Spinosaurus aegyptiacus vs Carcharodontosaurus saharicus

[theropod]

Suchomimus itself is quite impressive, both in terms of its size and its built. It's nowhere near as skinny as some haters show Spinosaurus in their scalecharts, and if anything the latter would be bulkier due to its ridge.

[creature386]

theropod,
why are they more likely 3 m long?

Dakotaraptor,
I wouldn't call it baseless, it's normal for larger animals to be bulkier (otherwise they would have problems with the square-cube law). OK, maybe it doesn't have to be bulkier, but it's likely.

[Runic]

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?

The comp was posted on this forum by wiffle. Why are you automatically assuming I found it somewhere else?

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.

I never said it was irrelevant.

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.

Spinosaurus snout is widely regarded as pathetic for combatting multi ton animals like carnosaurs, as for the arms. As I said before, you can have long arms yet still lack the necessary components to adequately grapple animals not that much lighter than you. Example a Human trying to grapple a dog of similar size.

We are talking about an animal with arms in excess of 2m long (likely closer to 3 actually),

Being used against a animal that weighs multiple tons. The spinosaurus arms don't even weigh in at a ton. Just because they are big by theropod standards does not make them efficient grappling weapons.

with claws in excess of 40cm. I've posted pictures? of and described how robust and well muscled they must have been.

Are you implying they can hold onto a thrashing theropods head?

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.

Not really otherwise we would need some proof of heavy resisting stresses being put on spinosaurus arms. A pair of arms weighing less than a ton is gonna control a multi ton theropod?

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.

Which is pathetic when you compare how light that is coming from a theropod well over 6 tons.

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.

And monitor lizards have similar claws to eagles. Does that mean they can do the same thing eagles can?

Carcharodontosaurus may too have had fearsome arms, 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.

Never said they were irrelevant, just that they were largely exaggerated.

[theropod]

creature386: Typically large, functional theropod (exception tyrannosaurinae) manus, antebrachiae and humeri are all roughly equal in lenght (or otherwise the humerus is roughly a third of the total forelimb lenght). That also seems to hold true for Suchomimus, tough I admit I'm too lazy to measure the exact ratios right now. From there on I just took the 90cm from Fragillimus335's scale?, which makes the total lenght closer to 3m.

[theropod]

The comp was posted on this forum by wiffle. Why are you automatically assuming I found it somewhere else?

because you wrote the following:
"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."

I thus assumed you were talking about a comparison you saw somewhere (something the like of those two posted further down), not a comparison known from this forum, and a comparison that portrays them as the same height, not one were it is apparent Spinosaurus is taller.

Now, the comparison wiffle posted (and which I believe was actually put together by Spinodontosaurus) doesn't fulfill these criteria:

I never said it was irrelevant.

Good, then I must have got you wrong. and i wasn't saying this was a mismatch, just that Spinosaurus had the advantage, possible a decided advantage.

Spinosaurus snout is widely regarded as pathetic for combatting multi ton animals like carnosaurs

And carnosaurs are widely regarded as whimps with weak, ineffective bites and Spinosaurus is widely regarded as having compared to T. rex and Giganotosaurus like this:


or this

And yes, I'm aware the last one is from a, to say the least, very reliable source (the former however is from someone who going by those drawings either has no clue of comparative theropod anatomy, or doesn't want to show it, but Hartman's should still be preferred considering the, well, "peculiarities" in this one.

The first one is widely regarded and parroted to be an accurate comparison, despite:
-pronated arms in G. and T.
-T. the tallest of the three while it should be the lowest and S. the lowest while it should be tallest
-G.'s and S.' calves thinner and G.'s metatarsals longer than T. rex'
-G. and S. terribly emaciated, especially the tails, heads and S.' neck
-G.'s neck lacks a proper S-curve
-forelimbs seem to lack claws

The point is, "widely known" only brings us this far.

Spinosaurus' jaws, imo, wouldn't have been a very effective weapon for killing large (in this context that's 5t+) animals. That does not mean it would not be effective as a grappling or defensive tool, and if it only is to be in the way of somethin trying to grab the throat. I could imagine that would be quite effective considering it has a very long, slender but quite massively constructed snout with long puncturing teeth.

, as for the arms. As I said before, you can have long arms yet still lack the necessary components to adequately grapple animals not that much lighter than you. Example a Human trying to grapple a dog of similar size.

