|
Post by ningishzida on Jan 8, 2009 13:06:13 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 It is not the same niche, and you contradict yourself. Look at the largest predators in africa today, and compare them with africa in the Cretaceous. Crocs and Lions can be compared to Spinos and Charcos. BOTH take down large game but don't really compete because the crocs stay in the swamps and rivers and the lions hunt on the savanah. AND if a lion or charco foolishly enters the domain of an adult croc or spino, they may end up prey as well, simply because the croc or spino is respectively that much more massive and powerful a predator. Yes lions can kill little crocs, and charcos could probably kill little spinos, but we are talking fully mature adults here. And an adult spino could probably kill an adult charco, by virtue of the great size disparity as surely and an adult croc could kill an adult lion. .
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 8, 2009 13:18:18 GMT
A croc and a spino couldnt be compared since one is a ground predator who came to water for fish, and another virtually live in the water. In its environment already existed big crocodiles that filled the specific niche of...crocodiles. Crocs and lions dont fill the same niche, don´t be ignorant. Did you at least readed the article? i guess no.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jan 8, 2009 13:35:30 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. 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...
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 8, 2009 20:45:38 GMT
*Sigh*
If Spinosaurus were found to not have such large spines, would you still use wikipedia and try to prove that Spinosaurus could kill anything it wanted to?
Why can't yu see that Spinosaurus wasn't equipped for killing animals its size? Its skull would probably brake in two trying to tackle such big animals.
If it was, why is its entire anatomy built for catching fish (Which is an incredible adaptation by evolution). It probably hunted massive fish, we're talking fish much larger then Coelacanths. IT was in no twice the size of Tyrannosaurus. How could theropods the size of T-Rex, like Carachardontosaurus take an evolutionary leap to 80 feet? I don't think any theropod reached lengths of more then 50-55 feet in length. In fact, there were probably massive Tyrannosaurus, reaching 50 feet. Just because we have only found 1 T-Rex with a length of 43 feet, dosen't mean they stopped growing at that length. Nothing is written in stone when it comes to evolution.
But please, post why you think Spinosaurus' jaws could bite through solid bone. Use sources other then wikipedia please.
And this topic is going down the drain. Why are we talking about Spinosaurus and T-Rex?
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 8, 2009 21:13:04 GMT
Ok. Two points and I am done here. First, Wikki cannot be regarded as accurate, especially as your sole source. It is written and edited by....people just like us. Bob down the street could write paragraphs about a subject, irregardless of any valid info around. When I was googling velociraptor images, I got a wikki entry that stated that velociraptors were large enough to look over a two story building, with a diagram as well. Obviously, that is wrong, and I should in no way, come here and state it as fact :" because wikki says so".
Edited for provoking comments - Admin
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 8, 2009 21:30:25 GMT
In the wikipedia also says that dromaeosaurus were able to crush bone just like T-rex. Lol. Its something useful when you need general info about something, but only the noobs use wiki sources in a serious debate, what are mostly, also, writed by noobs.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 8, 2009 22:19:36 GMT
Dromesaurs had jaws and teeth used for slashing and ripping! They were most certainly not like the teeth and jaws of Tyrannosaurus! Wikipedia is somewhat of a joke.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 8, 2009 22:21:54 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/
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 8, 2009 23:59:16 GMT
I also found these reconstructions to be interesting. I am not seeing any remarkable width or robustness here.. An interesting comparison To me, this comparison puts the whole debate to bed. I do not find any evidence to contradict this, and no quotes from ANY paleontologist supporting Ning's statements. In fact, in most quotes, the pros seem more or less annoyed by the whole debate, as it would never ever happen due to the differences in times lived. Those that do grudgingly give an opinion seem to lean towards a rex being victorious. That small you detected, Tomhet? It is not the end of this thread, that happened a few pages ago. That smell is what is left og this thread's corpse rotting in the sun....
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 9, 2009 0:01:53 GMT
The sail seems a bit oversized but...at least the arms have the correct lenght. It looks able to rip a t-rex in parts, booo! ;D
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jan 9, 2009 0:04:50 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. The head may have been massive, but from the few fragments we have from spino and irritator, it seems to have been fragile-- Probably a "smack" from another theropod would have fractured something. Croc's snouts are also much much wider than spinosaurid snouts. Spinosaurid snouts are very thin, more comparable to a gavial than a croc or alligator. Yeah, spinos could have been HUGE! ;D They are very interesting animals. And I still like spino more than any other dinosaur. ;D
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jan 9, 2009 0:15:29 GMT
Here is an actual picture of a THIN spinosaurus skull:
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jan 9, 2009 0:28:17 GMT
/\ could you have found a wider pic!?
SAM - South Africa Museum?
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jan 9, 2009 0:33:45 GMT
^^^ It looked a lot smaller on wikipedia... Whoops! I'll try to fix it.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 9, 2009 0:36:26 GMT
It IS the best actual skull photo yet presented here though. Thanks Cordy. It is always nice to look at the real thing.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 9, 2009 2:02:30 GMT
That size comparison...Spinosaurus, without its thin sail, isn't that much larger. It is obviously not as bulky either. It seemed to have been more sleek, maybe even allowing it to literally swim(?). Tyrannosaurus looks much more equipped for fighting. That skull even had a built in shock system. When it bit, its huge bite force was swayed by its flexible head. Very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 9, 2009 2:40:05 GMT
Spino was even a bit larger than that compared to rex, i think...5 meters of difference. There are less than that. Perhaps is the perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 9, 2009 2:44:51 GMT
In any case, they were similar in size.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jan 9, 2009 2:47:21 GMT
;D T-Rex equals Pit Bull, Spinosaurus equals Irish Wolfhound. Pit Bull kills Irish Wolfhound. T-Rex kills Spinosaurus. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 9, 2009 3:09:37 GMT
Did I just hear Stoneage stick up for Tyrannosaurus? I must be crazy. ;D
|
|