The Spinosaurs

Spinosaurus at least has a 40% chance of winning in a fight against a T.Rex (IMO), a Baryonyx would have next to no chance at all

@godzillasaurus you mean the jaws that we have only found the lower jaw of? seriously? how can you claim it's jaws were so strong when you haven't found even the top jaw??

Furthermore, they haven'f found this things feet, or hands, or ANY part of it's torso. So, i'm assuming you made this up, or got it from a bogus source. I would love to be proved wrong, however

Oh dear indeed. Everyone has their opinions, and that's not about to be changed by one guy who posts freaking books about lateral pressure and whatnot on a predator, that we know next to nothing about.

oye...i'm just tired of all these bogus claims. you can have opinions, but when you state something as  fact that has NO evidence to support it...i just can't take it seriously..

This doesn't need sources cited; just observe the morphology of spinosaurus yourselves instead of being lazy and asking me to do it myself (I have explained to you guys time and time again why spinosaurus did not have a weak snout!). I am using inference and observation to make theories and yet you guys always claim spinosaurus to be weak because "itt wass a week fishy-eeter!" You two need to try harder than that!

Heavily-constructed snout (both rostrum and dentary inclusive)

Reasonable width and depth (not exceptional as we see in genera like tyrannosaurus or carcharodontosaurus), appearing to be for decent multidirectional strength

Thin jaws (for reducing drag in water)

Conical teeth that were very well designed for puncturing deeply and gripping

And, although not pertaining to the animal's actual snout morphology, long and powerful forearms that were ideal for grappling

All of these features suggest that spinosaurus hunted and killed large freshwater fish. This lifestyle is also evident in the surplus amount of such genera in its ecosystem (tropical plain environments). Not only does spinosaurus possess a fundamentally more robust morphology than animals well designed for killing (such as allosaurus for example, which would have been at an immediate risk of injury if it tried to grip a large animal in the same way that spinosaurus did), but the fish that it was specialized in killing were huge.

i'm not lazy, in fact i just searched for your 'good rostra they working  with'...nothing! you obviously ignored my post about finding NOTHING of it's body. absolutely nothing. You sir, cannot claim Spinosaurus was robust in any way shape or form.

I will give you this: conical teeth are good for gripping. But that's just an observation in toedays crocodilians. I'd love to see this mandible they found, instead of you just claiming it was found, provide proof?

Using other spinosaurs, some of which were SUB ADULTS or are poorly known like spinosaurus isn't a good point at all.. no spinosaurs had ' robust' skulls. most are long and narrow enter suchomimus:

Does this seem robust to you in any way? it's entirely long and shallow. 

You can guess at all you state above as your opinion. There is literally no scientific evidence to back up for claims godzillasaurus.

Just because Spinosaurus had well constructed jaws, does not mean they had high bite forces or powerful jaws. Daddy Long Legged Spiders have extremely deadly and powerful veonom, but their fangs are so short they can't use it on hardly anything. Spinosaurus may have had well construced jaws/teeth, but if it's jaw/neck muscles weren't all that powerful, then it really didn't have much of a chance at having a high bite force/jaw strenth.

and to address your point that allosaurus couldn't grip prey like spinosaurus did...Spinosaurus was an adapted FISH eater like other spinosaurs. No wonder it was better at gripping it's prey! allosaurus wasn't a fisher, so your point doesn't make sense to the argument.

I'm not trying to be hostile or anything, but c'mon man! give evidence..

--This is about its snout robusticity, not its entire body morphology.

Quote: I will give you this: conical teeth are good for gripping. But that's just an observation in toedays crocodilians. I'd love to see this mandible they found, instead of you just claiming it was found, provide proof?

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinosaurus

Quote: Using other spinosaurs, some of which were SUB ADULTS or are poorly known like spinosaurus isn't a good point at all.. no spinosaurs had ' robust' skulls. most are long and narrow enter suchomimus:

--So you're using suchomimus as a decent analogy for spinosaurus? Even when it was so much more gracile than spinosaurus (baryonychines were considerably more gracile than spinosaurines and were less well adapted for gripping resistance).