Yes, but humans are not 80% larger in overall dimensions than a close relative that has 30cm claws, and surely they have no comparable arm strenght or fighting capabilities. I may add that the robusticity of Baryonyx forelimbs has been especially noted and illustrated in its description: its ulna I would nearly have mistaken for a humerus (because it is strikingly similar to that of T. rex), and it has a downright huge deltopectoral crest.
That being said I wouldn't be sure at all whether a calm, determined human, or perhaps a neandertal, wouldn't be able to effectively grapple a large canid.

Being used against a animal that weighs multiple tons. The spinosaurus arms don't even weigh in at a ton. Just because they are big by theropod standards does not make them efficient grappling weapons.

Come along with a good purpose for the heavily clawed, highly robust arms of most macrophagous theropods then, and a reason why those of Spinosaurs are still superior in these points.

Are you implying they can hold onto a thrashing theropods head?

Possibly.

Not really otherwise we would need some proof of heavy resisting stresses being put on spinosaurus arms.

Isn't their built, obviously built to resist strong forces, already enough?

A pair of arms weighing less than a ton is gonna control a multi ton theropod?

A head weighing less than a ton is gonna control a multi-ton Triceratops (on top of that a much more stable opponent, and mounted on an animal whose overall size will make it much more prone to being overpowered or toppled)?

The theropod it is controlling too has to be careful not to fall. And for Spinosaurus it is enough to simply use its arms as a sort of buffer for its immense bulk.

Which is pathetic when you compare how light that is coming from a theropod well over 6 tons.

You can repeat how pathetic you find that relative to the animal's size as long as you want. Fact is, they were very strong.

And monitor lizards have similar claws to eagles. Does that mean they can do the same thing eagles can?

Fly?

Never said they were irrelevant, just that they were largely exaggerated.

Could you give me an example? Quite often I just see them being underrated.

I don't know how you envision Spinosaurus grappling. Surely, you cannot compare the function of theropod forelimbs to those of a cat or bear, or the hindlimbs of a raptor. But they are still formidable tools, especially in combination with the overally huge bulk.


Good, I see finally there's some serious debate going on here. As I noted before, this fight is arguably the most titanic battle between any known terrestrial carnivores, and there is even evidence (even tough as of yet quite anecdotal) that it occurred. It definitely deserves some attention as compared to fights such as T. rex vs Spinosaurus that never actually happened.

[Dakotaraptor]

Nov 9, 2013 23:34:10 GMT 5 creature386 said:

theropod,
why are they more likely 3 m long?

Dakotaraptor,
I wouldn't call it baseless, it's normal for larger animals to be bulkier (otherwise they would have problems with the square-cube law). OK, maybe it doesn't have to be bulkier, but it's likely.

In theory yes, but not always in practice. I couldn't ruled that Spinosaurus might be slightly bulkier, but since this species is known from really fragmentary remains, it's better to make reconstruction based on relatives rather making e.g bipedal whale or anorectic one. 
theropod
Ps. I didn't, i don't and i won't trust any Fragilimus335's statement. No one is time-traveler. But he is too optimistic towards liberal estimates, if not overliberal. Even though he claims about himself that he is conservative but i don't want to have poisoned brain by him. Sorry that i am harsh against him, but i have never liked him. Although hate is too strong word. 

[theropod]

What are you referring to with the ps? Fragillimus seems to have just linearly scaled the humerus of Baryonyx walkeri (now, of course I hope you don't think the same about me, otherwise, just check it yourself).

Spinosaurus would likely have been bulkier, because the known remains indicate an epaxial structure somewhat to greatly deepening the body. I'd prefer to take the conservative route tough, and simply assume the same proportions (which still gets the point across; Spinosaurus was damn big).

Of course, that only applies to assumed axial proportions similar to Cristatusaurus. If it had a shorter tail like some assume, it would of course be pretty much the same weight as the longer version with the longer tail, hence automatically a bulkier animal.

[Runic]

because you wrote the following:
"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."

I thus assumed you were talking about a comparison you saw somewhere, not a comparison known from this forum, and a comparison that portrays them as the same height.

Now, the comparison wiffle posted (and which I believe was actually put together by Spinodontosaurus) doesn't fulfill these criteria:

Ok.

And carnosaurs are widely regarded as whimps with weak, ineffective bites and Spinosaurus is widely regarded as having compared to T. rex and Giganotosaurus like this:

The point still remains a carnosaurs bite is vastly more effective than a spinosaurs

The point is, "widely known" only brings us this far

I doubt this would be any different had I stated it "The truth is spinosaurus has a pathetic bite for combatting multi ton theropods" right?

