Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2013 12:26:18 GMT 5
Spinosaurus aegyptiacusSpinosaurus is one if the largest, if not the largest, animal ever on two legs. One of it's notable features is it's tall spines, the exact structure that they formed in life is unknown. The holotype was found in 1915, and destroyed in WW2. In 2005, a partial snout roughly a meter long was described.  Carcharodontosaurus saharicusA vary large carnosaur, Carcharodontosaurus is one of the largest terrestrial carnivores ever. It's name is derived from it's teeth, which resemble that of a shark. The holotype was destroyed in WW2, but a neotype has been found. 
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 30, 2013 13:44:35 GMT 5
I believe Spinosaurus is too much for Carcharodontosaurus to handle, for the same reasons why it would beat Tyrannosaurus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2013 16:17:12 GMT 5
I believe Spinosaurus is too much for Carcharodontosaurus to handle, for the same reasons why it would beat Tyrannosaurus. Well, Carcharodontosaurus is both larger and much more suited for attacking massive giants than Tyrannosaurus is. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 16:26:46 GMT 5
Spinosaurus, at all but the exageratedly low figures, is too massive for any yet discovered theropod to handle. Even at low (14-15m) lenght figures, it would still have a much bigger body and be much stronger than any other theropod.
It's bite is inferior, but it can make up for this by mere size, square-cube-law and its large forelimbs.
Carcharodontosaurus would have to be lucky to get in a fatal bite without being killed. I doubt it can outflank Spinosaurus the majority of the time, and if it attacks head on and tries to push and grapple its way to a place it can attack it will get overpowered.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 30, 2013 16:33:43 GMT 5
I believe Spinosaurus is too much for Carcharodontosaurus to handle, for the same reasons why it would beat Tyrannosaurus. Well, Carcharodontosaurus is both larger and much more suited for attacking massive giants than Tyrannosaurus is. We don't know if Carcharodontosaurus was larger. You said using Mapusaurus gives a size larger than that of Mapusaurus? What exactly do you get using Mapu? P.S. Both would have it very hard to reach the flanks of Spinosaurus, so I don't believe it's slicing bite would really help it. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 19:27:15 GMT 5
I had seen on CF a paper (I think it was) where the authors talked about both animals and at one time decribed Carcharodontosaurus stronger than the larger Spinosaurus. I'd like to found it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 19:33:54 GMT 5
I have yet to see a scientific paper describing animals are "stronger" or "less strong".
Besides, most of Carcharodontosaurus postcranium is either lost or too fragmentary to say much. Maybe the paper was talking about jaw power; in this regard Carcharodontosaurus is probably and unsurprisingly stronger. But there isn't even the slightest chance for an 8t Carcharodontosaurus to be overally stronger than a 12t+ Spinosaurus.
An interesting fossil is the spinous process described in planet dinosaur, which alledgedly bore bite marks. I have been trying to locate a description or at least a picture of it ever since, but I wasn't lucky. does anyone know more?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 19:42:33 GMT 5
The terms "stronger" can be applied as short comparison in a scientific paper, there's no problem at this. I don't know if it was about the bite force or the overall animal, their was no precision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2013 21:41:55 GMT 5
It was probably referring to either jaw strength or relative("pound for pound") strength.
It is very unlikely that Carcharodontosaurus saharicus would have had greater overall absolute strength than Spinosaurus aegyptiacus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 21:50:10 GMT 5
It was probably referring to either jaw strength or relative("pound for pound") strength. It is very unlikely that Carcharodontosaurus saharicus would have had greater overall absolute strength than Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. It again depends of the actual body mass of Spinosaurus. I was talking with Hartman about that yesterday and I think we'll have interesting thoughts in his post in the day... |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 22:09:18 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 22:24:02 GMT 5
Just wait Hartman post instead of make any conclusion about his thoughts. Don't forget that Spino is presumed to have bee slimmer and narrower.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 22:31:59 GMT 5
Since when is Spinosaurus presumed to have been slimmer and narrower? Is there any source for that claim, even at lenght parity?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 22:40:02 GMT 5
Cau's article, and what Hartman insinuated me yesterday. But I prefer to wait the article.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 22:46:28 GMT 5
What article do you mean?
|
|
