Poll: Who wins?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Tyrannosaurus rex
85.71%
24 85.71%
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
14.29%
4 14.29%
Total 28 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tyrannosaurus rex v Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
#76
(03-12-2019, 12:44 AM)Maxilla Wrote: I'm well aware that there are variations on an individual level. I'm suggesting that simply saying "Some individuals are going to be more aggressive than others" doesn't add to the conversation any more than if I said "There might be bigger specimens out there". Both statements are likely true, but they don't mean anything from a debating stance. This is a debate about two species in a general sense. Not two individuals. So we do end up having to consider the average rather than extremes. If this conversation was about individuals, it would be "FMNH PR 2081v MSNM v 4047" or whatever permutation of that is requested.
From what I understood, Verdugo's point was not to add anything to this debate itself, but to show why this debate (while fun) is unrealistic and should not be taken too seriously because it relies on idealized assumptions. It's rare enough that we find records of an animal interaction today where our standard battle assumptions are met, there's no reason to assume it was different in the past.
[-] The following 2 users Like Jinfengopteryx's post:
  • Melanosuchus, Verdugo
Reply
#77
I agree with Verdugo's arguments about the unpredictability of the duels since we do not know about the behavior of these species (who would have imagined, just seeing the skeleton of an stoat, that is capable of killing prey 10 times heavier? This animal has a light built and short legs....)

But I also understand Maxila's argument. In these hypothetical duels some of us prefer to work only with the raw data we have. In this particular case, all we know is the anatomy of the two dinosaurs and, anatomically, the carnosaurs look best built for this fight.

This is the general problem we have with interspecific duels of extinct animals, it's all very "fictional". We don't even know the true anatomy of spinosaurus.

A few days ago they did the topic "Afrovenator vs Saltriovenator". All we have of Saltriovenator are a few small fragments of bones. I don't even dare to argue an argument for this duel.

In the end, we have two ways of hypothesizing the combats:

1- Be as conservative as possible, and consider only factual data (known animal size, anatomy, etc.).

2- Consider other possibilities taking into account what we see in living species. (eg, the spinosaurus could use its claws as an anteater? We do not know, but it is possible. It could adopt a tripodal posture and become almost 10 meters tall? Maybe...)


In the topic of Giga vs. T-rex, I argued that giganotosaurus could probably be a larger animal than t-rex, since only 1 specimen was found and this one is quite large. At least in length, this should be a larger animal than t-rex in its mean and maximum sizes. And possibly heaviest. Another thing to consider is that the reconstitution of t-rex has changed several times over time. Its mass has already been estimated in a number of ways, and the fact that we have several specimens, and some of them very well preseverd, enables this kind of deepening in the study.

With each new study we learn about an incredible adaptation about the t-rex, and it seems to become a kind of "super dinosaur". But probably the other great theropods also possessed several impressive features as well, we just do not know, because ......... we know very little about them in general. It is almost unfair to compare the super-known dinosaur (t-rex) with any other large theropod.


Giganotosaurus, Spinosaurus, and many others don't have this luxury. With more fossils it is possible that these animals become bigger, smaller, heavier, lighter, etc.  

On the same topic, another member who answered me said that he was based only on the data we have, and what we have factually is that the t-rex is heavier than the Giga. Therefore, he prefers to work with this type of information. I don't think he's wrong, it's just a different way of interpreting things.


I really apologize for my English, but  I can't review the text now.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Melanosuchus's post:
  • Maxilla
Reply
#78
(03-12-2019, 06:15 AM)Melanosuchus Wrote: I agree with Verdugo's arguments about the unpredictability of the duels since we do not know about the behavior of these species (who would have imagined, just seeing the skeleton of an stoat, that is capable of killing prey 10 times heavier? This animal has a light built and short legs....)

But I also understand Maxila's argument. In these hypothetical duels some of us prefer to work only with the raw data we have. In this particular case, all we know is the anatomy of the two dinosaurs and, anatomically, the carnosaurs look best built for this fight.

This is the general problem we have with interspecific duels of extinct animals, it's all very "fictional". We don't even know the true anatomy of spinosaurus.

A few days ago they did the topic "Afrovenator vs Saltriovenator". All we have of Saltriovenator are a few small fragments of bones. I don't even dare to argue an argument for this duel.

In the end, we have two ways of hypothesizing the combats:

1- Be as conservative as possible, and consider only factual data (known animal size, anatomy, etc.).

2- Consider other possibilities taking into account what we see in living species. (eg, the spinosaurus could use its claws as an anteater? We do not know, but it is possible. It could adopt a tripodal posture and become almost 10 meters tall? Maybe...)


In the topic of Giga vs. T-rex, I argued that giganotosaurus could probably be a larger animal than t-rex, since only 1 specimen was found and this one is quite large. At least in length, this should be a larger animal than t-rex in its mean and maximum sizes. And possibly heaviest. Another thing to consider is that the reconstitution of t-rex has changed several times over time. Its mass has already been estimated in a number of ways, and the fact that we have several specimens, and some of them very well preseverd, enables this kind of deepening in the study.

With each new study we learn about an incredible adaptation about the t-rex, and it seems to become a kind of "super dinosaur". But probably the other great theropods also possessed several impressive features as well, we just do not know, because ......... we know very little about them in general. It is almost unfair to compare the super-known dinosaur (t-rex) with any other large theropod.


Giganotosaurus, Spinosaurus, and many others don't have this luxury. With more fossils it is possible that these animals become bigger, smaller, heavier, lighter, etc.  

On the same topic, another member who answered me said that he was based only on the data we have, and what we have factually is that the t-rex is heavier than the Giga. Therefore, he prefers to work with this type of information. I don't think he's wrong, it's just a different way of interpreting things.


I really apologize for my English, but  I can't review the text now.

Well said. It's not that I think the other way of thinking is wrong, because again- it's totally valid. It's just not conducive to the discussion unless there's some underlying rationalization or evidence to suggest it. I like raw data- it's easy to work with and I change my views as more data is discovered. As I said in that Tyrannosaurus v Giganotosaurus thread:

Quote:"About the size, I did not know the average weight size for the t-rex specimens. This can be a problem for Giganatosaurus. This is a problem for Giganotosaurus. But only one good copy of Giga was found, and another could have ( or not) almost the same weight as Sue. "

Which is entirely possible. It’s also entirely possible that our current G. Carolinii skeleton is an outlier and the average is notably smaller. I hope we get to revisit this topic with more information in the future, because for the time being I give it to the Rex on the grounds that it’s a more massive animal.

I eagerly await the day where we have more specimens, Melanosuchus. Then the conversation can get really interesting.
[Image: ltiZ2aC.jpg]
Reply
#79
I have voted for Tyrannosaurus. Anyone who remembers my activity in the old Carnivora should probably wonder "is Thalassophoneus OK?".
Reply
#80
(06-23-2019, 02:47 AM)Thalassophoneus Wrote: I have voted for Tyrannosaurus. Anyone who remembers my activity in the old Carnivora should probably wonder "is Thalassophoneus OK?".

Nothing wrong with having a change of mind when it comes to this.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)