thought that struck me was a question posed on one of those boards. It was asked if a rex could be biting through steel light poles and such, as in Lost World, then why did they apparently have NO effect against the spino. There was no blood or damage etc to the spino. Surely, even if it lost that contest, a t-rex would have managed to inflict SOME harm to it? The reason so many supported the T-Rex winning when the after the film first came out is because they were nothing more than T-Rex fanboys and not paleonotologists like the advisers who approved this for the film. Also, this was before the discovery of an 'adult' Spino, which dwarfs all other theropods. Now, no serious scientist could support the the of a T-Rex having any advantage against another carnivorous dinosaur one third to one half larger, and with massive clawed forearms. Yes, when the same size, Rex would have some advantages, but it would still not be a 'sure thing'.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 9, 2009 8:21:10 GMT
It was a fake movie, not a scientific documentary. Steve Spielberg turnd many people against JP by killing T-Rex. He pushed T-Rex down the rank in Jp,and thus made lotsa kids mad. ;D Anyway, Tyrannosaurus, judging by Spinosaurus' neck, would have easily crushed its windpipe, and most likely its entire neck. Having a massive skull, providing a lot of room for a powerful bite, would have crushed bone easily. EXACTLY. Mad, T-Rex fanboy kids. Just as we see here. Science (and the far larger Spinosaurus) wins.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 9, 2009 8:37:34 GMT
www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/spinosaurus.htmlOn the other hand, I also found this: www.animalpicturesarchive.com/view.php?tid=2&did=23103And this. Notice that towards the bottom they discuss the jaws and teeth of a rex vs Spinp www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925384.600-the-dinodaddy-of-all-meat-eaters.htmlHere is a spino skull illustration: Here we have baryonyx: Here is Suchomimus: And here is a rex: Another, fairly unbiased link here: www.dinosaurden.co.uk/dino_Spinosaurus.htmlI am not finding a lot that doesn't just refer back to JP3, and nothing to suggest measurements of bite force etc. I have seen enough to gather that the "new"skull is fragmented at best. Most of the reconstructions are based on a partial spino, complemented with pieces extropolated from from Baryonyx and irritator, based on the assumptive similarity. Then, there is this: According to Gregory Erickson, T-Rex had an incredibly powerful bite. Erickson, a researcher with University of California at Berkeley, reproduced the results of a Tyrannosaurus bite by using a bronze-aluminum cast of a tooth in a hydraulic press. By comparing the damage the fake tooth did to a cow pelvic bone with a fossil Triceratops bone that had T-Rex marks, Erickson estimated that the Tyrannosaurus was able to bite with a force of 3,000 pounds. That's the equivalent of a pickup truck sitting on top of each tooth. Erickson thinks T-Rex was capable of even a much stronger bites during an attack. The marks on the Triceratops were only a "feeding bite," not meant to kill. I did find this: Expert: Daniel Moellic - 2/3/2008 Question Hi Daniel, t-rex vs spinosaurus aegypticus andrewsarchus vs dilophosaurus leatherback turtle vs american alligator in open ocean thanks Answer Hi Chhotu T.rex vs Spinosaurus Aegypticus: I would say Tyrannosaurus for several reasons. Firstly it was much more heavily built compared to Spinosaurus. Secondly it had a estimated bite force of 40,000psi compared to Spinosaurus' estimated bite force of 10,000-12,500psi. Also a Spinosaurus had conical teet not designed to pierce the thick scales of Tyrannosaurus whereas T.rex had long, serrated and curved teeth ideal for slicing through large prey. Though it is theorised Spinosaurus intimidated most foes it would have had a hard time intimidating Tyrannosaurus as T.rex was the sole carnivore of it's size in it's habitat and would not know much fear, also they often fought each other and therefore would be used to fighting other apex predators. Spinosaurus did have a few advantages however, it was larger and heavier and had long strong forelimbs which it could use to wrestle T.rex to the ground then could crush it with it's feet. However this would be difficult due to T.rex's powerful build. Full link is here: en.allexperts.com/q/Interspecies-Conflict-3754/2008/2/theropods.htmWell, I am two hours into this now, and not found a SINGLE article, or paleontological source that claims a Spino would win this. www.flickr.com/photos/29937001@N08/2935392684/ You don't seem to understand that ANY scientist that states a T-Rex might win, is basing that assumption on equally sized