Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 29, 2013 13:42:22 GMT -5
Heck yea! I have been waiting for that movie for two years now
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Oct 29, 2013 16:13:02 GMT -5
I honestly think the other way around. I mean, Spinosaurus is so much larger. Yes, it was. But I would actually find it risky for an animal like spinosaurus (whose muscular ridge hinders its movement) to have to bend over to attack a thick-bodied animal armed with a huge horn. I don't know much about prehistoric rhinos, but I wouldn't expose myself to its horn in any way. The horn is a good weapon, but I still really doubt it's going to be enough for Elasmotherium to kill something almost 3x heavier. This probably isn't very easy, but since Spinosaurus is SO much bigger, it will get the win eventually. By the way, although I do indeed believe it had a horn, people aren't exactly 100% sure if the animal even had a horn in the first place (they never found one as far as I know).
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 29, 2013 17:41:33 GMT -5
Yes, it was. But I would actually find it risky for an animal like spinosaurus (whose muscular ridge hinders its movement) to have to bend over to attack a thick-bodied animal armed with a huge horn. I don't know much about prehistoric rhinos, but I wouldn't expose myself to its horn in any way. The horn is a good weapon, but I still really doubt it's going to be enough for Elasmotherium to kill something almost 3x heavier. This probably isn't very easy, but since Spinosaurus is SO much bigger, it will get the win eventually. By the way, although I do indeed believe it had a horn, people aren't exactly 100% sure if the animal even had a horn in the first place (they never found one as far as I know). Is the steppe rhinoceros the same thing as elasmotherium? Anyway, I would like to acknowledge the fact that, first and foremost, spinosaurus did not have jaws and teeth designed for cutting and ripping. Against an animal as bulky as the rhinoceros, it would not be able to kill it very efficiently with its jaws, even though it was much larger. An large allosaur would fare much better here due to its bite being more adapted for cutting and ripping.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Oct 29, 2013 19:40:16 GMT -5
The horn is a good weapon, but I still really doubt it's going to be enough for Elasmotherium to kill something almost 3x heavier. This probably isn't very easy, but since Spinosaurus is SO much bigger, it will get the win eventually. By the way, although I do indeed believe it had a horn, people aren't exactly 100% sure if the animal even had a horn in the first place (they never found one as far as I know). Is the steppe rhinoceros the same thing as elasmotherium? Anyway, I would like to acknowledge the fact that, first and foremost, spinosaurus did not have jaws and teeth designed for cutting and ripping. Against an animal as bulky as the rhinoceros, it would not be able to kill it very efficiently with its jaws, even though it was much larger. An large allosaur would fare much better here due to its bite being more adapted for cutting and ripping. 1.) Yes, Steppe Rhinoceros=Elasmotherium 2.) Spinosaurus' bite was likely more deadly than most people believe (especially those who think it had thin, weak jaws). This was an animal that bit into rhinoceros-sized fish with thick, armor-like scales, I guess kind of like the scales of alligator gars (which last I heard, are hard to break). I think there was even one video (though, I wouldn't really completely trust it yet), which claimed a large species of Neoceratodus had scales denser than bone. Either way, Spinosaurus hunted and bit through the tough scales of rhinoceros-sized fish (giant coelacanths, lungfish, sawfish, maybe sharks) and thus it could do serious damage to Elasmotherium (I'm pretty sure scales are tougher than fur). Also, I think you and I talked elsewhere about whether Spinosaurus could have hunted crocodyliforms. Well, if it hunted crocodyliforms which also had tough osteoderms, it could prove my point further.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 29, 2013 20:39:50 GMT -5
I am already aware of that. And even if I wasn't, my plight was never about spinosaurus' jaws being weak. My main point was that they were not designed for cutting and ripping. Spinosaurus would likely not be able to even cause any deep spinal damage, due to the bulkiness of its opposer. The elasmotherium was a way different animal than the fish that spinosaurus ate. Just look at that animal's girth: Spinosaurus does not have jaws that would do well with an animal like this. They were very powerful nonetheless, but its teeth were designed solely for piercing, and piercing alone. I must acknowledge that such a killing style would not do well in bringing down an animal of this girth and bulk. Not to mention the rhino's horn. Plus, bite potency does not mean diddly-dick here, as spinosaurus did not possess an exceptionally powerful bite, and its robust jaws were designed to resist as opposed to exert force.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Oct 30, 2013 5:57:32 GMT -5
The supposed girth of the animal still will not bring me to your side, probably mostly because people on Carnivora have criticized said reconstructions, claiming it was rather more cursorial (skeletons having rather long legs), and thus likely didn't have that kind if girth. I'll try to explain this in detail later.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 30, 2013 8:13:19 GMT -5
The supposed girth of the animal still will not bring me to your side, probably mostly because people on Carnivora have criticized said reconstructions, claiming it was rather more cursorial (skeletons having rather long legs), and thus likely didn't have that kind if girth. I'll try to explain this in detail later. Most size estimates and reconstructions on Carnivora are inconstant.
|
|
|
Post by Cr1TiKaL on Oct 30, 2013 11:11:42 GMT -5
true but the rhino is much lower to the ground and more stable. If anything, the spinosaurus (or any other theropod) is more vulnerable to tripping. The elasmotherium is 4 TONNES AND THE SPINO IS 11 TONNES. Do you STILL imagine that an Elasmotherium would knock a Spinosaurus over? A spinosaurus would crush this rhino easily tbh.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Oct 30, 2013 14:19:10 GMT -5
The supposed girth of the animal still will not bring me to your side, probably mostly because people on Carnivora have criticized said reconstructions, claiming it was rather more cursorial (skeletons having rather long legs), and thus likely didn't have that kind if girth. I'll try to explain this in detail later. Most size estimates and reconstructions on Carnivora are inconstant. Inconstant size estimates, yadyadaya. Yep, you are definitely the same Godzillasaurus from Carnivora (not trying to be rude, and I already pretty much figured). The person I quoted is pretty damn knowledgable on these kind of things and calls out on a lot of oversensationalistic, overhyped misinformation, and some other people there do too. Given they quote a lot of scientific works and other stuff like that (some things I don't understand myself), I guess I could trust them. I'm not sure if you can see the image, but the mount has longer legs as opposed to the short legs which apparently is an error in some Elasmotherium mounts. This could mean it was somewhat less robust than most people potray it as. And if you "flesh out" (meaning judge the animal's build without all those, long filaments) Elasmotherium, it likely wouldn't look as impressive. Though, the fur can give it some degree of protection, I doubt it will stop the bite of an animal that bit through the armored scales of giant fish and possibly even crocodyliforms. Elasmotherium is an awesome creature, I have to admit that, but I don't think it will win to something again, almost 3x heavier more often than not.
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Oct 30, 2013 23:21:52 GMT -5
Heck yea! I have been waiting for that movie for two years now I saw the teaser the other day and was wondering what that six legged monster in the background was. At first I thought it was a charred mountain in the background. Godzilla himself looks to be hundreds of meters tall. His spikes alone are as big as mid-size buildings.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 31, 2013 7:40:06 GMT -5
Heck yea! I have been waiting for that movie for two years now I saw the teaser the other day and was wondering what that six legged monster in the background was. At first I thought it was a charred mountain in the background. Godzilla himself looks to be hundreds of meters tall. His spikes alone are as big as mid-size buildings. Godzilla will be the biggest thus far, but only by a little bit. And that multi-legged thing in the trailer was a lizard or dragon of some sort.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 7, 2013 23:25:38 GMT -5
One thing that I forgot to mention in my first post in this thread was the fact that the rhino could easily impale the theropod underneath and cause a rather large amount of bloodloss. That is the main reason why I favor the mammal here.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Nov 8, 2013 17:20:23 GMT -5
The main reason I favor the dinosaur is its rather blatant size advantage. The rhino's just too small IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Carcharadontosaurus on Nov 8, 2013 17:29:39 GMT -5
Its a 4-5 tonne rhino vs a 11-13 tonne theropod, imo this is a mismatch since spinosaurus just have an intense size advantage.
Suchomimus would be a much better match imo.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 28, 2013 18:30:19 GMT -5
Sorry for the late reply, but the actual biting force of spinosaurus was a lot lower than you make it out to be. This animal did not kill with crushing forces unlike tyrannosaurus. What it would have rather killed by instead is quick and precise perpendicular biting (as in very accurate piercings to an animal's spine) or intense vertical shaking. In the event that spinosaurus would kill a larger animal, it would utilize the more robust post-premaxillary region of its snout, where it would have the least chance of breaking. It would not use the specialized tip of its snout, as that area is not only more gracile but it was clearly a very specialized region for piscivory. If I am right about the rhino's girth, spinosaurus would not be able to effectively clamp down with enough force and enough precision to effectively impale its spinal cord. And even then, it would still be practically unable to use any shaking techniques due to mechanical advantage reasons. Again, spinosaurus was not designed for biting through thick osteoderms of large crocodylomorphs and would have instead been restricted to smaller armored animals and/or small to medium-sized terrestrial animals that lacked any sort of armor-like plating.
Elasmotherium just seems far to "girthy" for spinosaurus to effectively wound with a well-placed bite, as its sheer bulk and overall girth would force the theropod to utilize the ultimate tip of its snout, which was not designed for macro-predation but was instead very specialized for piscivory. I am sorry for not saying this earlier
This rather relies on size. Spinosaurus was ill-adapted for taking down large crocodylomorphs like sarcosuchus and would have instead been better off going for animals like kaprosuchus instead.
You must remember that spinosaurus was, fundamentally, adapted to be a piscivore. Its dentition too was designed for puncturing deeply into large fish and causing good spinal damage under the right circumstances, but the rhino seems far too bulky for this sort of killing technique.
|
|