|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 16, 2014 18:16:34 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Oct 16, 2014 23:53:24 GMT 5
It seems water is the best place for this now, so I now think Sarcosuchus wins. It's jaws were wider, had a more powerful bite, and it seems overall better suited for similar-sized foes than Spinosaurus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 22, 2014 2:43:28 GMT 5
Width is only one single determinant in finding the outcome of a fight; in truth, there are so many other variables that need to be considered.
You are definitely correct that, overall, a more robust snout would definitely be a greater specialization for biting larger animals, but similar crocodylomorphs (such as modern forms, mind you) actually show little real aptitude for doing so when compared to many shark species or felids. Sure, its jaw strength (both closing-related and resistance-related) was probably much greater than that of spinosaurus, but again consider size; spinosaurus' size, if still constant with past estimates, would still "outweigh" that of even the largest crocodylomorphs.
But at the same time, spinosaurus was not suited for hunting large armored animals either (fish scales do not necessarily count in this regard, as the majority of the fish in spinosaurid diets would have been much smaller than an 8-ton reptile). Again, think about comparable size; a relatively weakly-built animal not designed for powerful killing (but instead quick and precise gripping) would be extremely ineffective at biting true bone/bony structures of animals above a certain size limit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Oct 26, 2014 8:18:51 GMT 5
Recent estimates suggest that Spinosaurus was only 7 tonnes in weight. If that be the case, then I'd back the crocodilian hands down, especially in the water.
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226 
|
Post by gigadino96 on Oct 26, 2014 16:21:04 GMT 5
If broly's estimates are correct, I'd give the cake to Spinosaurus. If Spinosaurus is really 6-7 t, Sarcosuchus would win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 30, 2014 5:17:35 GMT 5
Vodmeister, really? Assuming that spinosaurus is still roughly the same length as previously-estimated (roughly a touch less than 18 meters), then similar bodily proportions would not really make it all the much lighter. In fact, being a quadrupedal animal would make a heavier weight morel likely than if it was bipedal due to stability reasons. Not to mention how the previous theory of it being an active (or at least partially) land hunter is now invalid for the most part.
It was never adapted for hunting dinosaurs, and now with its likely lessened ability to move efficiently on land that would only make a heavier weight less likely if it was a primarily terrestrial biped.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 30, 2014 5:18:59 GMT 5
Gigadino, where is broly getting his estimates from? Is he doing the mathematics himself or using what has been stated in papers?
Just be sure to state that next time to avoid confusion (I know broly, and he is very intelligent and credible, but this stuff needs to be explicit)
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Oct 30, 2014 6:00:38 GMT 5
I must announce that when I wrote that comment, I was under the impression Spinosaurus was reduced in overall body mass, but I've subsequently become more skeptical of that notion.
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Nov 7, 2014 19:52:49 GMT 5
Gigadino, where is broly getting his estimates from? Is he doing the mathematics himself or using what has been stated in papers? Just be sure to state that next time to avoid confusion (I know broly, and he is very intelligent and credible, but this stuff needs to be explicit) He did some scaling. If I remember correctly, he scaled Ibrahim. et al's skeletal to have a 1 meters long rostrum. It would end up in the region of 16.5 meters. |
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on Nov 8, 2014 2:04:18 GMT 5
Yes, but bear in mind that Ibrahim et al. themselves estimate that same specimen at 6 - 7 tonnes, and that their stated 15 meter figure does not appear to measure over the curves (while Broly did). The model they used to estimate this is pretty shrink-wrapped, so we would expect a more realistically fleshed model to weigh more, but I doubt anything more than a couple of tonnes extra at best, maybe as little as a few hundred kilos.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 8, 2014 14:24:11 GMT 5
Ibrahim et al. estimate it at 6-7t? All I heard was that Maganuco mentioned something along these lines to Cau. Who sais that’s an official estimate?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 8, 2014 18:30:53 GMT 5
I just checked and from what I see, not even Wikipedia (which usually cites a lot of newspapers), cited such a weight figure from a 2014 source.
|
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Nov 8, 2014 18:31:33 GMT 5
Maganuco is also one of the co-authors of "Semiaquatic adaptations in a giant predatory dinosaur".
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 8, 2014 18:39:01 GMT 5
Of course he is, but haven’t you ever wondered why, if such an estimate actually exists, it wasn’t published in the paper? Isn’t it more likely just some guess?
And what, by contrast, does Maganuco think Sarcosuchus weighed?
Either way, it’s wrong to say that Ibrahim et al. estimate this, for all we know they didn’t.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 8, 2014 21:11:06 GMT 5
Looks like publishing weight estimates is not important to scientists, as there were various cases where newspapers claimed to have extra information about body mass from interviews with scientists. From what I remember, it was the case with the Lythronax newspapers.
|
|
