Tyrannosaurus Rex vs. Spinosaurus

[rhino]

t-rex has never seen a carnivore bigger than itself. While on the other hand, spinosaurus lived alongside stuff like carcharodontosaurus. It most certainly has the psychological advantage over the rex.

[rhino]

May 6, 2013 20:06:31 GMT -5 oasegenggam said:

Spino isn't 20 tons, its just 8 tons and T-rex is 7,7 tons.
I will give this to T-rex, one bite to the neck and spino is dead.

That's incorrect. Spinosaurus weighs much more than 8 tons. More like 12-18. Combined with a longer skull giving it greater reach, weight/intimidation advantage, and t-rex's poor gape= a dead t-rex.

If I'm not mistaken, T-rex's bite doesn't allow for a wide gape.

[Reticulatus]

He also thinks komodo dragons weigh 8 tons...lol

[rhino]

he said spinosaurus weighed 8 tons which i think is wrong.

[Felis Rex]

May 7, 2013 20:17:25 GMT -5 @rhino said:

he said spinosaurus weighed 8 tons which i think is wrong.

I agree, but I also think 23 t. is wrong.

[rhino]

whatever the case it weighed much more than t-rex, a fact t-rex supporters struggle with.

Size advantage means spinosaurus can easily knock down t-rex or simply intimidate it into retreating.

[Cr1TiKaL]

Mismatch in favor of the Spinosaurus. It's much bigger and though it has a weaker bite force, it can still charge at T.rex which will make it topple.

[Anomonyous]

Given Spinosaurus' size and hump/sail, it probably couldn't run much faster than 15 mph, which seems like a rather generous estimate. Even if Tyrannosaurus were somehow incapable of biting a massive target moving that slowly, simply running away would be a feasible option.

If Spinosaurus actually weighed 23 tons, then if anything that would be a massive hindrance. You'd be looking at one of the slowest carnivorous dinosaurs to ever walk the Earth. Weight is possibly the single most overrated factor in large theropod matchups (arms are also a contender, although most of the time it's the people who are clueless who make a case out of that) but really it counts for little since these animals have few methods of transferring bodily strength. Honestly, I don't think it would even matter that much if either Spinosaurus or Tyrannosaurus weighed 4 tons.

[Godzillasaurus]

When using the upper size limit for spinosaurus (roughly 50-56 feet long and 7-20 tons), it would win here. Spinosaurus was deadlier than a lot think. It had long conical teeth, long and powerful forearms, and its jaws were closer in morphology to those of the false gharial (which has been known to prey on deer and monkeys) than the Indian gharial (which is a much more specialized piscivore). But even then, its jaws were still much more robust than either of those animals; they were much deeper and wider proportionally than the snouts of either of those animals. We even have true evidence of predation on dinosaurs from spinosaurids, when the remains of a young iguanadon were found in the stomach cavity of a baryonyx.

[Carcharadontosaurus]

Spinosaurus wins due to its large size advantage.

[Godzillasaurus]

Monster resurrected was an extremely inaccurate show and if you watch the much more up to date planet dinosaur, spinosaurus was unable to effectively kill animals one fifth its size without the use of its forearms.

I have only seen a snippit of spinosaurus facing off with carcharodontosaurus on that show. That actually appears to be quite an accurate representation of both animals. It did, in fact, state that carcharodontosaurus had a generally deadlier bite but spinosaurus was better designed for power. Here's why:

I must add that spinosaurus was in no way poorly adapted for killing animals roughly 1/5 its size with its jaws; that is what they were designed for. Of course spinosaurus did not kill with ripping as we see in carcharodontosaurus, hindering its role as an active macropredator (such as being able to take down paralititan and the like), and was poorly adapted for killing large animals relative to its size, but that is because it evolved to live in tropical freshwater plains and hunt fish. It is all about niches on this one; spinosaurus' jaws and teeth were not designed for killing per-se, but they were still evolved to deal with the fish that occupied its environment whereas animals like carcharodontosaurus were not designed for that sort of powerful gripping and possessed a morphology overall that would have made gripping resistance much of a problem.