animals, and before the discovery of an ADULT spinosaur. Yes, its possible "Sue" at 43 feet (I'm not looking it up now), might beat the lighter, 45 foot Halotype, 'Juvenile' spino, but no real scientist would dare state it would have any advantage against a 60 foot ADULT Spino that outweighs the rex by several tons, and at the larger size would have an equally devastating bite. I believe I make the best case because we now know how large an adult spino really is, and I am basing this on the latest, cutting edge evidence. All the "old" rex-spino fight speculation is based on roughly equally sized animals. It is no disgrace for the TRex to be at a marked disadvantage if pitted against a FAR LARGER and heavier theropod with much larger jaws, stout, unbreakable, skull punching conical teeth, and the most powerful, clawed forearms of any known theropod (though the only Baryonyx found was also a juvenile and could reach the sizes of Spino.) Not that this has been decided, let's get back to the original topic....... the absurdity of cavemen (and jungle girls), being able to kill the mighty T-rex with their primitive weapons. I find it amusing that some of the same people who doubt a 60 foot long 10 ton spinosaurus could kill a 5 ton, virtually "armless" rex, seem to think a handful of 140 pound cavemen could kill it.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 9, 2009 8:50:27 GMT
But you didn't even explain how its jaw would not brake if it were to pack a punch strong enough to brake the neck of a super predator like Tyrannosaurus. You also didn't state how its small hollow teeth wouldn't literally pop off under such pressure. Long teeth, long jaws, a slim body, and a fish catching claw point to an animal that lives to eat large fish. It was massive, yes, but quite light. It was large for good reason, because Carchardontosaurus was top dog as far as hunting went. It would in no way attack such a massive theropod though.
Where on earth did you get the idea Spinosaurus was 60 feet long? Thats pushing the limit. I doubt Spinosaurus grew over 55 feet in length. From looking at Tyrannosaurs massive skull, without the body, most would guess it'd be in the 60 foot range as well, but as I've said ALL Tyrannosaurids had a strange head to body size ratio. The entire group were short, robust animals. Spinosaurids were slim, long animals. We are basing its length on a few bones. It may be true, but its unlikely Suchomimus and Spinosaurus were so far away as far as length goes. Notice how Ceratopsians grew over time. Also, notice how Tyrannosaurids grew over time (Albertosaurus into Daspletosaurus (Das and Albert lived at same time, but Das outlived and out competed Albert) into T-Rex.
I don't like fighting over this, and I understand Spinosaurus was much longer then T-Rex most likely, but where is the proof it had a bite force and strong enough body to wrestle large prey?
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 9, 2009 8:58:51 GMT
Soooo what? NONE of the references we posted mean anything? Please, post your references for us all to see. The "experts" on the JP films did not dictate much of what we saw on-screen. The needs of the story dictated that the Spino beat the rex. This was only to set up the spino to be the "villain" of the third film, and from what I have read, the scientific advisers were less than enthusiastic about that. True, it is thanks to them that the dinos we saw were as realistic as they were. The filmmakers wanted to do their own thing, but were convinced by the advisers to make some changes. But, they had NO control really over what was put on film. Hence the term "advisers". We can all see, via my and CT's posts, that although longer, the spino was not overall more robust, and from the visual evidence presented, had a fairly narrow and fragile skull. As would be expected for a fish eater. You just do not seem to grasp that a spino was not built for heavy combat. All of the evidence I have seen today contradicts your statements. Sorry. The "new" discoveries may suggest a longer, heavier animal ( based on guesses from a far from complete skeleton), but the new skull is still fragmentary. The reconstructions are conjecture, based on pieces of similar animals. One really cannot make blanket statements based on this, and in fact I have yet to find a "serious" scientist who has. All of the news hype focuses on the increased length estimates, which really don't mean anything. All evidence suggests the spino was not as heavily built, and had a much weaker bite. Oh, and you are aware that several members of this forum ARE "real scientists", right? One in particular is our fearless admin. I also think it would be a mistake to dismiss either Cordelius or tyrannus just because of their