|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 3, 2014 20:53:21 GMT 5
There’s a difference between "aquatic" and "marine", the former does not imply the latter. Of course "aquatic" also does not necessarily imply "semi-aquatic", but it does include its meaning.
It may be custom among zoologists to refer to the taxa in question as semi-aquatic to clarify it, but aquatic, meaning "living in or near water" is perfectly accurate. Now, had he written marine that would obviously be wrong, but like this it’s correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 3, 2014 21:03:08 GMT 5
Then the whole talk was even more pointless…
|
|
|
|
Post by 0ldgrizz on Dec 3, 2014 21:31:49 GMT 5
aquatic like a crocodile = "like a crodile."
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 3, 2014 22:48:42 GMT 5
Well then it was just a misunderstanding among all of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Dec 28, 2014 7:32:42 GMT 5
i give this to carchy more often then not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 29, 2014 8:00:43 GMT 5
I used to vote for spinosaurus, but not anymore. Especially since it has been fundamentally downsized (to the point of being potentially SMALLER than genera like tyrannosaurus and carcharodontosaurus), its weaponry no longer holds very many benefits.
However, even if it still was of its previous estimated size, it would still require a precise bite to actually kill the carnosaur. Carcharodontosaurus and tyrannosaurus, on the other hand, would have significantly broader options in where to bite, as they (although less-so in tyrannosaurus) were evolved to hunt other dinosaurs as opposed to small(ish) fish (which was the case for spinosauridae as a whole). Carcharodontosaurus would be able to tear apart spinosaurus' hide if the direct impact of the maxillary dentition on its dorsum does not kill it already, as it would have had no problems hunting much larger (than spinosaurus) sauropods in this fashion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 30, 2014 4:05:44 GMT 5
Land shark ~80-90% of the time (at least on land).
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 30, 2014 6:55:46 GMT 5
I didn't understand what you meant by "land shark" at first, but then I got it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 30, 2014 7:29:44 GMT 5
Spinosaur vs allosaur matchups have always been analogous to a shark vs tomistoma (and/or freshie) fight, for obvious reasons, with an especial finger pointed at genera like spinosaurus.
At analogous sizes, and in a dry environment (preferably a large plain), carcharodontosaurus would be able to kill any spinosaurid extremely easily, as will a tyrannosaurid or megalosaurid
|
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Aug 30, 2016 21:02:09 GMT 5
Now thanks to the new Spinosaurus design, it's a fight that's environmentally dependent. Water: Spinosaurus. Land: Carcharodontosaurus.
|
|
|
|
Post by An Goldish Jade on Jul 2, 2017 9:57:25 GMT 5
on land, the spinosaurus would be teared into pieces very quickly
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2018 1:25:01 GMT 5
On land, Land Shark wins easily against Big Spined Croc.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 8, 2019 19:42:11 GMT 5
On land, Carcharodontosaurus wins comfortably. In water, Spinosaurus wins even more comfortably.
|
|
