gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226 
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jun 21, 2013 20:01:12 GMT 5
^Theropod manus are not built to support weight, they cannot even be pronated or turned so that they face forward. I highly doubt Spinosaurus would be the one exception. The model doesn't support the idea of it being a quadruped, it is obviously in bipedal stance, tought he legs are very short compared to the arms. There are also Allosaurus specimens (eg DINO 25xx) whose arms nearly reach the ground, yet they are by no means quadrupeds. Not really quadruped, but rather with the front legs close to the ground. However, Andrea Cau said that Spinosauruys is over 15 meters long and weighs 5-10 tons: translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.it/2008/08/ordini-di-grandezza-cenomaniana.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8"Spinosaurus , with more than 15 meters in length estimated (and their 5-10 tons, depending on the estimation method)" |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 21, 2013 20:01:21 GMT 5
Yes, that's true. Especially with the strange sail they gave it...
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 21, 2013 20:01:58 GMT 5
^Theropod manus are not built to support weight, they cannot even be pronated or turned so that they face forward. I highly doubt Spinosaurus would be the one exception. The model doesn't support the idea of it being a quadruped, it is obviously in bipedal stance, tought he legs are very short compared to the arms. There are also Allosaurus specimens (eg DINO 25xx) whose arms nearly reach the ground, yet they are by no means quadrupeds. Not really quadruped, but rather with the front legs close to the ground. However, Andrea Cau said that Spinosauruys is over 15 meters long and weighs 5-10 tons: translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.it/2008/08/ordini-di-grandezza-cenomaniana.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8"Spinosaurus , with more than 15 meters in length estimated (and their 5-10 tons, depending on the estimation method)" As theropod said, this is very conservative. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 21, 2013 20:03:29 GMT 5
^Theropod manus are not built to support weight, they cannot even be pronated or turned so that they face forward. I highly doubt Spinosaurus would be the one exception. The model doesn't support the idea of it being a quadruped, it is obviously in bipedal stance, tought he legs are very short compared to the arms. There are also Allosaurus specimens (eg DINO 25xx) whose arms nearly reach the ground, yet they are by no means quadrupeds. Not really quadruped, but rather with the front legs close to the ground. However, Andrea Cau said that Spinosauruys is over 15 meters long and weighs 5-10 tons: translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.it/2008/08/ordini-di-grandezza-cenomaniana.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8"Spinosaurus , with more than 15 meters in length estimated (and their 5-10 tons, depending on the estimation method)" Well, that is non necessarily Cau's own figure... |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 21, 2013 20:58:53 GMT 5
^Cau's Spinosaurus as indicated in his Blog posts is downright tiny, but despite his extremely conservative view that estimate was jsut a demonstration. But the model supposedly supervised by cau was reported to be 16m long, so it isn't that small and fits Dal Sasso's range nicely. In fact Cau did not supervise it, he was just figuring on a picture of it. Dal Sasso and Magnuco did it. I'm not necessary supporting Cau but his opinion cannot be rejected either. Actually he laughs at any estimate of giants theropods over 13 m. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 21, 2013 21:02:31 GMT 5
^Theropod manus are not built to support weight, they cannot even be pronated or turned so that they face forward. I highly doubt Spinosaurus would be the one exception. The model doesn't support the idea of it being a quadruped, it is obviously in bipedal stance, tought he legs are very short compared to the arms. There are also Allosaurus specimens (eg DINO 25xx) whose arms nearly reach the ground, yet they are by no means quadrupeds. Not really quadruped, but rather with the front legs close to the ground. However, Andrea Cau said that Spinosauruys is over 15 meters long and weighs 5-10 tons: translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.it/2008/08/ordini-di-grandezza-cenomaniana.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8"Spinosaurus , with more than 15 meters in length estimated (and their 5-10 tons, depending on the estimation method)" Did not seen that post. I guess my first reference is more recent, I should verify it. Anyway, as much as I like the depiction of Spinosaurus at over 15 m, I believe in it but I have not much faith either. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 21, 2013 21:18:48 GMT 5
^Cau's Spinosaurus as indicated in his Blog posts is downright tiny, but despite his extremely conservative view that estimate was jsut a demonstration. But the model supposedly supervised by cau was reported to be 16m long, so it isn't that small and fits Dal Sasso's range nicely. In fact Cau did not supervise it, he was just figuring on a picture of it. Dal Sasso and Magnuco did it. I'm not necessary supporting Cau but his opinion cannot be rejected either. Actually he laughs at any estimate of giants theropods over 13 m. Which I in turn find pretty funny, since no estimate for Spinosaurus below 14m has ever been suggested, apart from Cau's own (basing on a downsized skull and non-spinosaur proprotions) and Therrien & Hendersons (based too on a downsized skull and a regression equation compromising tyrannosaurs, carnosaurs and small coelurosaurs), but we all have our opinions and different degrees of enthusiasm for higher figures... noone can deny Cau is intend on making very low estimates. I don't think Cau's 12,5m were really meant to be a proper estimate. Elsewhere he only stated he thought it wasn't bigger than 14-15m. If I remember right, his own skeletal shows it at 14,4m (http://qilong.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/spinosaurus-a-hint/) I assume I'm right in thinking the comments left by "anonimo" below that post were yours? |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 21, 2013 21:24:06 GMT 5
I had talk with Spinodontosaurus about that and anyway, even at its more modest estimate, Spinosaurus is the largest theropod. Its weight disparity is then not beyond those of the largest tyrannosaurs and allosaurs.
