#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Aug 22, 2014 15:35:11 GMT
I think what many people dismiss is that mass alone doesn't mean much. The strength of a muscle is determined by area, not volume. Although Spinosaurus aegyptiacus is supposedly larger, it can still have particular muscles that are not as strong as the smaller tyrannosaurid's. The jaw adductor is an example of how mass does not equate to overall strength, seeing as the smaller tyrannosaurid has a far stronger bite.
Of course, if you're more massive than your adversary, you're likely stronger as well, but the concept that mass is relevant to strength comes from the misconception that the more weight in muscle you have, the stronger you are. This is not necessarily true; for one, many animals have different muscle cells, some allowing for greater strength than others, and that's not even how to mention what I said earlier, the area of the cross section of a muscle is what determines its strength, not the volume of the muscle. Along with that comes the fact that we don't know the actual muscle percentage of those animals, so determining strength even based on muscle volume is a hard task.
That said, determing the strength of extinct animals is a lot harder. It could be easier determining the strength of a particular muscle (or a limb's strength), but overall strength is very complicated. Determining an animal's strength based on its size is extremely vague in many cases.
And Ouranosaurus nigeriensis did not coexist with Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, if I recall correctly.
|
|
SiamotyrannusX
Dilophosaurus
I think I have a serious problem: I don't get enough sleep.
Posts: 42 Likes Received: 0 
Youtube: youtube.com/siamotyrannusx
Skype: andruw.stewart
Favourite Dinosaur: Tyrannosaurus/ Tyrannotitan/ Eocarcharia/ Cryolophosaurus
Favourite Animal: King cobra
Joined: Aug 19, 2014 22:35:33 GMT
inherit
127
0
Sept 29, 2015 18:26:54 GMT
0
SiamotyrannusX
I think I have a serious problem: I don't get enough sleep.
42
Aug 19, 2014 22:35:33 GMT
August 2014
siamotyrannusx
youtube.com/siamotyrannusx
andruw.stewart
Tyrannosaurus/ Tyrannotitan/ Eocarcharia/ Cryolophosaurus
King cobra
|
Post by SiamotyrannusX on Aug 22, 2014 17:20:06 GMT
I think what many people dismiss is that mass alone doesn't mean much. The strength of a muscle is determined by area, not volume. Although Spinosaurus aegyptiacus is supposedly larger, it can still have particular muscles that are not as strong as the smaller tyrannosaurid's. The jaw adductor is an example of how mass does not equate to overall strength, seeing as the smaller tyrannosaurid has a far stronger bite. Of course, if you're more massive than your adversary, you're likely stronger as well, but the concept that mass is relevant to strength comes from the misconception that the more weight in muscle you have, the stronger you are. This is not necessarily true; for one, many animals have different muscle cells, some allowing for greater strength than others, and that's not even how to mention what I said earlier, the area of the cross section of a muscle is what determines its strength, not the volume of the muscle. Along with that comes the fact that we don't know the actual muscle percentage of those animals, so determining strength even based on muscle volume is a hard task. That said, determing the strength of extinct animals is a lot harder. It could be easier determining the strength of a particular muscle (or a limb's strength), but overall strength is very complicated. Determining an animal's strength based on its size is extremely vague in many cases. And Ouranosaurus nigeriensis did not coexist with Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, if I recall correctly. Whoops, error on my part. I agree with you entirely. Mass does not constitute strength. Just because an animal is bigger, that doesn't mean it is more powerful. Spinosaurus may be bulkier, but Tyrannosaurus packs more muscule. It's like saying a 200 pound guy is stronger than an 150 pound guy just because he is bigger. The 150 pound guy may pack more muscule. |
|
inherit
95
0
Nov 21, 2016 16:13:36 GMT
173
spinosaurus1
┌∩┐(^o^)┌∩┐
710
April 2014
spinosaurus1
fredrick alexander
spinosaurus
komodo dragan and tegu
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Aug 22, 2014 18:07:51 GMT
how can you say tyrannosaurus is more muscular when the ability to measure a theropods overall musculature strength is non- existent? what are you referring too by saying that tyrannosaurus more muscular? purely by the bite force? there so many variations of the muscular system. its not just one, single unit of contracting tissue that can easily be measured, and thus far, there is no detail or study about the overall muscular systems of any theropod has been conducted.an inference of strength however, can also also be seen by the organisms overall skeletal structure and its ability to retain a natural weight that allows its daily functions. spinosaurus can go through its daily processes with an added 2-5 tons of weight over a tyrannosaurus. all theropods share a very similar body plan so its only logical to see that a theropod with a significant weight advantage would most likely be overall stronger then another comparatively smaller. a significantly larger spinosaurus would most likely be overall stronger then a tyrannosaurus rex. but I will say, a tyrannosaurus would most likely be stronger if they were at similar sizes.
