|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 22, 2013 20:40:32 GMT 5
It did, but read theropod's post carefully. It was only talking about the rostrum, not the mandible, hence it didn't say the whole skull was weak. While there is less emphasis on its skull being wide (it was very narrow), the main reason why it appeared to have been more robust was because they had much less material to work with. And when that gets size correctedÂ… That is one flaw that the paper has; spinosaurus had a much wider rostrum relative to length and depth than baryonyx and suchomimus (although somewhat irrelevant here). Don't you mean "why it appeared to be less robust"? Because in this context it makes more sense (the underestimate of robustness is what you criticized). Unless I completely misunderstood you, if so, I'm sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 22, 2013 20:43:39 GMT 5
While there is less emphasis on its skull being wide (it was very narrow), the main reason why it appeared to have been more robust was because they had much less material to work with. And when that gets size correctedÂ… That is one flaw that the paper has; spinosaurus had a much wider rostrum relative to length and depth than baryonyx and suchomimus (although somewhat irrelevant here). Don't you mean "why it appeared to be less robust"? Because in this context it makes more sense (the underestimate of robustness is what you criticized). Unless I completely misunderstood you, if so, I'm sorry. You did, haha. They only had the immediate front of the rostrum to work with in baryonyx, whereas they had more material to work with for spinosaurus. When size corrected, it had a much greater depth and width than spinosaurus, because a much shorter and more stout object would naturally be larger in all dimensions at parity with a much more slender one. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 22, 2013 20:45:18 GMT 5
Thanks for the correction, I didn't know you were talking about Baryonyx.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 10:20:19 GMT 5
Alberto can win this. Baryonyx is only slightly larger and has weaker jaws. Yes, its strong claws may prove lethal, but overall Alberto has the edge.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 28, 2018 0:35:57 GMT 5
Since I haven't posted my thoughts on this yet, I can only say that I agree with E.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2019 21:39:12 GMT 5
I actually favor Baryonyx. It would have been about 4 tons as an adult, twice the size of the tyrannosaur.
|
|
