|
Post by Anomonyous on Jul 25, 2012 9:28:25 GMT -5
Spino's claws are overrated; they're not doing much for it in this fight.
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Mar 12, 2013 19:16:21 GMT -5
I almost always favor crocodiles over theropods but here the spinosaurus is big enough that it can essentially drag the crocodile around and stomp it to death.
As a little off topic, side note, I will admit Spinosaurus is pretty underrated compared to T.rex and Giga. It's definitely not the weak jawed fish eater haters make it out to be.
That's like saying polar bears are weak pathetic animals just because they rarely kill stuff larger than small seals.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 23, 2013 21:12:52 GMT -5
^ Easily. It was way bigger, and it's bite was deadlier. It's skull was bigger and more robust and it had longer teeth. On top of that, it had claws, and it's higher stance would allow it to stomp in the croc. It was certainly a good deal larger (its maximum weight was probably somewhere around 12 tons as opposed to the 8-10 tons for sarcosuchus), but I would not necessarily consider its bite to be deadlier. While its teeth seem to have been in fact longer (I used to doubt that its teeth were longer than sarcosuchus' premaxillary teeth) and were for sure much sharper and more slender (much better structured for piercing), its mouth as a whole (jaws and teeth in combination) was of course evolved to hunt fish primarily. Whereas sarcosuchus on the contrary was in possession of a much more robust snout and, while less acute and slender, much more robust dentition; these factors seem to point to sarcosuchus being a generally more opportunist predator better designed for crushing and holding onto larger animals as opposed to just fish (but don't be fooled, the fish that spinosaurus was evolved to hunt were in no way trout-sized): Spinosaurus: Sarcosuchus: I would agree that spinosaurus' dentition alone is the deadlier of the two, as it is so much better sharper and better designed for deep impalement without such a strong bite force (the bite of spinosaurus was likely around 2-3 tons based on what fossil evidence/skull reconstructions we currently have. It is not necessarily weak, but certainly not exceptionally strong), but the crocodylomorph in general possessed jaws and teeth that were better designed for gripping larger terrestrial animals as opposed to comparably smaller fish. So its bite as a whole seems to have been the deadlier of the two
|
|
|
Post by Carcharadontosaurus on Nov 7, 2013 18:06:22 GMT -5
Spinosaurus wins, it is larger and it doesn't really need to flip sarcosuchus over to kill it, it could stomp hard on its head, as its claws are actually in the perfect place to be swiping the croc in the face.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 7, 2013 21:30:39 GMT -5
Spinosaurus wins, it is larger and it doesn't really need to flip sarcosuchus over to kill it, it could stomp hard on its head, as its claws are actually in the perfect place to be swiping the croc in the face. Spinosaurus did not use its arms and claws to kill large animals; they were instead used for fishing. Although the crocodylomorph seems to have a skull that is much less resistant to stress than say deinosuchus, it still had the edge here due to being much lower to the ground. It could easily cause a lot of damage to the theropod's legs with its jaws. Oh yea, and spinosaurus would need to get directly ABOVE its opponent to use its claws due to them being located below its body (as with all theropods, spinosaurus stood parallel to the ground as opposed to upright like a human).
|
|
|
Post by Carcharadontosaurus on Nov 8, 2013 17:23:24 GMT -5
Spinosaurus wins, it is larger and it doesn't really need to flip sarcosuchus over to kill it, it could stomp hard on its head, as its claws are actually in the perfect place to be swiping the croc in the face. Spinosaurus did not use its arms and claws to kill large animals; they were instead used for fishing. Although the crocodylomorph seems to have a skull that is much less resistant to stress than say deinosuchus, it still had the edge here due to being much lower to the ground. It could easily cause a lot of damage to the theropod's legs with its jaws. Oh yea, and spinosaurus would need to get directly ABOVE its opponent to use its claws due to them being located below its body (as with all theropods, spinosaurus stood parallel to the ground as opposed to upright like a human). Who's to say that they were just for fishing? I don't have a problem believing that it could use its claws to literally rip and tear things apart.. And going by this comparison made by spinodontosaurus, spino's arms are actually in a great position to be used. And i don't really see how sarcosuchus could grab its legs without leaving itself completely open to be clawed. And also considering the poor stamina of crocodylomorphs on land, sarcosuchus might not hold the fight for very long, spinosaurus could pretty easily wear it down and then claw its face.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 8, 2013 21:44:23 GMT -5
Spinosaurus and its closest kin were fundamentally specialized piscivores; they did not normally kill animals much bigger than themselves. In other words, their diet focused mainly on smaller food items which ranged from fish to medium-sized dinosaurs. Their claws actually appear to be the perfect shape for fishing, not to mention their much larger size in comparison to most other large theropods. "Ripping things apart" is a major overstatement, especially when talking about large terrestrial animals. Theropod fore claws weren't their primary killing weapons; instead that role is taken over by their jaws.
