Re-Assessment: Rex vs. Spino

I always thought Rex's grip on Spino's neck looked shallow at best. Never looked quite right to me...

I've heard both of them were sub-adults, but that's just cuz their sizes are listed as smalle then the norm associated with them. Neither shared the characteristics of sub-adult animals.

Remember that it is just a movie. 

Besides, didn't you guys already proclaim that this debate was "dead"? 

@Dinosaur.Fanatic for the first page, spinosaurus' sail would definitely be a hidnerance to its movement. You are talking about an enlarged, probably at least somewhat heavy spinal column on the creature's back which was not intended for any such purpose aside from maybe intimidation, courtship, and POSSIBLY thermoregulation. There is no way the sail would at all make it more aerodynamic if that is what you are saying

Second, spinosaurus would not be catching small, swift fish. Instead, as what its anatomy seems to indicate, it will be going after larger and more powerful fish, albeit at least somewhat swift and agile in the water. Contrary to popular belief, spinosaurus would NOT be hunting small trout-sized fish. As for its hunting style, it would likely be an ambush hunter most of all; it did not need such immense speed to be able to hunt, because it was a piscivore. As long as it could catch and maintain a strong grip on fish, it would do fine

"In a nutshell, Spino is the slasher and Rex is the crusher. Both are effective predators in their respective environments and should they ever meet, the battle would be both titanic and evenly-matched.:

-Spinosaurus was not a slasher at all. It definitely appeared so based on its role in JP3, but in reality it was not a "slasher" at all. Tyrannosaurids were generally heavily-built crushing animals (especially those with broadened jaws like tyrannosaurus), I'll give you that, but a "slasher" (by your definition) would be a predator that possesses teeth and jaws suited to do so. An example would be allosaurus, ceratosaurus, or megalosaurus (all not very cosely related, but to give you an idea of how much a "slashing" morphology differentiated). Spinosaurus was a gripper of fish

"Accually, the best kind of tooth design, besides serrated railroad spike, is conical. A slashing tooth makes a clean slice, while, if a conical tooth moves up or down through flesh, it will make an ugly, open, most likly to get infected wound, but it takes a lot of force to move it."

This is false and opinionated, sorry to say. Whether or not a tooth shape is defined as "the best" relies on what kind of food items that said animal is evolved to eat. Spinosaurus, as many know, had pointed conical teeth ideal for piercing into the hides of fish. In which case, THAT is the best kind of tooth morphology for that lifestyle. If the common prey type was larger terrestrial animals, a recurved and sharper-edged tooth ideal for slashing and ripping would be most beneficial. So really, it depends on prey type and hunting style, not just "feeling". And also, a conical tooth like we see in spinosaurus would not 1. create huge gaping wounds alone, or 2. need that much force to drive it (depending on how sharp and slender it is). Conical teeth are not designed for creating large wounds, and in spinosaurus' case they were ideal for deep penetration (they were quite slenderized and sharp, unlike the most prominent conical dentition you see in animals like deinosuchus or sarcosuchus)

Spino's jaws were adept at gripping and tearng, its rostrum rather robust and resistant to lateral forces. This came in handy when tackling the twenty foot long, 1.5 ton onchopristis and the equally as massive Mawsonia. 

While not like that of Deinosuchus or Sarcosuchus, Spinosaurus' jaws bear a resemblance to those of the false gharial.

The false gharial feeds on fish, but it also takes mammals up to the size of small deer. Now, if we use this comparison, Spinosaurus would almost certainly take small hadrosaurs and such as well as the giant sawfish.

Also, I no longer believe that the neural spines of Spinosaurus supported a sail. They aren't as close together as those of dimetrodon, another famous sailbacked animal. 

I have more to this argument, but i want to see what yoy guys have to say!