To end this once and for all about spinosaurus

read this: illustrates my point earlier. Also some stuff on Spinosaurs in there.

http://www.academia.edu/1812192/Structural_performance_of_tetanuran_theropod_skulls_with_emphasis_on_the_Megalosauridae_Spinosauridae_and_Carcharodontosauridaeread t

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

Uh, is there any evidence suggesting they were? Fenestrae are for lightening the skull, not anchoring jaw muscles. Modern crocodilians do not have such large fenestrae, and they have VERY weak bites (sarcasm, obviously)... Besides, possessing a powerful bite and powerful jaw muscles =/= having robust jaws necessarily

place for jaw muscles...! dude..carcharodontosaurus killed with its bite......you kidding?

Ok, last time: Allosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus didn't have a gripping bite, they had shred and tear bites! they aren't made for gripping! we've been over this..horrible analogy!

Spino's teeth wre conical, ideal for gripping slippery prey animalslike onchopristis. something we have been over many times through this discussion... did you even read the paper?

Quote: place for jaw muscles...! dude..carcharodontosaurus killed with its bite......you kidding?

It probably did not kill with powerful and/or forceful biting, however. It would have utilized only its maxillary dentition for the majority of the time via hatchet-biting. No shit its jaws were its primary weapons... Does that mean they had to be powerful?

Quote: Ok, last time: Allosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus didn't have a gripping bite, they had shred and tear bites! they aren't made for gripping! we've been over this..horrible analogy!

-Wha.?.?.? This makes no sense, partly because you have no clue what an analogy is

Quote: Spino's teeth wre conical, ideal for gripping slippery prey animalslike onchopristis. something we have been over many times through this discussion... 

-I'm not sure if I should correct you or agree with you... Because it seems like you are being sarcastic and acting like a douchebag... In which case, sorry, but you are still wrong

Quote: did you even read the paper?

Couldn't... I was on a phone. I will try to read it now though

they haven't done studies on Carcarodontosauruses bite yet, that's speculative at best. the paper has something to say about that

How theropod dinosaur skulls experience stress and strain during the application of adductor muscle loads provides a unique insight into their feeding behaviour andprinciples of skeletal construction and scaling. Of particular interest are unusual cranial morphologies, such as those seenin the spinosaurid theropods,Baryonyx walkeri,Suchomimus tenerensis,Irritator challengeri and Spinosaurus aegyptiacus.This study uses the engineering technique ï¬nite elementanalysis to reconstruct feeding-related stress and strain in the skulls of seven theropod dinosaurs: ï¬ve non-neotetanurans( Afrovenator ,Dubreuillosaurus,Monolophosaurus,Spinosaurus and Suchomimus) and two basal neotetanurans ( Acrocanthosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus). Two-dimensional ï¬nite ele-ment models are created, and simulated adductor muscle loads are applied in proportion to the lateral surface area of the skull, thereby removing the influence of size and testingthe efï¬ciency of shape at resisting relative loads. Results show a signiï¬cant size-related trend, with large taxa experiencinggreater stresses than smaller taxa. Whilst Suchomimus scaleswith other theropods,Spinosaurusis a notable outlier andexperiences much higher magnitudes of cranial stress thanwould be predicted. It may be that when realistic loadingparameters are considered, larger theropods mitigate poten-tial cranial weakness through concomitant scaling of adduc-tor muscle and bite force or through modiï¬cations tofeeding ecology, especially in taxa such asSpinosaurus. Giventhe 2D nature of these models, results and interpretationsshould be treated with caution, and are at best consideredpredictors of biomechanical performance and feeding ecol-ogy, to be tested in the future with more appropriate 3D finite element models.

Thats just the abstract portion.

Here's a crazy idea! How about we all just drop it! Godzillasaurus, you're opinion/theory is yours and you can't force it upon other people. PFG, I'm on your side, but you aren't getting through to him. It's a debate about an animal that has been extinct for 100 million years! There are no true answeres! There are only theories/opinions. So just drop the whole damn arguement! NOW!