age. They are quite intelligent, and have often contributed greatly to this forum. In fact, CT is the only one here who has yet posted an image of an actual spino skull. I also DO know how to use wikki, I just prefer not to, as I often find the articles and references erroneous, and pretty much useless. I'm running a few posts behind you here. I am not sure about humans versus rex. It is sorta a moot point....but as I said, never underestimate the intelligence of the early humans, even the dullest of them way outsmarted a rex, and working together they could accomplish a lot. In theory. I suppose. If I have ta keep thinking about lil jungle girls versus rexes, my brain will implode. Can't we PLEASE end this thread?? ;D ;D Tyrannus, from what I was reading today, those size and weight estimates of a spino may well be accurate. It does look like they got pretty dang big.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 9, 2009 9:55:01 GMT
Wow, that sums things up teton. Why? This thread is just for fun, it wasn't meant for an argument. Why have a forum if we can't stretch our minds and get fictional? Of course they got huge! But based on Tyrannosaurus's skull, he should be about the same length. Sue's skull (Sue is the most complete and largest Tyrannosaurus skeleton discovered so far. It is 43 feet in length) is massive, boxy, and surprisingly long. Point is, we can't really say, hands down Spinosaurus was 60 feet in length. By comparing Baryonyx's skull length to its body (Likewise with Suchomimus which we have a much more complete skeleton of) we can make educated guessed. 60 feet, in my opinion is pushing it. Its not hard to picture a 53-55 foot Spinosaurus but 60-65 is getting up there with sauropods. The size was unneeded. Even if it were 40 feet long, Carachardontosaurus wouldn't see it as easy prey like herbivorous dinosaurs. Its size would almost be its downfall. Being so massive, its hard to imagine it being able to pull itself around. Like I said before though, we could discover a Spinosaurus that is 70 feet long one day and I could be proven completely wrong. Nothing is written in stone, or in this case, fossil.
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 9, 2009 10:53:36 GMT
There are no T. Rex fanboys here. All our statements about T. rex are based on fossil evidences, biomechanic, and opinions of experts in several camps, not only paleontology. We have graphic and documented evidences. What do you have? State that people who are against you are fanboys says much of yourself and your maturity.
A fanboy is someone who, lacking a serious support of proofs on his side, avoid the proven arguments of others and go ahead with his own statements again and again and again.... Now look at yourself an face in wich side you are. Even if you´re not a real fanboy, you´re acting like one.
|
|
|
Post by itstwentybelow on Jan 9, 2009 11:08:49 GMT
Ok look, guys. I thinks it's clear now that ning is as misinformed and stubborn about this as... We've all given our evidence and the point is now completely moot. The best thing you can do now is ignore him. This thread is DEAD. It was dead days ago.
EDIT: No reason to mention that.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jan 9, 2009 13:43:10 GMT
Seriously? WIkipedia is your reference? And we grasp things just fine. Some of us just avoid a very stupid topic (which isn't even what this thread is supposed to be about, but has also proven to be rather pointless). And I agree with Tomhet--this thread is teetering... Why am I not surpised you do not understand how to use wikipedia? True, the articles themselves may not be written by "experts", but his is unimiportant, but the references are. Ignore the article if you like, and simply scroll down to the references. I am surprised that somebody who 'likes dinosaurs' would not be aware of the fossils from the undisputed, largest theropod ever discovered. I was going to respond to the statement, but I think you may post things like this to get others mad, so the pointless threads can keep rolling. I agree with an earlier poster--this thread is beyond dead, and should be treated as such (instead of filling up 1/3 of the recent posts). If you want to discuss this particular topic--not even on topic for the thread, mind you--go to the JP Toys forum. There isn't much else to even discuss over there, with the demise of JP4 and the complete lack of new toys for several years now, and you can wow them with your knowledge there too. I realize this response will only cause another, but I don't expect it to go anywhere from that. I have pretty much ceased to read the thread anyway. So I will say this--nobody refers to Wikipedia as a source if they want to be taken seriously. Refer to the reference within.
|
|