Dinosaur

Dinosaur

 
Tyrannosaurus Rex vs Spinosaurus aegypticus.
 
Posts  1 - 12  of  12
Dinosaur discussion
 
PaudieN1
Was Jurassic Park 3's fight between the two correct? Science says no. Who would really win? Let's find out. Tyrannosaurus Rex, lenght: 40-45ft. Weight: 7tons. Weapons: jaws (the most powerful of any land animal and in comparison to size the most powerful of all time) large talon-like feet claws. It's arms could be used as hooks to hold prey. Lifestyle: hunted (evidence has been found of Hadrosaur and Triceratops bones partly healed from a T.Rex bite but they probabely died in a few weeks from their wounds) and scavenged when it could. Spinosaurus, length: 50-60ft. Weight 7-8tons. Weapons: large arms and finger claws, talon-like feet claws and it's jaws (were actually narrow and in large therepodical dinosaur terms were probably weak) lifestyle: ate fish mostly and sometimes hunted small dinosaurs, also it wouldn't turn down a rotting carcass. Let's get neutral scientific minds to have their say on this long debated matter and finally find the answer.
           
 
PaudieN1
replied to: PaudieN1
Replied To:  Was Jurassic Park 3's fight between the two correct? Science says n...
Obviously this fight could never take place because of time and place differences but pretend it did, who would win? In my opinion Tyrannosaurus Rex would. Why? Well because, Spinosaurus has size but just doesn't have a weapon as lethal as T.Rex's jaws. Tyrannosaurus Rex's jaws were like a one-hit k.o. if they hit the right place. Spinosaurus Aegypticus's jaws just didn't have a that same sort of power, and it's arms were'nt nearly strong enough to twist the necks of large Therepods. Also, T.Rex had a much larger brain than S.Aegypticus. As for the teeth, Tyrannosaurus Rex's were perfect for holding prey because of their serrated and banana appearance, Spinosaurus Aegypticus' were conical and more suited to holding fish. T.Rex was also a more advanced and evolved predator. So in my opinion (and indeed in the opinion of many other paleontologists) Tyrannosaurus Rex would emerge victorious.
           
 
PaudieN1
replied to: PaudieN1
Replied To:  Was Jurassic Park 3's fight between the two correct? Science says n...
Jurassic Park 3's fight between Tyrannosaurus Rex and Spinosaurus Aegypticus was scientifically incorrect and not accurate. Spinosaurus A. couldn't survive a bite from T.Rex like it did in Jurassic Park 3. In real-life Spinosaurus' neck would be crushed and it would be decapatated. Spinosaurus A.'s jaws and arms couldn't twist necks like it did in Jurassic Park 3. Tyrannosaurus Rex is the true king of the dinosaurs. Spinosaurus or any other will never come close to matching it. Latest studies prove T.Rex was faster, stronger and smarter than previously thought and there is proof that it hunted. So after all the nonsense and unfair criticism, T.Rex is back! Long live Tyrannosaurus Rex, the king of tyrant lizards!
           
 
PaudieN1
replied to: PaudieN1
Replied To:  Obviously this fight could never take place because of time and pla...
T.Rex vs Spinosaurus T.Rex wins hands down Jurassic Park 3 was totally incorrect
           
 
PaudieN1
replied to: PaudieN1
Replied To:  T.Rex vs Spinosaurus T.Rex wins hands down Jurassic Park 3 was tota...
Science has proved that T.Rex would win easily and Jurassic Park 3 was totally wrong
           
 
dinosaurs
replied to: PaudieN1
Replied To:  Was Jurassic Park 3's fight between the two correct? Science says n...
Dont listen to stupid movies!dinosaurs were loving, living creatures like us! and im a 10 year old dino fanatic ask me anything any time!
           
 
AnnDee
replied to: PaudieN1
Replied To:  Was Jurassic Park 3's fight between the two correct? Science says n...
By PaudieN1:

So in my opinion (and indeed in the opinion of many other paleontologists) Tyrannosaurus Rex would emerge victorious.

Ummm, and those paleontologists would be ...who?

(Is it usual on this board to reply to oneself *four* times?)
           
 
PaudieN1
replied to: AnnDee
Replied To:  By PaudieN1: So in my opinion (and indeed in the opinion of many...
"Dinosaur George" etc. Anyway that is not the point. I made these several posts to add to my previous ones and to try to attract users. If you do not have anything to contribute, do not post here.
           
 
PaudieN1
replied to: dinosaurs
Replied To:  Dont listen to stupid movies!dinosaurs were loving, living creature...
I agree completely. Non-avian dinosaurs were not blood-thirsty gladiators, they were animals who would do anything to survive. If you want a better forum than this, come to Topix Dinosaur Forum.
           
 
lehmann520
replied to: PaudieN1
Replied To:  I agree completely. Non-avian dinosaurs were not blood-thirsty glad...
I was wondering what you think about the Trex as a scavenger theory?

do you think they were fast enough to catch some of the really quick species? Is it more likely that juvenile or youthful trexes were the hunters while older ones preferred scavenging or perhaps preying on the really huge beasts while on the run...sort of a movable feast?

I have this mental image of a large, older trex pounding along side a brontosaur, tearing out huge chunks of flesh as it moves and tossing them back like a bird with a fish...lions do this sometimes with large prey, eat them alive...seems like a natural activity

also, Spinosaurus looks more like a fish eater or at least an animal that hunts in water to me...the jaw is too delicate, the head too streamlined and those spines say either cooling or heating while submerged to me.

in a straight up fight, on land, Tyrannosaur is the clear heavy weight but at the edge of the river or lake, he would be taken under and drowned then eaten

anyway, food for thought
Dawn
           
 
PaudieN1
replied to: lehmann520
Replied To:  I was wondering what you think about the Trex as a scavenger theory...
The arguement for Tyrannosaurus being an obligate scavenger is dead. Even Jack Horner now admits he was wrong. The discovery of healed bite marks on Hadrosaur and Cerotopsian bones have brought this classic debate to a close. So, it is official, Tyrannosaurus was a superpredator.
Spinosaurus, likely, did not have a sail at all, but a hump-like structure, similar to a buffalo. Obviously, Spinosaurus had a skull that was not as reinforced as that of Tyrannosaurus, but I do not see why it could not engage in active predation itself. Of course fish was its main food source, but I do not think it was completely limited to it. The reason why I think fish was its main source of food is because of its hyper-elongated skull, conical teeth and the fact that it was semi-aquatic. It is also worth noting that Spinosaurus had NON-serrated teeth. This means it probably could not tackle as large prey as other large Theropods could.
Hope this helps;).
           
 
Doyler589
replied to: PaudieN1
Replied To:  Was Jurassic Park 3's fight between the two correct? Science says n...
Spino was 12.3-18.2m long and weighed
4.5-15.7 tons.weapons: 7ft arms with
38cm claws it also used power, speed
and scared off rivals such as
Sarcosuchus and Carchardontosaurus
off their meal ,it also hunted them aswell.
I dont belive spino hunted fish because
of its mass.



T-rex was 11.2-13.3m long and weighed
3.5-7.3 tons.weapons powerful legs
and tail and of corse that narly mouth
with 25cm teeth and that powerful
jaw.t-rex was scavenger scareing
everthing off their meal,t- rex was also
an ambush predator.

RESULT:Spinosaurus was too big, t-rex
Would be too intimadated to go in for the
Kill .One swipe from spino claws
is serten death.spino wins 8/10