So no, spinosaurus' jaws and teeth were in fact quite deadly in terms of their ability to grip powerful fish. They were not designed for killing necessarily, but spinosaurus was more than capable of bringing down small to medium-sized terrestrial animals simply because of its huge size advantage over most animals in its environment with the exception of a few large sauropod genera.

Now look at these two images, spinosaurus and crocodiles actually had skulls vastly different from each other. Crocodiles seemed to have much more robust skulls at similar sizes.

You are consequently comparing spinosaurus to a broad-snouted crocodile in this case, where the former simply does not compare. The best modern analogy for spinosaurus is the freshwater crocodile or false gharial for that matter, only spinosaurus had a comparably more robust skull in general given its similar build (as in specialization/function) and width but yet far greater depth (it was more balanced, aiding to its ability to withstand gripping stress). So while spinosaurus certainly did not compare to most modern crocodilians, it was in no way a weak animal.

Theories about spinosaurus' niche and lifestyle seem to come from these two species as well. Due to their awfully similar snout morphologies, some have theorized that spinosaurus would have hunted fish for the most part but was more than capable of hunting reasonably-sized terrestrial animals in addition. I firmly support this theory.

I actually seem some similarity in the two skulls. The skull certainly resembles a gharial's skull:

False gharial, most certainly. But the Indian gharial, definitely not. Many of the claims that people have regarding spinosaurus' similarities to the Indian gharial seem to only come from its appearance by comparison to most other groups of large theropods, tyrannosaurus included. I can see where they are getting that, but the snout of the Indian gharial was a generally gracile and weakly-built piece that would have had so many problems presented to it if it tried to hunt in the same way as most crocodilian species and spinosaurus alike. Spinosaurus was simply in possession of a generally much more robust snout overall that was better designed for large-scale predation that would have not likely been damaged in such hunting (spinosaurus is on the bottom):






Although the specimen shown above is not fully complete (it is MNHN to be exact. I could not find a good picture of MNSN that I had not already used previously. Both were characterized by particularly robust maxillae), the point being that spinosaurus' rostrum is simply not comparable to that of the average Indian gharial at all and is instead better designed for gripping particularly large/powerful animals without breaking (the Indian gharial only preys upon really small animals such as small fish and frogs whereas spinosaurus was adapted to tackle huge and tough-skinned fish in addition to considerably-sized dinosaurs). Whereas that of the gharial would have so many notable problems doing so. I must add though that old male gharials do possess comparable rostra in terms of width to both spinosaurus and tomistoma, surprisingly. But this only seems to apply to very old and large specimens; the average gharial rostra is in no way comparable to either genus.

Yes obviously they can inflict damage but it would only cause minor injuries at best. Many tyranosaurus fossils have shown that they can survive getting bit on the head by others of there kind. Conical teeth design is good for gripping but not for killing, unless you are able to utilize the environment like crocodiles and alligators.

Spinosaurus' conical teeth were designed for impaling deeply and gripping; that is their primary function. They were designed to compensate for the creature's diet of fish. So what if they were not designed for killing; they were better designed for gripping than those of carcharodontosaurus for example.

Note this study was made when tyrannosaurus was thought to max out at eight tons.

6-7 tons seems likely for the average of tyrannosaurus. But note that the maximum was probably very rare at 8 tons.

[guest]

trex is toooooo strong to get defeated and I know he is 7,7 tons but if he had an old age he will as nearly as the size as the giganotosaurus

[imdominus wrecks]

but trex cando a strong bite force

[imdominus wrecks]

if trex is big and has binocular vision he would acctually eat dead spino instead its easier for him

[imdominus wrecks]

fuck it
TYRANNOSURUS YOU HEAR HIS MEANING TYRANT LIZARD KING
EVEN WHEN HE WHEIGHTS 7,7 TONS