Oh yea, and hey were placed directly underneath the body, meaning they would be useless against taller animals unless the spinosaurus were to rear up.
A couple of swipes won't kill the sarcosuchus based on the reasons stated above.
And I fail to see how a bite to the theropod's leg wouldn't do a thing considering the impressive bite force of the crocodylomorph (18,000 pounds, which is greater than that of tyrannosaurus). And please heed from bringing up the "sarcosuchus had thin and weak jaws" argument, because that is simply incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by Carcharadontosaurus on Nov 9, 2013 0:00:22 GMT -5
Spinosaurus and its closest kin were fundamentally specialized piscivores; they did not normally kill animals much bigger than themselves. In other words, their diet focused mainly on smaller food items which ranged from fish to medium-sized dinosaurs. Their claws actually appear to be the perfect shape for fishing, not to mention their much larger size in comparison to most other large theropods. "Ripping things apart" is a major overstatement, especially when talking about large terrestrial animals. Theropod fore claws were their primary killing weapons; instead that role is taken over by their jaws. Of course those claws may help a spinosaurid be hunting fish, but i still don't see why it couldn't also use those claws as weapons in a fight. Their jaws aren't the only effective weapon they have in their arsenal. I didn't say a bite to spino's legs wouldn't do a thing. I said that sarcosuchus couldn't really get to its legs without leaving itself completely vulnerable to be clawswiped by spinosaurus's arms.And i heavily doubt sarcosuchus had a bite force of 9 tons, it had quite thin jaws (particularly the mandible). It imo didn't really have a strong bite force though not particularly weak either, and a bite probably won't inflict very large wounds.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 9, 2013 9:11:08 GMT -5
They could obviously use them, but they wouldn't be as effective as people claim. Their claws were not designed for ripping apart large animals. Again, the theropod's forearms and claws are heavily overlooked. A couple of swipes won't do the crocodylomorph in. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0404_020408_supercrocbite.htmlCrocodilian bite forces are not necessarily determined by snout morphology, and even if it did sarcosuchus was nowhere close to weak. Its snout overall was actually very robust and its premaxilla morphology suggests that resistance in that region would be a little issue. A bite concentrated with this foremost region of its snout would actually be quite damaging if I may say so myself; the teeth in this region specifically were quite broad and heavily-built, and would have had no issues causing any sort of bone damage with enough driving force and resistance (which we know that sarcosuchus clearly possessed). Unlike spinosaurus which not only had a more specialized snout and premaxilla overall but also generally sharper and more slender dentition (better designed for piercing deeply. Such strong driving force is not a necessity in its case due to its tooth morphology), the crocodylomorph was clearly far better adapted for exerting crushing forces and putting the very spike-like morphology of its dentition into good use to cause crushing skeletal damage. And if its jaws won't do much damage, especially considering their power, I fail to see how the theropod's claws would do that much either. Please refer to one of my previous posts in this thread to see pictures
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Nov 9, 2013 9:20:27 GMT -5
Someone did tell me that Sarcosuchus' bite force could have probably been close to that of Deinosuchus riograndensis, since jaw morphology actually seems to have little bearing on bite force (I guess unless you're a gharial, whose are so thin and elongated). I'll bring up a quote later. So Sarcosuchus would likely IMO have the stronger bite. That said, I do give a small edge to Spinosaurus given it's heavier on average. If this were magically at parity, the pholidosaurid would have my vote.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 9, 2013 9:52:53 GMT -5
Someone did tell me that Sarcosuchus' bite force could have probably been close to that of Deinosuchus riograndensis, since jaw morphology actually seems to have little bearing on bite force (I guess unless you're a gharial, whose are so thin and elongated). I'll bring up a quote later. So Sarcosuchus would likely IMO have the stronger bite. That said, I do give a small edge to Spinosaurus given it's heavier on average. If this were magically at parity, the pholidosaurid would have my vote. Meh, only somewhat. Riograndensis has been estimated at having a bite force of close to 23,000 pounds, roughly 5,000 pounds more powerful than that of sarcosuchus. This is logical, as the more gracile skull of sarcosuchus (compared to deinosuchus) would make it less resistant to force. Skull anatomy has a much greater effect on bite strength than a lot of people claim, as evidenced by this chart (I have shown it here tons of times): There is an obvious line-of-best-fit, but there is still quite a bite of variation as seen with the Indian gharial. And you can even note a difference between the American crocodile and the American alligator at similar weights. The bottom line is that there still is variation in crocodilian bite force.
