Spinosaurus Jaws Discussion

Interesting. Can't say I agree entirely, but there are some good points. Does a 4 ton PSI bite force sound reasonable to you?

Agree entirely on what? This is all fact-based, not opinion-based. Anyway, 4 tons seems too high for spinosaurids in general. They did not require such powerful bites, given their primary diet of fish, and nor is such a powerful bite even confirmed given their cranial morphology (it has been studied before. Sakamoto said so here: http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=9468 and I believe in a paper too). 2 tons seems more reasonable

On theses facts. I agree with most of it (opinions, just my opinion), but not all. I never thought that 4 tons would be a high estimate (Rex Vs Spino from the summer, anything negative against Spino was an insult and would be dealt with by rage, I always thought three tons before that). 

This is still quite interesting, I'll re-read to make sure I didn't miss anything. Did you see the discussion about an article that stated Spino was 55% the weight of Rex (about 4.4 tons)?

Here's the link:

Spinosaurus weight discussion

No, I did not read that yet. 4 tons as a bite force is unlikely for spinosaurus. It has been confirmed that, when basing it off of baryonyx, its bite force would not be very monstrous (strong, but not excessively strong), because we don't have much of spinosaurus towork with in this regard. Regardless of robusticity, its jaws and teeth were designed to grip and not crush.

Note that bite force does not depend on snout shape (hence why all crocodilians tend to possess similar biting forces), but the ability to crush does

I know. I was just saying my opinion (and people on team Spino got mad at me for giving it such a "low" bite force).

OH god...

Lets make a rule... A very good rule... The golden rule about spinosaurus and tyranasaurus rex... 

The info you provide can not be biased or opiniated, If you can please tip toe around the subject (When FBR first started it kicked up SO MUCH CONTREVERSY... which is werid becasue it was fact vs oppinion...) 

spino and rex is the most touchy subject ever... 

However this is fairly good Info, and i feel its reliable to an extent...

Also, heres a question for you to ponder, Would a fishing dinosaur have grown to such big of size just to hunt fish?

Definitely not. Spinosaurus, as stated, was characterized by a particularly dense rostrum, which means that overall strength would probably be much greater in this case than many believe. But yet, this argument is unusual, because it nonetheless was adapted to hunt rather large and powerful fish (trust me, many genera of Cretaceous fish were quite huge), and its morphology corresponds perfectly to their existence. Undoubtedly, being the largest terrestrial predator to have ever lived, opportunist feeding is definitely probable, but it was still a piscivorous creature fundamentally, and it was adapted to cope with that lifestyle

You say facts Godzillasaurus. We can't say facts. There are very few "facts" in paleontology. 99 percent of everything said is opinions and theories.

I've always estimated Spinosaurus' bite force at 4,000 psi. As far as it's teeth go, Spinosaurus' teeth were very straight. Great for grasping, but not tearing(I happen to own my own Spinosaurus tooth and I study it extensivley)...

Spinosaurus tooth

Tyrannosaurus teeth

Allosaurus teeth

There are basically three tooth designs. Gripping(Spinosaurus), slashing/tearing(Allosaurus), and crushing(Tyrannosaurus). Crushing teeth stand up to pressure the best, conical(gripping) second best, and slashing third.

Basically, the three biggest theropods(Tyrannosaurus, Spinosaurus, and Giganotosaurus) have varying bite forces depending on what they hunted and their overall musculature. Spinosaurus and Giganotosaurus had comparable bite forces of 3,000-6,000 psi. Strong, but not for their sizes. Tyrannosaurus came out with a force of 6,800-18,000 psi. 

In the end, Spinosaurus did not have weak jaws, but they really weren't anything special(except for their shape).

Those are interesting Rex Fan. You got Giga and Spino with a bite force of up to 6 000 PSI, and then Rex with more than that as a minimum. And people said we were biased in Rex's favour all the time

I'm never biased(I don't care what people say). I'm just stating opinions and theories(no facts).

I know. I try not to be. Some people are though (you know who I'm talking about. "I'm not going let go of Spino being bigger than Rex in EVERY way, especially weight). New scientific research points in the King's favour though.

I agree with that statement.

Notice how the only people who are online on a daily basis are on team Rex (and we have similar opinions)? Guess that's just the way the cookie crumbles (for now at least, just imagine the population explosion of JW once the first trailer hits the TV screens).

Interesting indeed. There are some statements I agree with, and other wich I don't. But very interesting overall. 

As said before, we can't rely on those "facts" in paleontology, as such things don't exist.

Here I mostly agree with RexFan and MrHappy, and you already know that. 

Also MrHappy, you're right. It'll be something like Godzilla forums those days. Before the trailer: 1-2 topics per day, a few people merely checking the forum. During and after the trailer: BOOOM!!!

I know. 

*Sudden realization* God help us when the noobs start posting on Rex vs Spino and start acting like they know more than us.

We're in the hands of admins :D

That's true. And it's kinda annoying when it happens. But here are some interesting thoughts.

Quote: You say facts Godzillasaurus. We can't say facts. There are very few "facts" in paleontology. 99 percent of everything said is opinions and theories. -Well then I am sorry. I typed too fast

Quote: As far as it's teeth go, Spinosaurus' teeth were very straight. Great for grasping, but not tearing(I happen to own my own Spinosaurus tooth and I study it extensively)…

-That is what I said…  Even though they were not necessarily designed for killing (they were not particularly enlarged, but yet their shape made penetration efficient.

Quote: There are basically three tooth designs. Gripping(Spinosaurus), slashing/tearing(Allosaurus), and crushing(Tyrannosaurus). Crushing teeth stand up to pressure the best, conical(gripping) second best, and slashing third.

-Resistance is not determined by the actual function of the teeth necessarily. But rather their actual robusticity and overall thickness. Spinosaurus general dentition shape was like that of an elongated and conical spike, most adept at piercing deeply into the hide of a prey animal and retaining a stable grip afterwards when struggling with a fish (hence why I also do not think that it was that weak...). BUT that does not mean that they were weak? Heck no! The conical shape is what allows them to grip; thinner-edged dentition would likely fracture too easily.

Quote: In the end, Spinosaurus did not have weak jaws, but they really weren't anything special(except for their shape).

-True. But they were designed for fishing, along with its overall dentition shape. It was special and unique in that regard, as is the spinosaurinae subfamily, and spinosauridae as a whole