Yes, but humans are not 80% larger in overall dimensions than a close relative that has 30cm claws

And 80 percent of spinosaurus body is not arms and claws. Not even a 4th of it is.

and surely they have no comparable arm strenght or fighting capabilities

Only because one animal is extremely larger. At equal weights if that were possible a human has more flexible and combat friendly arms as well as we are able to better apply I strength for manipulation.

its ulna I would nearly have mistaken for a humerus (because it is strikingly similar to that of T. rex), and it has a downright huge deltopectoral crest.

And?

That being said I wouldn't be sure at all whether a calm, determined human, or perhaps a neandertal, wouldn't be able to effectively grapple a large canid.

Irrelevant to my point. I'm stopping that comp before this becomes human vs wolf k?

Come along with a good purpose for the heavily clawed, highly robust arms of most macrophagous theropods then, and a reason why those of Spinosaurs are still superior in these points.

They are used to fish out fish from the lake when hunting. Did you suddenly forget spinosaurus was mainly a fish eater? And what heavily clawed limbs of theropods? The only ones that impress me are dromaeosaurs and allosaurs such as allosaurus. Nothing else strikes any impression.

Isn't their built, obviously built to resist strong forces, already enough?

Yep from fish.

A head weighing less than a ton is gonna control a multi-ton Triceratops (on top of that a much more stable opponent, and mounted on an animal whose overall size will make it much more prone to being overpowered or toppled)?

Yep just look at wolves today. They ragdoll musk ox

You can repeat how pathetic you find that relative to the animal's size as long as you want. Fact is, they were very strong.

From a humans perspective, not a multi ton carnosaur

Fly?

I'm gonna assume that was a funny joke instead of ignorance.

Could you give me an example? Quite often I just see them being underrated.

What's the point of me giving you an example? It's not like it will change anything if I do.

I don't know how you envision Spinosaurus grappling. Surely, you cannot compare the function of theropod forelimbs to those of a cat or bear, or the hindlimbs of a raptor. But they are still formidable tools, especially in combination with the overally huge bulk.

Grappling requires strength and specific adaptations along with flexibility. Spinosaurus may have had the claws to make up for lack of flexibility like cats do today to compensate but that still doesn't cover the fact the arms were too small to effectively control a carnosaur flailing literally right under your neck.

Good, I see finally there's some serious debate going on here. As I noted before, this fight is arguably the most titanic battle between any known terrestrial carnivores, and there is even evidence (even tough as of yet quite anecdotal). It definitely deserves some attention as compared to fights such as T. rex vs Spinosaurus that never actually happened.

I agree completely. I'll try not to mess with you this time ok

[creature386]

Nov 10, 2013 0:23:25 GMT 5 Dakotaraptor said:

Nov 9, 2013 23:34:10 GMT 5 creature386 said:

theropod,
why are they more likely 3 m long?

Dakotaraptor,
I wouldn't call it baseless, it's normal for larger animals to be bulkier (otherwise they would have problems with the square-cube law). OK, maybe it doesn't have to be bulkier, but it's likely.

In theory yes, but not always in practice. I couldn't ruled that Spinosaurus might be slightly bulkier, but since this species is known from really fragmentary remains, it's better to make reconstruction based on relatives rather making e.g bipedal whale or anorectic one.

I already acknowledged that it doesn't have to be bulkier (see my last sentence). It's maybe depends on the opinion, whether you make it look like it's relatives or whether you make it a bit bulkier, I can live with both.

[Fragillimus335]

Nov 10, 2013 0:23:25 GMT 5 Dakotaraptor said:

Nov 9, 2013 23:34:10 GMT 5 creature386 said:

theropod,
why are they more likely 3 m long?

Dakotaraptor,
I wouldn't call it baseless, it's normal for larger animals to be bulkier (otherwise they would have problems with the square-cube law). OK, maybe it doesn't have to be bulkier, but it's likely.

In theory yes, but not always in practice. I couldn't ruled that Spinosaurus might be slightly bulkier, but since this species is known from really fragmentary remains, it's better to make reconstruction based on relatives rather making e.g bipedal whale or anorectic one. 
theropod
Ps. I didn't, i don't and i won't trust any Fragilimus335's statement. No one is time-traveler. But he is too optimistic towards liberal estimates, if not overliberal. Even though he claims about himself that he is conservative but i don't want to have poisoned brain by him. Sorry that i am harsh against him, but i have never liked him. Although hate is too strong word. 

