To end this once and for all about spinosaurus

Godzillasaurus

I know some of you are desperate to be right, but you guys simply cannot accept the facts that spinosaurus was not a weak animal and was in fact actually probably quite strong in terms of snout, and was certainly more solid in this regard than carcharodontosaurus. You guys do not see the facts and only think that spinosaurus' snout was not very strong because "it wass sow mutch smaler in hight and widthe then carcarodontasaurus!" This is wrong! I cannot stress that enough.

By comparing the snouts of carcharodontosaurus and spinosaurus, there is so much that you guys are overlooking. All of the characteristics in spinosaurus point to a high capacity to grip, especially more-so than in carcharodontosaurus. These important characteristics include:

More heavily-constructed rostrum in spinosaurus (it was more compact and was characterized by particularly higher density

Rostrum that, along with its more impressive density and build, was simply better adapted for multidirectional resistance. This flows into the point about a much lessened risk of injury in such gripping; spinosaurus' snout was simple so much better designed for gripping without stress fracturing occurring

Balanced dimensions (this flows into my previous point)

Conical teeth (designed for piercing and gripping, not killing)

Simply compare the two animals' snouts, because I am sick of all this "yoo hav no proofs" crap: http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101003190116/archosauria/images/e/e2/Skulls2.png

Lord Vader

That's fine S-Rex, I respect your opinion (because it is an opinion, and you say it's an opinion).

Carnosaur

i didn't really want to, but i couldn't find any carchy spino skull comparisons..

Godzillasaurus

Quote: Saying something is fact about Spinosaurus (all dinosaurs, for that matter), is saying everything we know about sharks (creatures that have been observed and documented), is an opinion.

There are no opinions in paleontology... Just theories that are supported by facts.

Quote: oh god -_- it talked about Carcharodontosaurs' skull anatomy and function, like you wanted. Carcharodontosaurus did have a more robust skull! that is FACT! heck, tyrannosaurus rex has a more robust skull. Are you gonna say its not?

Ok, so I used the searching function to search for both theropods, and nothing came up comparing and contrasting the two. Tyrannosaurus had a pneumatic rostrum, but yet it is common knowledge that it was a simply very strongly-fused structure that was designed for resistance and crushing as a whole, which allosaurs like carcharodontosaurus (for relevance reasons) did not possess... It is definitely likely that carcharodontosaurus had a generally STRONGER SKULL VERTICALLY, but probably not for gripping. It is all about adaptations buddy

Carcharodontosaurus did not possess a very robust snout! It would have likely been damaged very easily in gripping events, especially by comparison to that ability in spinosaurus. Spinosaurus was characterized by a much more robustly-constructed rostrum that was, fundamentally in conjunction with its tooth morphology, a decent indicator of high gripping resistance. Based on what we know about both animals, spinosaurus was simply much better designed for gripping as evidenced by its comparably more dense rostrum.

Quote: i didn't really want to, but i couldn't find any carchy spino skull comparisons..

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101003190116/archosauria/images/e/e2/Skulls2.png

Lord Vader

That's fine, I get it.

Carnosaur

you're seriously ridiculous bro. You didn't Even READ it? then you can't say it didn' thave anything relevant in it. so scientific.

The stuff your insistantly spewing at us about spino is a theory of YOURS. that is it. point. blank. period.

Lord Vader

Better things to do? Such as......? What? Theories, opinions, same deal, different word. It is my theory that Rex (for example) maxed out at 45 feet, or It is my opinion that Rex maxed out at 45 feet. Theory just sounds more professional.

Godzillasaurus

You know what, tell me what evidence you have to back up your "opinion" that spinosaurus was a weakly-built animal.

Spinosaurus Rex

I tried to already and it says its a forbidden page...

Lord Vader

When the F*** did anyone say Spino was weakly built? Answer me that! I look forward to seeing what you have misunderstood to get that.

Carnosaur

your link failed epically.

I will find sources for my info in a minute, but one limitation/ disadvange of spino is that huge sail on it's back. It falls on that thing,it breaks its back and dies. It is also a huge target for Carcharodontosaurus to munch into, and is EVIDENCE of that happening( or some large theropod) biting into a spinos sail. there's one thing that made it a 'weak' animal. Probably wasn't adapted for terrestrial prey, or fighting other theropods. But that's MY THEORY.

