|
|
Post by Runic on Oct 13, 2013 23:14:46 GMT 5
He didn't say allosaurid, he said "allosaurs" and that could refer to allosauroid. He said allosauroid near the beginning of his post. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 13, 2013 23:18:54 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Oct 14, 2013 0:32:15 GMT 5
Ohh he shoulda just said the whole term. I confused allosauroid with allosaurid. |
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193 
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Nov 7, 2013 0:49:37 GMT 5
If Spinosaurus MSNM V4047 was between 11-14 tonnes, while CarcharodontosaurusSGM-Din 1 weighed around 8 tonnes, Spinosaurus may win more often than not due size and power. But i don't take as fact because of several reasons. I couldn't say Spinosaurus is too big, due lack of solid remains which can confirmed that this animal is that big. To be fair i should the same about Carcharodontosaurus neotype though, even though range of size estimates seems to be narrower.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 7, 2013 23:53:38 GMT 5
Yes the range of estimation in C. saharicus, for several reasons; SGM DIN 1 as a specimen and Carcharodontosaurus saharicus as a species is more complete than MNSN v4047, Carcharodontosaurs as a clade are known from more complete and numerous remains, and they have a less unusual body plan for a large-bodied theropod. They still range from 12 to 14m, so that's not exactly a narrow range, but a difference of nearly 60% in volumetric terms.
The same difference between the highest and lowest feasible estimates for Spinosaurus aegyptiacus on the other hand is more than two-fold, however we can always discuss which are the more likely. In any case, Spinosaurus has a size advantage, this is apparent from the remains and the estimated size ranges; a 14m Spinosaurus would be a considerably bulkier (short-tailed) animal than a 14m Carcharodontosaurus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 8, 2013 8:27:27 GMT 5
^ I would only favor the spinosaurus if it had a size advantage over its opponent however. The carcharodontosaurus was much better adapted for killing larger animals. Of course, I wouldn't know why any of you would favor a smaller spinosaurus anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 8, 2013 19:42:25 GMT 5
If it was bulkier, it still would have the size advantage (because weight matters more here than length).
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 8, 2013 22:03:03 GMT 5
Its arms and physical strenght would be superior, even tough it likely wouldn't be as agile and obviously it would have a less potent bite.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 9, 2013 0:34:01 GMT 5
If it was bulkier, it still would have the size advantage (because weight matters more here than length). At length parity, I would still favor the allosaur due to it being the faster and more agile of the two animals. Spinosaurus was bulkier, but at similar sizes carcharodontosaurus would be the deadlier of the two. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 9, 2013 21:57:24 GMT 5
That could play a somewhat important role since it leaves Spinosaurus' sides more vulnerable to attack, I agree. However I'm not sure whether at lenght parity the differences would be so great. The bite would be the more important factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 9, 2013 21:57:47 GMT 5
But lenght parity is highly unlikely.
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Nov 9, 2013 22:18:44 GMT 5
But lenght parity is highly unlikely. Maybe unlikely, but not so high. Also, the lenght isn't a important factor, weight is. And we have a too low number of Spinosaurus materials for determinated it's true size. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Nov 9, 2013 22:32:39 GMT 5
I honestly doubt the weight advantage would play as big of a role as most suspect here. While it may be true carnivores rarely ever kill carnivores significantly bigger than them, that only holds truth if the bigger carnivore is very formidable as well. My point is I saw a comparison between T-Rex (I know wtf the proper way to say T.rex is btw) and Spinosaurus and it depicts the latter as basically the same height. Now since that shows a charcharadontosaurus should have no trouble attacking the face or throat of spino with those shark teeth when it rears up as some of you say, I seriously don't see the mismatch status of this scenario anymore. It doesn't matter how big you are if a Carnosaur bites you in the face or throat it's game over. And the forearm usage is being frankly exaggerated. I seriously doubt spinosaurs had the strength or flexibility required for manipulation in its arms to grapple anything larger than a 2 tonne fish. Let alone the ability needed to drag around a multi ton carnosaur without losing its own balance.
It's like you trying to grab onto a large dogs face and keeping it from shaking out of your grip.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 9, 2013 23:12:35 GMT 5
First of all, most of those comparison you see online display nothing but a whimpy, extremely low-slung and skinny Spinosaurus and a bulky, and excessively tall large T. rex. Have a look at a rigorous comparison like Hartman's?It's obvious from the comparison with T. rex and Giganotosaurus (useful albeit not perfect analogies in terms of size and proportions) the size would be a key advantage. Yes, of course its possible to overcome it with a well placed bite, but its great size, power and the long snout and arms that are in the way would make that very difficult in a frontal assault, and getting to its sides would be difficult as well, because it suffices for Spinosaurus to simply topple over its opponent to decide the fight. We are talking about an animal with arms in excess of 2m long (likely closer to 3 actually), with claws in excess of 40cm. I've posted pictures? of and described how robust and well muscled they must have been. Once something was caught on such claws, freeing itself from them would be much easier said than done, even for an 8-9t theropod, if the animal the arms belonged to was a 12-15t behemoth whose body is as the same time still pushing or pulling at it, with jaws and claws designed for holding big, struggling prey. Check out the condition in B. walkeri→: the forelimb is extremely robust, even compared to the already massively constructed elements in carnosaurs and large tyrannosaurs, and on top of that much larger than either of those taxa. Even T. rex is estimated to have been capable of excerting and withstanding very high forces in the hundreds of kilograms. Note this, regarding Acrocanthosaurus→: "Struggling prey would have impaled itself further upon the permanently and strongly flexed first ungual." The same likely applies to spinosaurs, since they have similar claw shapes. Carcharodontosaurus may too have had fearsome arms, like Acrocanthosaurus, but not comparable to this, and using them would be much easier for Spinosaurus. Also, note that analyses on movement ranges of theropod forelimbs, that found their anterior range to be quite limited, have only included ceratosaurs and avetheropods, no megalosauroids, so we don't actually know how far Spinosaurus could reach out. These are not irrelevant parts of Spinosaurus arsenal of weapons, and should not be underestimated. |
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Nov 9, 2013 23:19:50 GMT 5
Spinosaurus bulk is just speculation. I think most people use Suchomimus as main refence to reconstruct body of Spinosaurus. Suchomimus doesn't seem to have an skinny body. Look at this.  Even some estimates state over 5 tonnes. BTW I suspect some people said Spinosaurus must be bulkier, however it is pure made-up = based on nothing.
|
|