Yikes, sorry about posting info you don't like. I didn't scale ANYTHING up. There was an 80 cm humerus found, and that's pretty big. Someone else made the scale.

[theropod]

The point still remains a carnosaurs bite is vastly more effective than a spinosaurs

As a means of dealing damage to a large animal, yes, certainly. That doesn't mean spinosaurus bite doesn't fulfill its purpose

I doubt this would be any different had I stated it "The truth is spinosaurus has a pathetic bite for combatting multi ton theropods" right?

It didn't. It had a bite quite unsuited for killing large animals, but with another theropod ~50% smaller than itself, it doesn't rely on a killing bite.

And 80 percent of spinosaurus body is not arms and claws. Not even a 4th of it is.

And what is that supposed to mean? Nothing!

Only because one animal is extremely larger. At equal weights if that were possible a human has more flexible and combat friendly arms as well as we are able to better apply I strength for manipulation.

How exactly do you know that?

And?

Ergo, it had freakin' massive arms and great strenght, that would be an important factor!

Irrelevant to my point.

Even highly relevant, because I'm sure that unlike a normal human facing a large canid, Spinosaurus wouldn't be too frightened to effectively use its weapons when facing an opponent.

They are used to fish out fish from the lake when hunting.

That's what its jaws were for.

Did you suddenly forget spinosaurus was mainly a fish eater?And what heavily clawed limbs of theropods? The only ones that impress me are dromaeosaurs and allosaurs such as allosaurus. Nothing else strikes any impression.

Most non-avian tetanurans (that includes Megalosauroids, Carnosaurs, and the majority of Coelurosaurs) have very well-developed claws on their forelimbs.

Yep from fish.

Where's the relevance of the origin of the force? Whether it was a Mawsonia an Aegyptosaurus, or another large theropod it was still strong.

Yep just look at wolves today. They ragdoll musk ox

Well, that pretty much answers your question, doesn't it?
A structure isn't automatically weak and unable to perform some task just because it is relatively small.

From a humans perspective, not a multi ton carnosaur

Even from the perspective of a multi ton carnosaur they are no joke like you imply, owing to their very strong built.

I'm gonna assume that was a funny joke instead of ignorance.

Actually not even answer-worthy, but I'll still try

Spinosaur forelimbs have a similar pattern (tridactyl manus, transverse plane of movement, comparable proportions), not just similar claws. Their overall body plan (while quite unusual in some other regards), also permits similar use of the arms.
I don't suppose I have to analyse the anatomical differences between Varanid and Falconiform talons to you.

What's the point of me giving you an example? It's not like it will change anything if I do.

It would help me understand what exactly you are referring to, and what exactly you are trying to argue.

Grappling requires strength and specific adaptations along with flexibility. Spinosaurus may have had the claws to make up for lack of flexibility like cats do today to compensate but that still doesn't cover the fact the arms were too small to effectively control a carnosaur flailing literally right under your neck.

Again, we are talking about 2-3m long ones, that's about the lenght of an average elephant forelimb, not just a more robust human arm mounted on a giant animal (that's a T. rex arm you are having in mind)!

The size is absolutely sufficient, so is the strenght. All it has to do is get a hold of the head or neck and it will have sufficient control over that part, sufficient to either maneuver relative to the impaled opponent or topple it over using its mass.

It's not as easy as "the total strenght of all of animal A's body combined is greater than the strenght in the part animal B is holding it with, ergo it can easily break free". It isn't that easy with other animals grappling either, not with wolves, not with raptors, not with cats or bears, no matter what body parts are used. How much it can apply is limited by their relative positions, the reagion that is caught and the morphology of the structure that has done so.

[Godzillasaurus]

I was actually planning on replying to all of those people that theropod (the user) replied to, but he ninja'd me and stated everything that I was going to say. Oh well, maybe next time!

[Runic]

Can't reply like I wanted. Stuck with mobiles atm :/

[Dakotaraptor]

Based on published estimates for Suchomimus holotype (11 m, 560 mm humerus)

800/560= ~1.43

NMC 41851 would be around ~15.7 m. So it may be bigger than holotype (IPHG 1912 VIII 19) and comparable in size to MSNM V4047.

[theropod]

Indeed. If that's the case, arm lenght would be roughly two and a half metres.