Quote: Does this seem robust to you in any way? it's entirely long and shallow.

--Spinosaurus begs to differ. It was still relatively narrow, but its snout was considerably broader and was far better adapted for killing large animals efficiently without breaking.

Quote: You can guess at all you state above as your opinion. There is literally no scientific evidence to back up for claims godzillasaurus.

--Oh, but there is... I have explained this too much...

Quote: Just because Spinosaurus had well constructed jaws, does not mean they had high bite forces or powerful jaws.

--THAT is what makes its jaws strong in the first place: their very heavy build. High biting forces are not a necessity for spinosaurus; what matters instead is a high capacity/ability for its snout to withstand the pressures found in predation.

Quote: Spinosaurus was an adapted FISH eater like other spinosaurs. No wonder it was better at gripping it's prey! allosaurus wasn't a fisher, so your point doesn't make sense to the argument.

--The fish that spinosaurus was adapted to kill were huge and very powerful, you know that right? Its snout was perfectly designed for withstanding the stress that would be experienced in gripping them without breaking as evidenced by its robusticity; that is really the bottom line here. Allosaurus killed with quick and forceful vertical bites utilizing its maxilla solely, but its snout and teeth were simply poorly designed for gripping without injury. For spinosaurus, this is rather the opposite case. Both animals killed different animals is entirely different ways, thus it is unwise to believe that spinosaurus was weaker than allosaurus

Compare the skulls of spinosaurus and carcharodontosaurus here:

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

did...did you just use wikipedia as a source? For the last time :WE DON'T know the body plan of spinosaurus! allosaurus is a terrible anology. two COMPLETELY different animals. Allosaurus wasn't a specialized fish eater, so OF COURSE it wasn't good at gripping. it's teeth weren't meant for that. Why? because....as i've stated...it wasn't designed for it. point blank period.

You haven't explained anything! all you have done is state your opinions. that is all, anything else you claim is just B.S. The only source you have given is wikipedia...also, no mention of a rostra in it whatsoever, only teeth and the vague phrase 'possible material'

Onchopristis was a huge fish yes, but i didn't say it wasn't in any way shape or form. 

P.S. i use suchomimus because that's what ole' spiny has it's body plan based off of XD

Godzillasaurus, you aren't gonna convince anyone anytime soon. There's no point. Your opinion belongs to you and I'm not about to let you force it upon everyone else by stating that it's the absolute truth.

It's pretty funny that the same WIKIPEDIA article which you used also states that the skull of Spinosaurus had poor resistance in comparison to other Spinosaurids like Baryonyx.Even though i don't think that the jaws of Spinosaurus were as robust as you make them, i don't believe that they were less robust than the jaws of a Baryonyx.

Wikipedia isn't the best source ;) I respect other peoples' opinions...but when you flaunt them as pure fact, that's when i say somethin.

To prove to you that they found more than just a dentary fragment of spinosaurus? Yes, yes I did

Quote: For the last time :WE DON'T know the body plan of spinosaurus! allosaurus is a terrible anology. two COMPLETELY different animals. Allosaurus wasn't a specialized fish eater, so OF COURSE it wasn't good at gripping. it's teeth weren't meant for that. Why? because....as i've stated...it wasn't designed for it. point blank period.

My point exactly...

Quote: You haven't explained anything! all you have done is state your opinions. that is all, anything else you claim is just B.S. The only source you have given is wikipedia...also, no mention of a rostra in it whatsoever, only teeth and the vague phrase 'possible material'

Sigh, you people never learn do you? THIS ISN'T A FUCKING OPINION! How many times do I have to tell you that!? In case you don't know how to read or use Wikipedia, I will tell you how to find information about rostra: 1) go to the article, 2) click on "discovery and naming", 3) read

Quote: P.S. i use suchomimus because that's what ole' spiny has it's body plan based off of XD

Based on the snout evidence that we have, it is not...