No that's not my comments.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 21, 2013 21:30:37 GMT 5
Strange, sounded like you. It appears there is more than one poster out there who has exactly the same questions/suggestions and manner of asking...
Even a 14m Spinosaurus would be massive. That estimate would mostly indicate a shorter tail at comparable body size.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 21, 2013 21:49:56 GMT 5
I had questionned Cau but not in these pages. My problem with Spinosaurus is its snout thickness. I'm not of those being biased against its skull structure, in fact I was a long time advocate of it even before Dal Sasso found its skull, but I have hard time to see this snout clashing with a multi-tons, massive snouted carcharodontosaur.  |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 21, 2013 21:55:06 GMT 5
I think it is out of the question that in such a faceoff Spinosaurus would not rely on killing with a bite, but by gripping onto its opponent with teeth and claws and toppling it over or wrestling it down. Just like an extant ursid which does not rely on its bite that much in a faceoff. That a carnosaur or tyrannosaur would have a much more effective killing bite is obvious, but its sheer size is an advantage that is hard to overrate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 21, 2013 22:05:40 GMT 5
Sure but look at the narrowest portion of that snout, it sounds barely wider than my wrist.
I know the bite is not its first weaponry, but I have difficulties to see a giant theropod engaging a massive, angry, macro-killer while risking to break such a thin and vital part of its anatomy.
Also, except for the larger sizes, at its more modest size, the disparity in sheer mass with others giants does not seem that great to count as a real advantage.
I'm just wondering.
Edit : theropod, are you sur of the length, looking at the pic, it sounds to reach the 7 inches mark (17,8 cm).
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 21, 2013 22:21:33 GMT 5
^But it is composed of seemingly solid or near solid bone (an adaption for reduced surface and increased density for snatching fish as compared to more pneumatic-snouted animals?). Such bone can be very strong, look at how optimised some skulls are towards being very strong to some forces (A. fragilis, V. komodoensis; Rayfield et al., 2001/Moreno et al., 2008) despite being relatively gracile. Even human legs, tough thin boned, can take surprising amounts of force. When it is about bone strenght, visuals can be deceiving, but I'm not suggesting it was particularly strong, this isn't supported by studies at all, just not that weak either.
Look at Carnosaurs, they are a bit wider-snouted than spinosaurus of course, but still very narrow in most cases (exceptions: some specimens of Allosaurus which have a pretty wide skull and arguably Sauroniops pachytholus), yet one of the narrowest skulls of them all, that of Big Al, was found to be tremendously strong.
Also it is pretty likely its size advantage over other theropods was big. Look at the holotype, even it, tough immature, has vertebrae nearly twice the size of those in Baryonyx walkeri (a specimen 9-10m long!?). If the lower (12,5-15m) estimates were to be true, it would break down mostly to tail lenght.
Something I am interested in is the leg lenght, this would probably be a relevant factor for dominance and fighting potential compared to other theropods, tough I am not completely sure in what way...
@edit: I'll measure it again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 10:30:11 GMT 5
Is somebody aware of any new update from Hartman regarding Spinosaurus size and proportions ? There was a scaling error that was just corrected. Here is the new 2013 version:  |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 25, 2013 20:14:49 GMT 5
A quote from a discussion I have with Tom Holtz on Facebook :
Actually, that isn't entirely true (that tyrannosaurs are more heavily built than carcharodontosaurs). Tyrannosaurids had more compact bodies: thicker neck muscles, bigger hip muscles, etc., but their extremities (lower legs, tails) seem to be less muscled. Carcahrodontosaurs seem to have been a) proportionately longer-torsoed and b) have a more "even" distribution of muscles.
|
|