Spinosaurus Rex

It looks like there was more to highlight after i highlighted that last slash mark, so maybe i didnt highlight it all.

Spinosaurus Rex

Uhhh, Mr Happy, you AND Rex Fan have said it was weakly built before numberous  times.

Lord Vader

Here's the image.

Carnosaur

"In 2008 a spinosaurus vertabra was recovered. Part of the tall neural spine of the bone was broken off. It appeared to have been bitten in half. Its been suggested that the bite had been inflicted by carcharodontosaurus."

 http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/dinosaur/lost-world.html

@ S-Rex probably was wekly built, but hey, again my theory

Lord Vader

We say lightly built, in comparison to other large theropods. Maybe the last part isn't as obvious, but that's what I mean. My reasoning is that if it had a mainly piscivourous lifestyle, it wouldn't need to be heavily built for combat (just my opinion/theory).

Godzillasaurus

And what do you have to support your theory? I have said several times why it is likely not the case

Quote: Probably wasn't adapted for terrestrial prey, or fighting other theropods. But that's MY THEORY.

For once I actually agree with you, which is what I have been saying this entire time dude... Although the part about fighting is debatable

FACT DUDE

In fact i can PROVE Rex Fan has on another site.

Lord Vader

That's exactly why he does have to prove his theory, because you think it is unlikely. Just deal with it that we have different opinions than you, ok? Just. Deal. With. It. 

Carnosaur

multiple things bud.

1.) the mere FACT we have next to nothing on spinosaurus, you cannot say you know all of these things about its anatomy.

2.) It's a FACt dinosaurs died at 65MYA, so we don't really know anything. You cannot claim stuff said above is irresputable. Professional paleontologists can't even do that without coming under heavy criticism.

Godzillasaurus

So a few nearly complete rostra do not qualify as knowing something about the animal?

Carnosaur

also, you made zero sense in what you just posted. You said nothing about my theory, you just went on your "spinos ability to grip shpeel again'

and NO! goddamn, you have part of it's face. that is all. with part of it's spine! i don't think that qualifies for any knowledge on Spinosaurus.

Godzillasaurus

Lord Vader

You can state anything claiming it to be a fact, when in reality, 99% is opinion. 

Carnosaur

and no offense bud, but i'll wait for a scientific study of the Spinosaurus' jaws before i take your words as the 100% undisputable truth.

Godzillasaurus

Lord Vader

Oh shit, my bad, I meant Thoery

Lord Vader

You mean the link to the picture that I ended up posting? Yeah, we saw that.

Carnosaur

the comparison? i did, didn't make sense to your argument, like most of your posts. Carchy has a more robust skull. that is all. larger spots for jaw muscles too, that adds to how robust and strong an animals skull is i believe.

Godzillasaurus

Quote: the comparison? i did, didn't make sense to your argument, like most of your posts.

Why not?

Quote: Carchy has a more robust skull. that is all.

The truth is, it does not in terms of build... Sure it is possible that it was much stronger vertically (for EVOLUTIONARY REASONS), but this has nothing to do about robusticity buddy. Spinosaurus' snout was denser and more compact, albeit weaker vertically.

Quote: larger spots for jaw muscles too, that adds to how robust and strong an animals skull is i believe.

Actually, the capacity for which its snout is strong is attributed to its depth, nothing more. 

Spinosaurus, however, was less well designed for killing in the same way. It did not possess an exceptionally deep snout or slicing dentition and was rather not well designed for killing but instead gripping. The large fenestrae present in carcharodontosaurus' rostrum (which is fundamentally one of the primary factors contributing to its lessened ability to grip without injury) evolved to lighten its skull, as it simply did not require such impressive gripping resistance; spinosaurus in turn was characterized by a much less lightly-constructed rostrum that was more-so a solid piece of bone (it was not 100% solid of course, but it was still a generally dense structure for the most part). Based on what evidence we have, spinosaurus simply seems far better adapted for gripping resistance which is in strong correspondence with its primary diet of large fish.

Carnosaur

your comparing apples and oranges man. You are way better off comparing spino to other spinosaurs, or modern day crocodilians. Of course Carchy wasn't adept at gripping, it's skull was simply not made for it! this is like your allosaurus comparison..lets focus on your carcharodontosaurus comment:

Those large circles at the back, are you saying those AREN'T for jaw muscles?