Since: Dec 12

New York

#4383 Jan 1, 2013
I found out the dorsals of the Spino holotype are 194 % longer than those of Baryonyx. The snout to last sacral length of Baryonxy is 4.5 metres. So 4.5 x 1.94 = 8.73 m snout to last sacral length for Spino. MSMN V4047 is slightly more than 20% larger than the holotype, so 8.73 x 1.2 = 10.476 metres of snout to last sacral length, that is huge compared to Sue snout to last sacral length of 5.7 metres. A 10.476 snout to LS length would indicate a 19 metre Spino. I know it's huge but that what it would be if it was scaled like Baryonyx. A 19 metre Spino would weigh: 19/9 = 2.11 ^ 3 = 9.4 x 2.2 = 20.68 tonnes. That seems really high I know, but they I can't find a way to debunk them. Spino has a major size advantage, I think it's now 65/35 to Spino

Since: Dec 12

New York

#4384 Jan 1, 2013
If the figures are correct this would be the size comparison
http://www.flickr.com/photos/91731617 @N02/8333488758/in/photostream

Since: Dec 12

New York

#4385 Jan 1, 2013
TyrantLizardKing wrote:
If the figures are correct this would be the size comparison
http://www.flickr.com/photos/91731617 @N02/8333488758/in/photostream
Nevermind that link use this one, you mind need to copy and pase it into address bar

http://www.flickr.com/photos/91731617 @N02/8333488758/
Anonymous

Rotherham, UK

#4386 Jan 1, 2013
TyrantLizardKing wrote:
I found out the dorsals of the Spino holotype are 194 % longer than those of Baryonyx. The snout to last sacral length of Baryonxy is 4.5 metres. So 4.5 x 1.94 = 8.73 m snout to last sacral length for Spino. MSMN V4047 is slightly more than 20% larger than the holotype, so 8.73 x 1.2 = 10.476 metres of snout to last sacral length, that is huge compared to Sue snout to last sacral length of 5.7 metres. A 10.476 snout to LS length would indicate a 19 metre Spino. I know it's huge but that what it would be if it was scaled like Baryonyx. A 19 metre Spino would weigh: 19/9 = 2.11 ^ 3 = 9.4 x 2.2 = 20.68 tonnes. That seems really high I know, but they I can't find a way to debunk them. Spino has a major size advantage, I think it's now 65/35 to Spino
If thats true it brings thing it to a more balanced perspective, i would lower 65/35 to 55/45 though
Allosaurophagana x

Rotherham, UK

#4387 Jan 1, 2013
TyrantLizardKing wrote:
I found out the dorsals of the Spino holotype are 194 % longer than those of Baryonyx. The snout to last sacral length of Baryonxy is 4.5 metres. So 4.5 x 1.94 = 8.73 m snout to last sacral length for Spino. MSMN V4047 is slightly more than 20% larger than the holotype, so 8.73 x 1.2 = 10.476 metres of snout to last sacral length, that is huge compared to Sue snout to last sacral length of 5.7 metres. A 10.476 snout to LS length would indicate a 19 metre Spino. I know it's huge but that what it would be if it was scaled like Baryonyx. A 19 metre Spino would weigh: 19/9 = 2.11 ^ 3 = 9.4 x 2.2 = 20.68 tonnes. That seems really high I know, but they I can't find a way to debunk them. Spino has a major size advantage, I think it's now 65/35 to Spino
If that is correct than it put's things into a more balanced perspective. I don't know if your right or not, I am not experienced in that type of stuff, but I would lower the 65/35 to 55/45 to the Spinosaur
Allosaurophagana x

Rotherham, UK

#4388 Jan 1, 2013
sorry for the double post it wasn't posting at first
PredatorAPEX1

United States

#4389 Jan 1, 2013
Tyrannosaurus would probably win in this case.I herd Spinosaurus's teeth were weak.