fyi: comparisons between humans and theropods are not at all synonymous. were talking about organisms of completely different size, musculature, even evolutionary lineage. I would refrain from making such comparisons about larger animals being proportionally similar to much smaller animals with completely different adaptions and evolutionary relations
|
|
inherit
102
0
77
Monolophosaurus
My favorite number in the alphabet is triangle.
1,094
May 26, 2014 20:39:12 GMT
May 2014
captainjimmbob
Monolophosaurus
House Cat
|
Post by Monolophosaurus on Aug 22, 2014 19:09:28 GMT
And Ouranosaurus nigeriensis did not coexist with Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, if I recall correctly. They did, in fact, coexist, but only for around 1 million years or so, and then Ouranosaurus nigeriensis went extinct. |
|
inherit
102
0
77
Monolophosaurus
My favorite number in the alphabet is triangle.
1,094
May 26, 2014 20:39:12 GMT
May 2014
captainjimmbob
Monolophosaurus
House Cat
|
Post by Monolophosaurus on Aug 22, 2014 19:15:50 GMT
|
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Aug 22, 2014 19:27:39 GMT
And Ouranosaurus nigeriensis did not coexist with Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, if I recall correctly. They did, in fact, coexist, but only for around 1 million years or so, and then Ouranosaurus nigeriensis went extinct. Isn't that from Wikipedia? I had a source showing they did not coexist, which I'll make sure to share if I find it. |
|
inherit
95
0
Nov 21, 2016 16:13:36 GMT
173
spinosaurus1
┌∩┐(^o^)┌∩┐
710
April 2014
spinosaurus1
fredrick alexander
spinosaurus
komodo dragan and tegu
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Aug 22, 2014 21:03:15 GMT
15-16 meters is a bunch a bull crap. we can barely say it can reach 13 meters. the specimen, UCMP 137538, is only concluded as such monsterous lengths just by one single toe bone that is comparatively larger then Sues. 
the problem is..... it's a damn toe bone! possibly the most genetically variable appendage on any toe wielding organism. it is way too fragmentary to place any accurate size estimate on at the time. tyrannosaurs have shown time and time again that the skeletal structures of these beast show strong amounts of genetic variation. so a 14-15 meter tyrannosaur is extremely unlikely at all.
|
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Aug 22, 2014 21:15:51 GMT
Exactly what I've explained several times before regarding the specimen. An example of how different specimens can be proportionately speaking is comparing FMNH PR 2081 to BHI 3033, they do have their differences.
Scaling the toe bone will not lead to any reliable estimate.
|
|
inherit
102
0
77
Monolophosaurus
My favorite number in the alphabet is triangle.
1,094
May 26, 2014 20:39:12 GMT
May 2014
captainjimmbob
Monolophosaurus
House Cat
|
Post by Monolophosaurus on Aug 22, 2014 23:06:38 GMT
15-16 meters is a bunch a bull crap. we can barely say it can reach 13 meters. the specimen, UCMP 137538, is only concluded as such monsterous lengths just by one single toe bone that is comparatively larger then Sues.
the problem is..... it's a damn toe bone! possibly the most genetically variable appendage on any toe wielding organism. it is way too fragmentary to place any accurate size estimate on at the time. tyrannosaurs have shown time and time again that the skeletal structures of these beast show strong amounts of genetic variation. so a 14-15 meter tyrannosaur is extremely unlikely at all. This isnt UCMP137538, its UCMP118742. Two different specimens. This specimen consists of half a skull, but the skull is coming from a 16 year old Tyrannosaurus that was already slightly bigger than Sue. By full grown age, it could have been around 13 or 14 meters. |
|
inherit
95
0
Nov 21, 2016 16:13:36 GMT
173
spinosaurus1
┌∩┐(^o^)┌∩┐
710
April 2014
spinosaurus1
fredrick alexander
spinosaurus
komodo dragan and tegu
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Aug 23, 2014 2:38:06 GMT
my mistake. I honestly just skimmed your sources and assumed it was referring to UCMP137538  now for this specimen. first off, a 16 year old tyrannosaurus is already full grown. it's been clarified that tyrannosaurs reach adulthood at very young ages. second off, that is actually an even worst specimen to use to give an accurate size estimate because it suffers the same problem. you just can't scale up bones because, as said before, tyrannosaurs show extreme amounts of skeletal variation. it's just way too many variables. you can easily get something of only 12 meters on different measurements
www.dinosaurhome.com/todays-offical-scientific-tyrannosaurus-rex-estimates-978.html
tyrannosaurus just wasn't built to handle it's own weight at 15-16 meters and it's actually almost completely dismissed. the most likely maximum length is around 13 meters. might I also add they by comparison, we have much fewer spinosurus specimens. if your going to get a freakishly large tyrannosaur at 15 meters, you must believe in the freakishly large spinosaurus at 18 meters because both estimates are made by scaling up bones.
all in all, I really wouldn't suggest using these specimens because their to many variables and they are too fragmentary in order to compare properly |
|
inherit
102
0
77
Monolophosaurus
My favorite number in the alphabet is triangle.
1,094
May 26, 2014 20:39:12 GMT
May 2014
captainjimmbob
Monolophosaurus
House Cat
|
Post by Monolophosaurus on Aug 23, 2014 4:34:36 GMT
my mistake. first off, a 16 meter long tyrannosaurus is already full grown. it's been clarified that tyrannosaurs reach adulthood at very young ages. second off, that is actually an even worst specimen to use to give an accurate size estimate because it suffers the same problem. you just can't scale up bones because, as said before, tyrannosaurs show extreme amounts of skeletal variation. it's just way too many variables. you can easily get something of only 12 meters on different measurements www.dinosaurhome.com/todays-offical-scientific-tyrannosaurus-rex-estimates-978.htmltyrannosaurus just wasn't built to handle it's own weight at 15 meters and it's actually almost completely dismissed. might I also add they by comparison, we have much fewer spinosurus specimens. if your going to get a freakishly large tyrannosaur at 15 meters, you must believe in the freakishly large spinosaurus at 18 meters because both estimates are made by scaling up bones If a tiny piece of a Spinosaurus skull is conclusive evidence to give a size estimate that claims to be accurate, than we can use most of a skull from a Tyrannosaurus. How do we know that skull isnt deformed as well? I mean, ALOT of people claim that Spinosaurus was 18 meters for fact because of that skull. We are finding all these "giant Tyrannosaur" specimens, and you mean to tell me that all of them are deformed? I find that Tyrannosaurus is in the perfect position to bite the neck where it counts, the jugular. Its really quite simple, one bite from those jaws in that spot on Spinosaurus and its over. The only question is: could it get there? And the only reason it might not is because Spinosaurus has its own set of jaws, but they arent very wide. The gape isnt quite that large. And the fact that the teeth in that 5 foot mouth of Spinosaurus were meant for gripping, rather than tearing and/or crushing. |
|
inherit
102
0
77
Monolophosaurus
My favorite number in the alphabet is triangle.
1,094
May 26, 2014 20:39:12 GMT
May 2014
captainjimmbob
Monolophosaurus
House Cat
|
Post by Monolophosaurus on Aug 23, 2014 4:47:58 GMT
DISREGARD what I have said, I change my vote. I thought about the bite force of Spinosaurus, and it probably exceeded 3 tons. Thats enough to kill.
But ah, man. I was in an argument with a guy over this topic, on the side of Tyrannosaurus, and now I cant win....
|
|
inherit
95
0
Nov 21, 2016 16:13:36 GMT
173
spinosaurus1
┌∩┐(^o^)┌∩┐
710
April 2014
spinosaurus1
fredrick alexander
spinosaurus
komodo dragan and tegu
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Aug 23, 2014 5:00:22 GMT
my mistake. first off, a 16 meter long tyrannosaurus is already full grown. it's been clarified that tyrannosaurs reach adulthood at very young ages. second off, that is actually an even worst specimen to use to give an accurate size estimate because it suffers the same problem. you just can't scale up bones because, as said before, tyrannosaurs show extreme amounts of skeletal variation. it's just way too many variables. you can easily get something of only 12 meters on different measurements www.dinosaurhome.com/todays-offical-scientific-tyrannosaurus-rex-estimates-978.htmltyrannosaurus just wasn't built to handle it's own weight at 15 meters and it's actually almost completely dismissed. might I also add they by comparison, we have much fewer spinosurus specimens. if your going to get a freakishly large tyrannosaur at 15 meters, you must believe in the freakishly large spinosaurus at 18 meters because both estimates are made by scaling up bones If a tiny piece of a Spinosaurus skull is conclusive evidence to give a size estimate that claims to be accurate, than we can use most of a skull from a Tyrannosaurus. How do we know that skull isnt deformed as well? I mean, ALOT of people claim that Spinosaurus was 18 meters for fact because of that skull. We are finding all these "giant Tyrannosaur" specimens, and you mean to tell me that all of them are deformed? If a tiny piece of a Spinosaurus skull is conclusive evidence to give a size estimate that claims to be accurate, than we can use most of a skull from a Tyrannosaurus. How do we know that skull isnt deformed as well? I mean, ALOT of people claim that Spinosaurus was 18 meters for fact because of that skull. We are finding all these "giant Tyrannosaur" specimens, and you mean to tell me that all of them are deformed? I find that Tyrannosaurus is in the perfect position to bite the neck where it counts, the jugular. Its really quite simple, one bite from those jaws in that spot on Spinosaurus and its over. The only question is: could it get there? And the only reason it might not is because Spinosaurus has its own set of jaws, but they arent very wide. The gape isnt quite that large. And the fact that the teeth in that 5 foot mouth of Spinosaurus were meant for gripping, rather than tearing and/or crushing.
what? I never said I believe in an 18 meter spinosaurus. 16 meters as of now is the most likely max length. I said you must believe in an 18 meter spinosaurus if you believe in a 15 meter tyrannosaurus because both are examples of ineffective scaling of the bones. the reason why that specimen of tyrannosaurus is viewed as 15- 16 meters is the very same reason why spinosaurus was viewed as 18- 20 meters. which for both is ridiculous. and spinosaurus size estimate are made not just by a single piece of snout
okay, never had I once question this. was this just your inference? what you said are undeniable possibilities but its which possibility would happen the majority is what matters. spinosaurus is at an even better position to protect its jugular area due to its size and height advantage and intern, use its superior mass, weight, and strength against the tyrannosaur. spinosaurus jaws are indeed, not very wide, but are actually composed out of solid bone. spinosaurus even has a higher concentration of bone in it's overall skeleton (including the skull) then even the harder biting t.rex. being that is skull is longer, spinosaurus would of also had a wider gape and a hefty bite force of its own.( a 2 ton biteforce does qualify as a bone crusher. it's just not overly exemplified as seen as tyrannosaurus) and 9- 10 inch teeth, conical or not, are going to do damage. might I also add that tyrannosaurus is not adapted to tearing either. spinosaurus teeth are actually more adapted to gripping and piercing armored fish such as the large coelacanths it hunted |
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Aug 23, 2014 14:11:51 GMT
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus actually had a wide gape, perhaps wider than that of Tyrannosaurus rex's.
|
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Oct 10, 2014 17:19:49 GMT
It seems the size advantage they claimed Spinosaurus aegyptiacus to have is now likely non-existent. With the new papers, it seems the spinosaurid was about ~6-7 tons, which makes it pretty roughly around the same size as Tyrannosaurus rex. In this case, I fully support the tyrannosaurid.
|
|