|
|
|
Post by Carcharadontosaurus on Nov 9, 2013 10:17:02 GMT -5
They could obviously use them, but they wouldn't be as effective as people claim. Their claws were not designed for ripping apart large animals. I'm sorry but i really think these claws could do quite a lot of damage, also they would have been quite heavily muscled. As this is only the arm of suchomimus, i could only imagine what the much bigger spinosaurus's claws could do. I really can't see how "several clawswipes won't take the crocodylomorph in". If anything those arms would likely inflict serious damage. I still don't see how sarcosuchus should inflict such huge devastating wounds on spino, it still has quite gracile jaws and exceptionally small teeth, those teeth are actually proportionally smaller than those of crocodiles and alligators so i doubt they would cause too much damage. Sarcosuchus might have had the stronger bite, but i would actually think that spinosaurus's bite would imo inflict larger wounds given it has overally thicker and larger teeth. I really doubt that sarco's bite would inflict much more damage than spino's claws.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 9, 2013 11:05:27 GMT -5
They could certainly do some damage, I am not denying that. But their limited range of motion would not allow for them to inflict THAT much damage.
But, its jaws were not gracile... They were actually quite broadened, even at the premaxilla region. There is no reason to believe that its rostrum was a weak structure.
Spinosaurus' teeth were, again, designed for ichthyophagy whereas those of sarcosuchus and many other large crocodylomorphs were better designed for crushing and macrophagous behavior. Both animals were different, so deadliness seems to be hypothetical at most. Spinosaurus' teeth were generally more elongate and a good deal sharper than those of sarcosuchus and similar genera; they were much better designed to compensate for the creature's piscivorous lifestyle. Spinosaurus' teeth were particularly well structured for deep penetration, making spinal damage possible with enough precision, but this is merely an evolutionary feature for its diet of large fish. Whereas the premaxillary teeth specifically of the other animal were considerably BROADER AND MORE ROBUST, being generally blunter and less well designed for deep penetration without a strong driving force.
Spinosaurus' teeth are better designed for deep stabbing, but they were generally more gracile by shape and were not designed for any particular crushing functions but instead simple perpendicular biting.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Nov 9, 2013 14:36:18 GMT -5
Someone did tell me that Sarcosuchus' bite force could have probably been close to that of Deinosuchus riograndensis, since jaw morphology actually seems to have little bearing on bite force (I guess unless you're a gharial, whose are so thin and elongated). I'll bring up a quote later. So Sarcosuchus would likely IMO have the stronger bite. That said, I do give a small edge to Spinosaurus given it's heavier on average. If this were magically at parity, the pholidosaurid would have my vote. Meh, only somewhat. Riograndensis has been estimated at having a bite force of close to 23,000 pounds, roughly 5,000 pounds more powerful than that of sarcosuchus. This is logical, as the more gracile skull of sarcosuchus (compared to deinosuchus) would make it less resistant to force. Skull anatomy has a much greater effect on bite strength than a lot of people claim, as evidenced by this chart (I have shown it here tons of times): There is an obvious line-of-best-fit, but there is still quite a bite of variation as seen with the Indian gharial. And you can even note a difference between the American crocodile and the American alligator at similar weights. The bottom line is that there still is variation in crocodilian bite force.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Nov 9, 2013 15:07:47 GMT -5
I know that if feels like logical sense that jaw morphology DOES have something to do with bite force, but if a study on crocodilian bite force claims it doesn't...
|
|