“What trolls???”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#4390 Jan 1, 2013
PredatorAPEX1 wrote:
Tyrannosaurus would probably win in this case.I herd Spinosaurus's teeth were weak.
Teeth aren't everything. Fanboy!
Spinosaurus could inflict a good deal of damage with its jaws, but Tyrannosaurus rex' teeth are much stronger and will do far more damage to the Spinosaurus. Tyrannosaurus rex was more intelligent than Spinosaurus. T. rex also had a higher bite force, and the claws of a Spinosaurus won't do much good in this fight, as they were slung below its body, and therefore couldn't swipe at the tyrannosaur's face, although it could scratch other body parts.
Tyrannosaurus wins.
PredatorAPEX1

Pasco, WA

#4392 Jan 2, 2013
What im saying.Im only 9 i dont know everything.And you just said that FANBOY i dont even like that Tyrannosaurus Rex.
PredatorAPEX1

Pasco, WA

#4393 Jan 2, 2013
Yeah that what i was saying. Pinky and Ze Brain. I don't even know everything.What do you Expect from a Nine year old.Sorry i called you a fan boy.I apoligize.

“'QUANDARY'”

Since: Oct 12

Cheshire UK

#4394 Jan 2, 2013
PredatorAPEX1 wrote:
What im saying.Im only 9 i dont know everything.And you just said that FANBOY i dont even like that Tyrannosaurus Rex.
Take no notice of this guy, Pred' he can't express an opinion without insulting, it's just his way?
You stick to you're opinions.
PredatorAPEX1

Pasco, WA

#4395 Jan 2, 2013
Coprolite1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Take no notice of this guy, Pred' he can't express an opinion without insulting, it's just his way?
You stick to you're opinions.
THX.

“What trolls???”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#4396 Jan 2, 2013
PredatorAPEX1 wrote:
Yeah that what i was saying. Pinky and Ze Brain. I don't even know everything.What do you Expect from a Nine year old.Sorry i called you a fan boy.I apoligize.
Use resources and sites to back up your claims.

And a fanboy is someone who is biased towards a particular animal, in case yer don't know.
Crazy Fish

Bournemouth, UK

#4397 Jan 4, 2013
TyrantLizardKing wrote:
I found out the dorsals of the Spino holotype are 194 % longer than those of Baryonyx. The snout to last sacral length of Baryonxy is 4.5 metres. So 4.5 x 1.94 = 8.73 m snout to last sacral length for Spino. MSMN V4047 is slightly more than 20% larger than the holotype, so 8.73 x 1.2 = 10.476 metres of snout to last sacral length, that is huge compared to Sue snout to last sacral length of 5.7 metres. A 10.476 snout to LS length would indicate a 19 metre Spino. I know it's huge but that what it would be if it was scaled like Baryonyx. A 19 metre Spino would weigh: 19/9 = 2.11 ^ 3 = 9.4 x 2.2 = 20.68 tonnes. That seems really high I know, but they I can't find a way to debunk them. Spino has a major size advantage, I think it's now 65/35 to Spino
Interesting perspective, and coincides with the knowledge that spinosaurids had short tails compared to the rest of the body.

Though I would feel safer with a mass estimate of 19 tonnes (2 tonne Baryonyx), it is a huge contrast to the 6-8 tonne Sue. Even hypothetical giant UCMP specimens wouldn't be much more than 11 tonnes or so.

Doesn't change my Spino winning conclusion... of course, only strengthens it.

Since: Dec 12

New York

#4398 Jan 5, 2013
Crazy Fish wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting perspective, and coincides with the knowledge that spinosaurids had short tails compared to the rest of the body.
Though I would feel safer with a mass estimate of 19 tonnes (2 tonne Baryonyx), it is a huge contrast to the 6-8 tonne Sue. Even hypothetical giant UCMP specimens wouldn't be much more than 11 tonnes or so.
Doesn't change my Spino winning conclusion... of course, only strengthens it.
Yes I would probably think that it would be slightly lower than 20 tonnes, but still a lot higher than Trex. Most people look at Spino and think it's lighter built and slightly longer so it must way less. But looking at skeletons of other Spinosaurs you can see that they are quite bulky.

