#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Jan 19, 2014 16:27:22 GMT
I never said that Baryonyx would be a tougher opponent at parity, I said they would be similar (which you are disproving). And in that case you are also defending Spinosaurus, because I am using Emily Rayfield's studies to 'defend' Baryonyx, while you are using Scott Hartman's skeletals to 'defend' Spinosaurus. Also I cannot see any major differences on the overall skeletal structures of Spinosaurus and Baryonyx apart from their skulls. Finally Baryonyx's bite would still be useful, it wouldn't be completely useless. Baryonyx may of even used a different method of biting, it did have large stress areas on its skull after all. How so? Baryonyx would actually have a stronger bite force than Spinosaurus at parity, so I don't see how it is 'easier'. You are denying it that Baryonyx would be easier to kill than Spinosaurus at parity, which is a fact and I have already explained. Emily Rayfield's study sounds pretty flawled, I have already debunked it with the other post, and I would suggest reading it again. And I would suggest looking at them very closely and carefully instead of doing quick looks over the skeletal. Stop ignoring my point, I am not saying Baryonyx would not have a combat-effective bite, but it is not as effective as Spinosaurus' bite. Spinosaurus had superior combat dentition and a stronger biteforce which I have already proven. I am "defending" Spinosaurus with evidence, instead of defending Baryonyx with a study that has been debunked and not shown at any point. Scott Hartman's skeletals are very accurate, and I did show my sources which are those skeletals, instead of backing an argument up with no sources. I am sure you have a source, but you did not show it, and it seems flawled. Spinosaurus had a better dentition for the combat department, instead of much smaller teeth like those of Baryonyx, which indicated a more proper slicing dentition rather than crushing. I have already told you that RaptorX should have the source to Emily Rayfield's studies. I personally have never read the studies before, but RaptorX has stated what the study shows. Her studies may be flawed, but I was just using them as a possibility. And how the hell do you know if the study is debunked or not lol |
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Jan 19, 2014 16:28:38 GMT
In fact talk to RaptorX about the studies on skype.
|
|
#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 Jan 19, 2014 16:38:38 GMT
How so? You are denying it that Baryonyx would be easier to kill than Spinosaurus at parity, which is a fact and I have already explained. Emily Rayfield's study sounds pretty flawled, I have already debunked it with the other post, and I would suggest reading it again. And I would suggest looking at them very closely and carefully instead of doing quick looks over the skeletal. Stop ignoring my point, I am not saying Baryonyx would not have a combat-effective bite, but it is not as effective as Spinosaurus' bite. Spinosaurus had superior combat dentition and a stronger biteforce which I have already proven. I am "defending" Spinosaurus with evidence, instead of defending Baryonyx with a study that has been debunked and not shown at any point. Scott Hartman's skeletals are very accurate, and I did show my sources which are those skeletals, instead of backing an argument up with no sources. I am sure you have a source, but you did not show it, and it seems flawled. Spinosaurus had a better dentition for the combat department, instead of much smaller teeth like those of Baryonyx, which indicated a more proper slicing dentition rather than crushing. I have already told you that RaptorX should have the source to Emily Rayfield's studies. I personally have never read the studies before, but RaptorX has stated what the study shows. Her studies may be flawed, but I was just using them as a possibility. And how the hell do you know if the study is debunked or not lol Because I have shown evidence that is is flawed, I debunked it myself. People say that an ant would lift 50 times its own weight if it was as tall as a man, but it wouldn't due to the effects of the square cube law on animals and the fact that muscle thickness is what matters. An ant as tall as a man would be still very slender, and thanks to the square cube law's effects it wouldn't be so strong. Spinosaurus has its more robust skull with more muscle attachment areas, and since muscle thickness matters then Spinosaurus has its jaw shutting power advantage over Baryonyx. I am not saying it was infinitely superior, but it had an advantage, and that's what matters here since I am trying to prove that Baryonyx has a weaker bite. There is no apparent reason why Baryonyx would have a stronger bite than an animal with a more robust skull. If you have not read them at all, why the hell are you considering them as a possibility? You can't interprete anything without reading or hearing it. |
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Jan 19, 2014 16:57:28 GMT
I have already told you that RaptorX should have the source to Emily Rayfield's studies. I personally have never read the studies before, but RaptorX has stated what the study shows. Her studies may be flawed, but I was just using them as a possibility. And how the hell do you know if the study is debunked or not lol Because I have shown evidence that is is flawed, I debunked it myself. People say that an ant would lift 50 times its own weight if it was as tall as a man, but it wouldn't due to the effects of the square cube law on animals and the fact that muscle thickness is what matters. An ant as tall as a man would be still very slender, and thanks to the square cube law's effects it wouldn't be so strong. Spinosaurus has its more robust skull with more muscle attachment areas, and since muscle thickness matters then Spinosaurus has its jaw shutting power advantage over Baryonyx. I am not saying it was infinitely superior, but it had an advantage, and that's what matters here since I am trying to prove that Baryonyx has a weaker bite. There is no apparent reason why Baryonyx would have a stronger bite than an animal with a more robust skull. If you have not read them at all, why the hell are you considering them as a possibility? You can't interprete anything without reading or hearing it. Why are you trying to disprove the study using the square cube law? We don't even know if she mentions that in her studies. Also her studies don't directly confirm 'Spinosaurines had weaker bite forces than Baryonichines at parity', but from what RaptorX has stated about the studies it sort of implies that. I was probably being too definite about Baryonyx having a stronger bite force than Spinosaurus at parity before. Now I think about it Spinosaurus would very likely have a stronger bite force than Baryonyx at parity.