Quote: Your opinion belongs to you and I'm not about to let you force it upon everyone else by stating that it's the absolute truth.

And I have come here to tell you that this is not an opinion... The fact that spinosaurus was well adapted for gripping and is in possession of a more heavily-constructed snout than you guys make it out to be is, well, a fact. Claiming that allosaurus was more heavily-built in that realm is just plain wrong, especially when the evidence is right thee in front of you. Now I do not know how to post pictures here, so I cannot show anything to you.

Quote: It's pretty funny that the same WIKIPEDIA article which you used also states that the skull of Spinosaurus had poor resistance in comparison to other Spinosaurids like Baryonyx

Because that is demonstrably wrong. The writer took the results from a resistance test that was used to determine snout strength in spinosaurus. Spinosaurus actually did horribly on the test, but that was because they did not size-correct the respective rostra well. The calculations were way off, and they only tested the most gracile region of the spinosaurus' rostrum (the premaxilla. They did not even attempt at testing the resistance of the maxilla, which was a considerably more robust piece of its rostrum due to its remaining impressive build and greater depth/width): http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0065295

Quote: Even though i don't think that the jaws of Spinosaurus were as robust as you make them out to be,

Really? A snout that is represented by a particularly greater robusticity and overall density than non-piscivorous genera (like allosaurus and carcharodontosaurus) that was a clear adaptation (in heavy correspondence with the animal's enlarged forearms and conical teeth) for gripping large fish is not robust?: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Spinocombo.jpg

whatever dude. take your B.S. Info else where. You make no sense at all. and i'm not about to listen to this crap any more.

i'm 22 broski. i never once said i was 'right' only that your 'facts' were B.S. Show me the studies. Show me the research you have done to back up your claims. as far as pictures go, copy and paste them. simple as that. You might want to do Ctrl V though, as your computer might not allow the copy and paste. simply click copy, then ctrl v on your response. i'd love to see this.

Stop arguing. I'm just as annoyed by the constant "lateral pressure" this, and the "dentition" that, as the next guy, so please stop. Like Rex Fan said, you are NOT changing ANYONE'S opinion anytime soon, and that will NOT change.

I'm more than annoyed by this whole thing right now. You do realize that most of these topics are from mid-summer and older, right? 

If we say something is not our opinion, but fact, people get pissed off, and now you're saying that it is not wise to say stuff is out opinion. You sound just like the next biased as **** Spino fan.

Godzillasaurus, you're telling me that you know facts, undeniable facts, about an animal that has been dead for 100 million years? NO BODY knows any "facts" about these animals except that they existed on our planet. No facts at all! Just theories and opinions!

Spino had conical teeth, there's on fact we know about it. That's all I can think of.

So having conical teeth and a very slender snout is an opinion???

Quote: Spino had conical teeth, there's on fact we know about it. That's all I can think of.

That and a couple of other factors contribute to our knowledge of spinosaurus predation. Spinosaurus was in possession of a very narrow and relatively shallow rostrum that was yet MORE HEAVILY CONSTRUCTED AND MORE ROBUST than an animal that did not kill by gripping such as allosaurus or carcharodontosaurus. It was in possession of a much less gracile and sparse build than the other two genera as evidenced by its overall greater density (which is entirely evident in its lack of similarly-sized fenestrae that make up a good portion of allosaur rostra. It was simply a generally more solid piece of bone) and was in fact at a much lessened risk of fracturing in breaking.

All of these factors seem to point to a high capacity to grip and kill LARGE FISH SUCH AS ONCHOPRISTIS AND MAWSONIA without injury. The more gracile and less heavily-constructed build of allosaur rostra simply do not indicate such high reliance on gripping and would instead be particularly vulnerable to injury.