I also found another advantage in the sail. Biased posts have lead me to believe it is a disadvantage as it would break and Spino would die. However the the spinal cord is in the nueral canal and not in the spines, so it wouldn't really be a problem. In lateral view you can see that they are actually quite large and the space between them is too small to effectively span skin, like for example Dimetrodon or Edaphosaurus. In fact they are much like a bisons laterally, however too thin to be a hump, so the only alternatives would be a muscle attachment or a crest. A muscle attachment would serve as advantage and would be likely as they needed to carry large fish from the water. And it seems that it is a evolutionary adaptation for Spinosaurs. It could also be used as reinforcement in neck muscles and potentially make Spino's bite more lethal.
PredatorAPEX1

United States

#4399 Jan 5, 2013
TyrantLizardKing wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I would probably think that it would be slightly lower than 20 tonnes, but still a lot higher than Trex. Most people look at Spino and think it's lighter built and slightly longer so it must way less. But looking at skeletons of other Spinosaurs you can see that they are quite bulky.
I also found another advantage in the sail. Biased posts have lead me to believe it is a disadvantage as it would break and Spino would die. However the the spinal cord is in the nueral canal and not in the spines, so it wouldn't really be a problem. In lateral view you can see that they are actually quite large and the space between them is too small to effectively span skin, like for example Dimetrodon or Edaphosaurus. In fact they are much like a bisons laterally, however too thin to be a hump, so the only alternatives would be a muscle attachment or a crest. A muscle attachment would serve as advantage and would be likely as they needed to carry large fish from the water. And it seems that it is a evolutionary adaptation for Spinosaurs. It could also be used as reinforcement in neck muscles and potentially make Spino's bite more lethal.
It's strange when people say that.Im with you.I find it unlikely that Spinosaurus skeleton were more bulky then others.But the part where that Spinosaurus bones were rare.
Crazy Fish

Bournemouth, UK

#4400 Jan 5, 2013
When imagining Spinosaurus, imagine the 'body' of it carrying up the neural spines about 1/3 distance (a good 60cm in MSNM V4047 case), which is how far the muscle attatchment points seem to extend. The rest of the spines were probably a thick ridge ala typical Acrocanthosaurus reconstructions.

At least this seems to be a general consensus among the online paleo community.
Rexby

Honolulu, HI

#4401 Jan 6, 2013
T Rex vs spinosaurus: 50/50. Tie!!!
PredatorAPEX1

Pasco, WA

#4402 Jan 6, 2013
Rexby wrote:
T Rex vs spinosaurus: 50/50. Tie!!!
Rexby.Listen,you need to back up your claims.If you don't your pretty much a Fanboy.(Just to let you know.).

“Australia's #1 Paleontologist”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4403 Jan 6, 2013
PredatorAPEX1 wrote:
<quoted text>Rexby.Listen,you need to back up your claims.If you don't your pretty much a Fanboy.(Just to let you know.).
But he never gave a winner, he said 50/50, so which one is he a fanboy of? Both of them?????????

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Dinosaur Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kaiju Battle Arena 1 hr tyrannospinus 23
Predator X vs. Megalodon (Mar '09) 14 hr terminator4523 804
Which Godzilla do you like best? (May '09) 22 hr tyrannospinus 17
Spinosaurus: Smartest and Strongest Theropod 23 hr Carchar the best 14
Carchorodontosaurus is bigger than giganotosaurus (Jan '13) 23 hr Carchar the best 81
Godzilla vs Xenomorph King Oct 27 An Adorable Kitten 4
Does Carcharodontosaurus hunt in packs? Oct 27 Tim 10

Dinosaur People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE