|
Post by Dinopithecus on Dec 28, 2013 19:21:00 GMT -5
Crocodylomorphs like Kaprosuchus were what I was referring to as potential crocodile prey to Spinosaurus, not giant ones (I don't even think the theropod coexisted with Sarcosuchus). What I don't understand right now is, if Spinosaurus couldn't go after armored prey, what of the large fish that it likely preyed on (Mawsonia, a species of Neoceratodus, etc. from what I've heard, were apparently covered in thick scales, and obviously Spinosaurus had to bite through them to kill and eat them)?
Mind you, not only is Spinosaurus 175% bigger than Elasmotherium sibiricum (11*100=1,100/4=275-100=175%, hopefully, I got my math right), but Elasmotherium probably also wasn't as heavily built as it is often claimed to be (I think I stated this somewhere else in this thread). I still think that's likely enough for Spinosaurus to perhaps bite the neck of the rhino and win.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 28, 2013 22:37:15 GMT -5
Is there confirmation that spinosaurus commonly took mawsonia as a prey item? According to this size illustration, it appears to be pretty large. Not that spinosaurus would have that much trouble handling it (as it was clearly very well adapted for predating on animals just like I t), the theropod would most likely predate mainly on particularly smaller animals overall (a 20 foot fish seems unlikely for a COMMON prey item. Occasional, but likely not common, at least until I can find evidence of common predation on it...). Mawsonia would likely be close to the common (note, I was not talking in general, just common) dietary limits of spinosaurus. Spinosaurus would likely be risking the well-being of its snout if it attempted to go at this thing with the specialized tip of its snout, as that area would be particularly vulnerable to breaking. And it would be much better off biting down on it with the more robust central region of its snout. Spinosaurus was clearly very well equipped in the realm of snout and tooth morphology to take fish of this size but something like mawsonia (being 20 feet long and all) is likely only an occasional food item, as its jaws were mostly designed to pluck particularly smaller fish from the water, as evidenced by their very specialized and gracile tip (if it was overall not designed for going to particularly smaller fish for the most part, we would more-so expect its snout to be more robust at the tip and much less gracile and specialized. But that being said, the centralmost region of its snout was still quite heavily-built and would have been perfect for utilization in such large-scale piscivory). Slender jaws such as in spinosaurus' case are an adaptation for taking PRIMARILY smaller animals, but it was still very robust and a good deal generalized in the region posterior to its premaxilla (in its rostrum), so predation on such a fish is not completely unlikely, just uncommon. That depends on the overall bulk of the mammal in that area, however. In general, it appeared to have been particularly stout and robust in its shoulder and neck area. In that case, a bite to that region would be particularly risky for such a specialized animal. As I have said before, utilizing the ultimate tip of its snout (which is what it would likely be forced to do in this scenario) would put it as a huge risk for injury, as that area was very gracile and specialized, as evident by its very specified shape and "choosy" hook-like morphology for catching small fish. For the theropod to effectively deal enough fatal spinal damage, it would have to be very specific in where it bites: it would be imperative that it uses the central most region of its snout to lessen the risk of injury.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Dec 29, 2013 9:03:52 GMT -5
^Size comparison someone (by MightyMaus) made on Carnivora. ^Another comparison with some other prey items made by the same guy. I personally think it was large enough to prey on these things (though Mawsonia could put up a hell of a fight). And if you watched Planet Dinosaur, I think they show some fossil evidence of Onchopristis being hunted by Spinosaurus, the former of which was also apparently pretty huge. I think the weight advantage of the dinosaur is going to be the main reason for the rhino's downfall. So think being 175% heavier, Spinosaurus might be able to overpower the rhino and perhaps kill it mostly due to weight and somewhat with its weapons. For the record, if this was fantastically (literally fantasy) at parity, I'd support Elasmotherium.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Dec 29, 2013 9:26:04 GMT -5
Also, note how the Spinosaurus dwarfs Elephas maximus in that scale. I think Elasmotherium would have been kind of similar in size to one (though, the two obviously aren't comparable in other regards).
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 29, 2013 10:59:12 GMT -5
^Size comparison someone (by MightyMaus) made on Carnivora. ^Another comparison with some other prey items made by the same guy. I personally think it was large enough to prey on these things (though Mawsonia could put up a hell of a fight). And if you watched Planet Dinosaur, I think they show some fossil evidence of Onchopristis being hunted by Spinosaurus, the former of which was also apparently pretty huge. I think the weight advantage of the dinosaur is going to be the main reason for the rhino's downfall. So think being 175% heavier, Spinosaurus might be able to overpower the rhino and perhaps kill it mostly due to weight and somewhat with its weapons. For the record, if this was fantastically (literally fantasy) at parity, I'd support Elasmotherium. Again, spinosaurus was very well adapted for taking down such large fish (as its post-premaxillary rostrum was again very robust and quite generalized compared to most slender-snouted piscivorous species, and its dentition would have little to no issues puncturing deeply, as that is what it was fundamentally designed for in the first place), but it is highly unlikely that mawsonia specifically represented a very common prey item in favor of going for smaller and weaker animals instead (such as the other fish in the second comparison picture). Most modern predators tend to do this in the wild. The same thing goes for board-snouted crocodilians; they are more than capable of killing large animals (like zebras and cattle), yet small fish make up most of their diet. The ability for spinosaurus to kill large terrestrial animals is based on size advantage, because it was, fundamentally, designed for going for comparably smaller aquatic animals. Spinosaurus would have little to no problems going after such a large fish, as it was clearly very well adapted and designed in the realm of snout and tooth morphology to do so, but the fish' incredible size (being that much bigger than and Asian elephant!) would likely hinder its role as a staple part of its diet. Spinosaurus is ill-adapted in general for attacking such girthy animals like the rhino, as it would more often than not force the theropod to utilize the foremost region of its snout, which was again too specialized and gracile for killing such large animals in general.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Dec 29, 2013 13:03:24 GMT -5
Note that I didn't say anywhere that Mawsonia was its favorite thing to catch. Not to mention, some of the fish that were in those pictures were smaller than the coelacanth, so maybe Spinosaurus preferred them the most along with small to medium-sized dinosaurs.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 29, 2013 13:22:36 GMT -5
I know you didn't. Spinosaurus was perfectly adapted for catching animals like mawsonia, but it would most likely take much smaller fish (more like 10 feet long) as priority over a 20 foot prey item. Spinosaurus was perfectly adapted for taking large and powerful fish primarily, as evidenced by its very robust rostrum and spike-like dentition, but I am talking about it preying mainly on the other animals that were included in the size comparison picture.
The bottom line is that spinosaurus in general possessed a very robust rostrum and dental morphology alike and was perfectly adapted for taking on such large fish, but a 20 footer was not likely a vey common food item in favor of smaller and weaker options. But even then, mawsonia likely took presidence over any kind of terrestrial animal overall, as spinosaurus was again designed and structured to prey on aquatic animals (large fish) as opposed to dinosaurs. It was certainly big and powerful enough to effectively kill such terrestrial animals, but even a 20 foot fish was likely a more common food option, given spinosaurus' piscivoruous morphology.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Dec 29, 2013 14:13:41 GMT -5
I'm still not convinced that it specialization will make it lose against a rhino almost 1/3rd its size.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 29, 2013 15:51:23 GMT -5
Spinosaurus would only be able to effectively wound the rhino with its jaws if it was able to firmly get its entire maw around its neck. The rhino's girth, in this case, would be advantageous, as it would fundamentally force the theropod to use its very gracile snout tip, as it did not have an exceptionally large gape (it was unnecessary for such a derived piscivore). The tip of its snout was designed for quickly plucking fish from water and gripping such fish, as it had a vaguely hook-like morphology and possessed very long dentition; but it was still, fundamentally, too gracile to use for macro predation.
Although spinosaurus as a whole possessed a snout that was thin and specialized for piscivory and teeth that were built for puncturing deeply and gripping such prey, the sheer ability of its dentition to pierce deeply and the robusticity of the central and posterior region of its rostrum could be used advantageously against a small terrestrial animal with precise biting or violent shaking (as it would be imperative for spine or throat damage). But that being said, it could not use the specialized region of its snout in this case, as it would be very risky and would be highly vulnerable to breaking (this is why I normally favor spinosaurus over other dinosaurs that are smaller than it, because their necks and backs are much more slender and are not covered with fur and "fat", meaning that there is a far bigger window for the theropod to effectively bite its opponent with the robust central region of its snout to cause enough spinal damage and reduce risk of injury).
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Dec 29, 2013 18:39:49 GMT -5
Like I said, I think the rhino may not have been as heavily built as it is often depicted. Some reconstructions clearly show the neck that look as if they could be bitten by Spinosaurus
But...
I'm pretty sure you are one of those people who believe Spinosaurus could be at the sizes of 15m and perhaps 11-14t. If that is the case (Elasmotherium being I believe 4t), don't you think it would be pretty likely for the dinosaur to simply overpower, knock over, and simply finish off the rhino (heck, at these multi-ton scales, just falling to the ground could be fatal for Elasmotherium)? I know the theropod will need to get to the side, which is why I said in Triceratops vs. Spinosaurus that this is no longer really an easy fight. But I think it could manage it, and perhaps kill the rhino from that point (I apologize if you've addressed this point, I don't feel like going back and checking, I'll see if I can further discuss this).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 19:12:37 GMT -5
^Size comparison someone (by MightyMaus) made on Carnivora. ^Another comparison with some other prey items made by the same guy. I personally think it was large enough to prey on these things (though Mawsonia could put up a hell of a fight). And if you watched Planet Dinosaur, I think they show some fossil evidence of Onchopristis being hunted by Spinosaurus, the former of which was also apparently pretty huge. I think the weight advantage of the dinosaur is going to be the main reason for the rhino's downfall. So think being 175% heavier, Spinosaurus might be able to overpower the rhino and perhaps kill it mostly due to weight and somewhat with its weapons. For the record, if this was fantastically (literally fantasy) at parity, I'd support Elasmotherium. That spinosaurus is terrifyingly big. Is that based on the 20+ ton estimates? Reading the debate between you and Godzillasaurus, the only case one can make for the rhino is that it would perhaps be wider and bulkier then that huge fish in your comparison, which I assume was a prey item to spinosaurus. That said, at such a size I cannot see the dinosaur losing. How would a 7-10 ton spinosaurus look like in that size comparison? I dont think spinosaurs were well adapted for tackling heavyset herbivores but if it is so much bigger where it can literally fit the whole rhinos head in its mouth, then it will no doubt be victorious.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Dec 29, 2013 23:36:58 GMT -5
I'm not exactly sure what estimates they based off of.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 30, 2013 20:40:36 GMT -5
But how are those necessarily more accurate?
