|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 9, 2009 20:48:43 GMT
Even I admit this thread is dead. How on earth do we always derail threads.
I think the subject of this thread is very interesting. We turned it into a Spino vs T-Rex argument. So..
Whatabout the late Jurassic? Could they survive Allosaurs, Ceratosaurs, etc?
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jan 9, 2009 21:08:44 GMT
In any case, they were similar in size. Spino could have been a lot bigger. Everybody likes to say tyrannosaurus is 50 feet long when the biggest one we have is only 42 feet and a few inches. The estimates for spinosaurus have been anywhere from 45 feet to 60 feet. They were similar in weight though. ;D AND< I don't think the animal tyrannosaurus is overrated, but I think the way everybody is automatically in love with him sucks.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 9, 2009 21:12:44 GMT
The largest we have. There is the keyword! Tyrannosaurs grew larger, there's no doubt about that. Unless we get a message in bone that says we have discovered the longest T-Rex ever recorded! ;D
People only fall in love with him because its a popular name. Spinosaurus hasn't been around as long. You can't blame that on Rex.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jan 9, 2009 21:16:50 GMT
The largest we have. There is the keyword! Tyrannosaurs grew larger, there's no doubt about that. Unless we get a message in bone that says we have discovered the longest T-Rex ever recorded! ;D People only fall in love with him because its a popular name. Spinosaurus hasn't been around as long. You can't blame that on Rex. Actually, spinosaurus is a few million years older than rex, so spino HAS been around longer. ;D Well then, if you say sue isn't the largest, then you could say the del sasso spinosaurus fragments aren't from the largest spinosaurus, and other spinosaurs grew even bigger.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 9, 2009 21:19:23 GMT
I meant out longer to the general public. Spino has been around since the early Cretaceous, of course its been around longer (literally). ;D
You could, but those are fragments. We are guessing on length. What a site it would be to see a dinosaur 60 feet long, and how it actually survived.
|
|
|
Post by bmknj17 on Jan 9, 2009 21:42:47 GMT
I haven't read the thread but I just wanted to point out that they seemed to manage in Land of the Lost... And they had those Sleestaks to worry about too.
Okay, I've only been here a week. How many times has a joke like this been done??
Brett
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 9, 2009 21:46:58 GMT
^ ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 10, 2009 0:38:18 GMT
The largest we have. There is the keyword! Tyrannosaurs grew larger, there's no doubt about that. Unless we get a message in bone that says we have discovered the longest T-Rex ever recorded! ;D People only fall in love with him because its a popular name. Spinosaurus hasn't been around as long. You can't blame that on Rex. A fair number of Rex's have been found now, and they ALL hover around 40 feet...... period. Only two major Spino fossils were found. The first one was only a juvenile but still the world's largest theropod. It was not that celebrated because it was destroyed in WWII. And now a huge skull shows a massive adult that scientists say could exceed 60 feet and over 10 tons. And this is just the FIRST adult ever found. After we find as many of these as T-Rex's, we may find the "large" one is a cool seventy feet as some scientists have already suggested is possible. And this is why I am saying it is the superior animal in a fight. This is common sense.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 10, 2009 0:45:07 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? Where do you get the crazy idea that a huge adult spino would have a 'fragile" skull. Its snout is about the same width as an adult T Rex. Just look at the better 'scale' models of both animals. It is only an "illusion" that the Spino seems to be fragile because it has such a long snout. And do you realize with every foot of length, you have overall bulk added as well. This is why some paleontologists sugget weights up to 13 tons, DOUBLING a Rex! And when that much bigger, I am sure its bite force would be at least equivalent to th much smaller Rex, that also has virtually unusable forearms.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 10, 2009 0:54:59 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. Correct, most of those references and opinions are fairly meaningless, because they were based on a pre Sue 39 foot Rex fighting an only 45 foot Juvenile Spino. But in reality my point is that we are discussing an only slightly larger Rex, pitted against a GIGANTIC Theopod of probably double the weight, possibly 60 - 65 feet long, and still a very lithe, maneuverable, gracile animal - probably the deadliest thing that ever walked the earth (barring techno equipped humans of course)..
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 10, 2009 1:03:09 GMT
We've mainly found juveniles and sub adults. We only have 2 adult skeletons found so far.
Once again, don't bet your life Spinosaurus was 60 feet until you have physical evidence. I'm talking about the body, tail, head, arms, legs, and sail if it had one. Who knows, maybe it had a short tail (As schleich has already presented to us ;D) The point is, it ma and probably was longer then Tyrannosaurus, but we don't know for sure yet. And in any case, regardless if the skull was weak or not the teeth were rather weak, and the jaw wasn't in the shape most generic hunting theropods had. Sue is 43 feet in length.. ;D
Eventually we will find a Tyrannosaurus around 46 feet in length most likely and until I see documented proof of a Spinosaurus reaching 60 feet I'm keeping him on the "Undecided lengths" list. ;D No one here, no one on earth, right now, can say Spinosaurus reached those length. We don't know, we can only guess based on its fellow Spinosaurids. This is most likely accurate, but its not proven.
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 10, 2009 1:04:00 GMT
The bite force doesnt have nothing to do with the size. This is basic. In that statement you definitely showed your ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 10, 2009 1:06:44 GMT
Lets not get personal guys. But he's right ning. Look at crocodiles, which are the same size as sharks. Crocodiles have a bite force over twice as hard as most sharks. This proves that size doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 10, 2009 1:07:54 GMT
The bite force doesnt have nothing to do with the size. This is basic. In that statement you definitely showed your ignorance. No, it shows your ignorance. A baby crocodile will NOT have the force of a full gown adult. I have been bitten many times and did not have to deal with a ton or more of bite force. That's why they don't test babies, but go out to find the largest adult possible to get an accurate reading. Please tell us you were just kidding.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 10, 2009 1:11:02 GMT
The bite force doesnt have nothing to do with the size. This is basic. In that statement you definitely showed your ignorance. Didn't we JUST manage to get some civility back into this....carcass of a thread? Why are we still debating a topic that could never have happened, and cannot at this time be proven either way??
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 10, 2009 1:13:46 GMT
Yeah...this is turning surreal. Baby crocodiles? hahahaha..!
Bite strenght doesnt change significatively in rare enlarged animals of some genus cause the configuration of jaws doesnt change...! a baby croc donĀ“t developed it yet for obvious reasons...and gigantic lions will never had the same bite strenght than a hyena, no matter how they grow, because all is in the building of jaws and muscular attachments.
Also, the bite strenght of carnosaurs (not coelurosaurids like rex) was INSIGNIFICANT compared to any modern predatory animal, they relied all the killing capability in their ripping teeth ...in any case their strengh could be the same of even a common dog....you ignore the most basic data...sorry, im out.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 10, 2009 1:29:05 GMT
Wait....are we off topic again? Crap..
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jan 10, 2009 2:02:14 GMT
Wait....are we off topic again? Crap.. ;D Well what people don't realize is that the reason they never found Spinosaurs arms is because scientist now think he had flippers. They were attached where the arms would have been. Spinosaurus lived the life of a Penguin. It would dive into deep rivers for fish. It was capable of flying right out of the water and snatching a snake right off a tree branch. Out of water it moved slowly with a waddle. Mostly it stayed in the water so other animals wouldn't hurt it. It was so big and strong it could swim up waterfalls. Also it has been scientifically proven that their flippers could be used to glide. So it was in the air, land and sea It also can be told that through chemical analysis they found out Spinosaurus was allergic to the Sahara Beetle a common pest in the Devonian. Yes Spinosaurus was a tremendous animal. The artic waters probably cooled it when it got hot. All real paleontologist know this. ;D
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jan 10, 2009 2:14:55 GMT
OK, since this thread is going nowhere, I will lock it.
|
|