Spinosaurus definitely did have a stronger bite force than Baryonyx at real sizes.
Edit: what the flying fuck? Proboards constantly changes the font of the text when I post...
|
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Jan 19, 2014 16:58:34 GMT
And I usually wait for studies to be officially debunked
|
|
#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 Jan 19, 2014 17:13:49 GMT
Because I have shown evidence that is is flawed, I debunked it myself. People say that an ant would lift 50 times its own weight if it was as tall as a man, but it wouldn't due to the effects of the square cube law on animals and the fact that muscle thickness is what matters. An ant as tall as a man would be still very slender, and thanks to the square cube law's effects it wouldn't be so strong. Spinosaurus has its more robust skull with more muscle attachment areas, and since muscle thickness matters then Spinosaurus has its jaw shutting power advantage over Baryonyx. I am not saying it was infinitely superior, but it had an advantage, and that's what matters here since I am trying to prove that Baryonyx has a weaker bite. There is no apparent reason why Baryonyx would have a stronger bite than an animal with a more robust skull. If you have not read them at all, why the hell are you considering them as a possibility? You can't interprete anything without reading or hearing it. Why are you trying to disprove the study using the square cube law? We don't even know if she mentions that in her studies. Also her studies don't directly confirm 'Spinosaurines had weaker bite forces than Baryonichines at parity', but from what RaptorX has stated about the studies it sort of implies that. I was probably being too definite about Baryonyx having a stronger bite force than Spinosaurus at parity before. Now I think about it Spinosaurus would very likely have a stronger bite force than Baryonyx at parity.
Spinosaurus definitely did have a stronger bite force than Baryonyx at real sizes.
Edit: what the flying fuck? Proboards constantly changes the font of the text when I post...Square cube law and muscle thickness... I usually see them in single debates on Carnivora. If she doesn't even mention that in her studies, then you are completely making it up, without the study really backing that up at all. If the study does not talk about Baryonychines and Spinosaurines at parity, don't even use that base anymore. And I have no idea... |
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Jan 19, 2014 18:05:10 GMT
Why are you trying to disprove the study using the square cube law? We don't even know if she mentions that in her studies. Also her studies don't directly confirm 'Spinosaurines had weaker bite forces than Baryonichines at parity', but from what RaptorX has stated about the studies it sort of implies that. I was probably being too definite about Baryonyx having a stronger bite force than Spinosaurus at parity before. Now I think about it Spinosaurus would very likely have a stronger bite force than Baryonyx at parity.
Spinosaurus definitely did have a stronger bite force than Baryonyx at real sizes.
