To end this once and for all about spinosaurus

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

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

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

That's fine, I get it.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

Here's the image.

"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

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).

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

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

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. 

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Oh shit, my bad, I meant Thoery

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

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.

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.

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?