Possibly, but I prefer talking about weaponry advantages and disadvantages for the most part over anything size-related, which spinosaurus lacked for taking down such thick-bodied animals (it was very well-armed for gripping large fish and smaller dinosaurs, but its dentition nor its snout were designed for killing such bulky animals overall. A piscivorous animal is not very well adapted for doing so, but rather relies on sheer size advantages and "easier-accessible" prey items over something of similar bodily proportions to the rhino).
Getting to the side and attacking the mammal's flanks would be very risky for spinosaurus, as it obviously lacked: an adaptively wide gape, considerably more generalized jaws overall (meaning, better adapted for taking down larger animals), and thinner and serrated dentition designed for slicing and ripping (these morphological features are found in allosaurs, which were perfectly adapted for killing sauropods). Regardless of killing technique (either by violent shaking or by precise biting), spinosaurus would again be forced to use the tip of its snout in this regard, which was structured to grasp and catch fish and was very specialized, so such a bite would not only do minimal or subtle damage but it would also put the theropod at risk of injury. Unlike carnosaurs, spinosaurids were ill-adapted for going for the flanks of an animal and would have instead bitten more slender and less risky areas of a prey animal such as the neck or back in some cases. But even then, the rhino seems far too stout and bulky to pull off such a killing technique anyway, even if the spinosaurus was much bigger. Remember, size isn't everything; the theropod would need to have an ideal place to bite in order to make such a scenario effective, as it was, fundamentally, a more specialized animal.
Attacking the head would not only be very risky (as the rhino's large horn is obviously stationed there), but such skull damage coming from spinosaurus on the delivering end would be VERY minimal. Spinosaurus had a quite robust post-premaxillary rostrum (its rostrum was quite robust in general, but its premaxilla area was still very gracile and specialized by comparison to the region just posterior to it, meaning macro-predation would not be done with it and would actually be quite risky) and a generally heavily-built mandible as well, but that was merely an adaptation for predation on large and powerful fish as opposed to crushing. Spinosaurus had very specialized jaws by comparison to an animal like tyrannosaurus or tarbosaurus (which was still considerably more gracile than tyrannosaurus, but it still possessed crushing morphology such as a reasonably wide snout, very robust skull, and robust dentition), which were well adapted for crushing bone, so an exceptionally high bite force is not only unlikely but unnecessary as well. Most damage from a spinosaurus bite would come from the ability of its conical teeth to pierce deeply, not crush. But even then, they were still designed for gripping and not killing, so their ability to cause any sort of fatal damage would only be notable under certain circumstances (as I have pointed out before).
|
|
|
Post by Carcharadontosaurus on Dec 30, 2013 22:04:06 GMT -5
And who's to say the "rhino on steroids" look is more accurate than the horse-like gait one for elasmotherium?
And spinosaurus causing only very minimal damage with its jaws? Seriously? Its bite force is actually rather powerful, and since when did it lack an adaptively wide gape? And the fish that spinosaurus preyed on were pretty huge (like shown previously) and were covered in thick scales that would be much tougher than the rhino's skin.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Dec 30, 2013 22:36:08 GMT -5
Exactly. animaliaenthusiasts.proboards.com/post/12751I've explained why a less stocky build may be more likely for Elasmotherium (it's certainly still strong though). Godzillasaurus, I've interpreted the second part of your comment in a way that might not be correct or I possibly might have taken it out of context. Correct me if I've interpreted it wrong. To "prefer talking about weaponry advantages and disadvantages for the most part over anything size-related" is not right. Yes, I understand Spinosaurus was not exactly well-cut for taking on something by the likes of Elasmotherium, but if we look at only that aspect, we'd be missing a lot. The rhino may be more "combat-oriented", yet the dinosaur's a lot heavier, you cannot simply ignore that fact. By this logic (mostly discussing weaponry advantages and disadvantages and perhaps physical capabilities and not looking much into other factors such as size), a white rhino could actually be a worthy opponent to a bush elephant (yet the latter is clearly heavier and would thus win). I don't exactly mean that the theropod would use its jaws/claws once it possibly outflanks Elasmotherium, just that once it does, it could likely knock it over (due to a shear weight advantage) and once it's grounded, it could simply finish off the vulnerable rhino after perhaps being crippled from a multi-ton fall (if it hasn't been killed by the fall already; multi-ton animals are in serious risk of severe injury or perhaps death if they fall).
|
|