Edit: what the flying fuck? Proboards constantly changes the font of the text when I post...Square cube law and muscle thickness... I usually see them in single debates on Carnivora. If she doesn't even mention that in her studies, then you are completely making it up, without the study really backing that up at all. If the study does not talk about Baryonychines and Spinosaurines at parity, don't even use that base anymore. And I have no idea... Well according to RaptorX the studies stated that Baryonichines had bite forces comparable to other theropods of the same size range. RaptorX then said that Spinosaurines likely had weak bite forces for their sizes. (Not 100% word for word quoted from what he said, but still pretty much what he said) So my original assumption was really based on what RaptorX and Emily Rayfield said. I now agree with you on Baryonyx very likely having a weaker bite force than Spinosaurus at parity, so you should change the 'then you are completely making it up' to the past tense alternative. |
|
#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 Jan 19, 2014 18:14:02 GMT
Square cube law and muscle thickness... I usually see them in single debates on Carnivora. If she doesn't even mention that in her studies, then you are completely making it up, without the study really backing that up at all. If the study does not talk about Baryonychines and Spinosaurines at parity, don't even use that base anymore. And I have no idea... Well according to RaptorX the studies stated that Baryonichines had bite forces comparable to other theropods of the same size range. RaptorX then said that Spinosaurines likely had weak bite forces for their sizes. (Not 100% word for word quoted from what he said, but still pretty much what he said) So my original assumption was really based on what RaptorX and Emily Rayfield said. I now agree with you on Baryonyx very likely having a weaker bite force than Spinosaurus at parity, so you should change the 'then you are completely making it up' to the past tense alternative. Would you mind quoting him? It was most likely a speculation, it is much more like the other way around. |
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Jan 19, 2014 18:21:48 GMT
Well according to RaptorX the studies stated that Baryonichines had bite forces comparable to other theropods of the same size range. RaptorX then said that Spinosaurines likely had weak bite forces for their sizes. (Not 100% word for word quoted from what he said, but still pretty much what he said) So my original assumption was really based on what RaptorX and Emily Rayfield said. I now agree with you on Baryonyx very likely having a weaker bite force than Spinosaurus at parity, so you should change the 'then you are completely making it up' to the past tense alternative. Would you mind quoting him? It was most likely a speculation, it is much more like the other way around. Page 3 on 'Carcharodontosaurus saharicus VS Spinosaurus aegyptiacus' RaptorX states: I'd say that spinosaurinae have a weak bite force for their size, but according to Emily Rayfield's research baryonychinae have bite forces comparable to other theropods in their size range. |
|
#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 Jan 19, 2014 18:27:20 GMT
Would you mind quoting him? It was most likely a speculation, it is much more like the other way around. Page 3 on 'Carcharodontosaurus saharicus VS Spinosaurus aegyptiacus' RaptorX states: I'd say that spinosaurinae have a weak bite force for their size, but according to Emily Rayfield's research baryonychinae have bite forces comparable to other theropods in their size range. He was taking her study into consideration, the study by one was already put in a dubious state. |
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Jan 25, 2014 18:55:20 GMT
I really feel like an idiot for not presenting you with the study before, and I just found it, so here it is: 'Interestingly, the rostral shape of Spinosaurus is less resistant to dorsoventral bending than an alligator of similar size, and performs worse than all crocodilians in mediolateral bending, including tubular gharial morphotypes. The trends in second moment and torsional resistance are similar along the rostrum, yet B. walkeri rostra are more robust.' 'It appears that the spinosaur theropod dinosaurs studied here achieved superiority in resistance to bending and torsion over representative crocodilians by nature of their large size. When size is corrected for, Spinosaurus performs relatively poorly compared to the other taxa. In comparison, B. walkeri performs surprisingly well, its oreinirostral morphology conferring greater resistance to dorsoventral bending and torsion than Spinosaurus and the gharial, to which B. walkeri has been compared in the past.' research-information.bristol.ac.uk/files/9614887/Cuff_Rayfield_2013_spinosaur_and_croc_jaws.pdfLook at page 9 for the quotes. |
|
#00be0f
10
0
1
140
thesporerex
"May the flames guide thee"
2,872
October 2013
thesporerex
Example 4
|
Post by thesporerex on Jan 26, 2014 10:40:34 GMT
This is one of the first carnivora like debates lol
|
|
#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 Jan 26, 2014 14:21:31 GMT
Yeah I am glad people are not simply saying "size advantage", I guess those fictional parities are pretty good when you want to render a good debate.
|
|
#00be0f
10
0
1
140
thesporerex
"May the flames guide thee"
2,872
October 2013
thesporerex
Example 4
|
Post by thesporerex on Jan 26, 2014 15:01:57 GMT
Yeah I am glad people are not simply saying "size advantage", I guess those fictional parities are pretty good when you want to render a good debate. ye they are pretty good |
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 21, 2014 8:44:22 GMT
"Despite the differences in the size and morphology of the tested regions between the Spinosaurus (estimate skull length 117.6 cm; longer, more gracile and a small terminal rosette relative to length) and B. walkeri rostra (97.1 cm estimated length; therefore shorter, relatively more robust with a larger terminal rosette), both spinosaur rostra perform in a similar manner, and due to their large size absolutely outperform all crocodilian taxa. This points to spinosaurid feeding methods potentially being very similar, at least between these two species. When size is accounted for, the larger spinosaur, Spinosaurus, performs worse than B. walkeri." www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0065295Apparently Baryonyx has a more robust skull than Spinosaurus in relation to its body size, so I wouldn't be so sure that Spinosaurus has a stronger bite force at size parity. |
|