Sorry to all those that aren't the problem. This does not apply to you. You know who you are.

This reminds of my topic of NanoTyrannus.

Godzillasaurus look its good to have your own opinion but when do go off facts thats how it works trust me I was given a hard time with my topic Rex Killer they got and found more facts of NanoTyrannus.

Look, Spinosaurus was undeniably a powerful animal, just look at it's sheer size, but the "debate" has always been centered around whether Spinosaurus had the ability to take down large game & the evidence does point towards Carcharodontosaurus simply being better suited for tackling large sauropods and the like. Spinosaurus was huge & powerful, but it was also a fairly slim and gracile animal. It's jaws might be able to withstand twisting and pressure but one look at it's teeth is, in my opinion, proof that this animal was not hunting and killing large prey items. Recurved teeth only exist, with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions, in land predators for the simple reason that teeth that curve backwards are useful for holding onto and tearing at prey that is trying to get away. Spinosaurus has the conical teeth of a crocodile, this doesn't mean it had a weak bite, but it means that it was built for primarily catching smaller, aquatic prey. Robustness of jaws is only one factor of an animals diet. Spinosaurus simply was not designed to be a big game hunter, Allosaurs like Carcharodontosaurus where, that's simply the facts based on the evidence we have.

Back up just one step, people! There are no opinions going on here; if spinosaurus has a morphology that is well suited for fishing and gripping, that is a fact or, to the very least, a theory based on the facts that we already have. Now if I were to call spinosaurus the best dinosaur ever, THAT is an opinion. You guys simply cannot have an entire subforum devoted to factual scientific discussion if you refute everything that is said as an opinion; it just doesn't work that way...

Quote: Spinosaurus was huge & powerful, but it was also a fairly slim and gracile animal.

---The truth is, is really was not all that gracile... It was much more robust and powerful than you claim it to be, but yet you deny that because of your stupid "opinionated" BS

Quote: It's jaws might be able to withstand twisting and pressure but one look at it's teeth is, in my opinion, proof that this animal was not hunting and killing large prey items.

---So does that mean that they were weak? So what if they were not ideal for killing, they were not adapted for slicing and ripping but instead piercing deeply and gripping. Spinosaurus did not need to have a morphology well suited for killing, simply because it hunted large fish (and I am talking HUGE fish like onchopristis). Unlike carcharodontosaurus, its snout and teeth were well designed for gripping; an animal being adapted for killing large sauropods does not make it a better predator. Both animals are evolved to cope with different prey items, and neither is necessarily "far better" in the regard that you are implying

But that said, spinosaurus' teeth were still more than capable of killing via well-placed and yet powerful puncturing to a prey animal's spinal cord or throat.

Quote: Recurved teeth only exist, with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions, in land predators for the simple reason that teeth that curve backwards are useful for holding onto and tearing at prey that is trying to get away.

---Umm, teeth that are recurved, laterally compressed, and serrated are poorly designed for gripping. Carcharodontosaurus' dentition was only adept at cutting and ripping, not piercing and gripping like the generally stronger and conical teeth of spinosaurus. Spinosaurus' teeth were well designed for piercing and gripping, those of carcharodontosaurus were not. That is a circular argument to claim that carcharodontosaurus' teeth were adapted for gripping while spinosaurus' were not, because that is simply incorrect.

Quote: Spinosaurus has the conical teeth of a crocodile, this doesn't mean it had a weak bite, but it means that it was built for primarily catching smaller, aquatic prey.

Spinosaurus was adapted more-so for taking down large and powerful fish; its teeth and snout were very strong. So no, spinosaurus did not only go after "small aquatic prey"

Quote: Robustness of jaws is only one factor of an animals diet. Spinosaurus simply was not designed to be a big game hunter, Allosaurs like Carcharodontosaurus where, that's simply the facts based on the evidence we have

But spinosaurus in general possessed a much more robust sbout and tooth morphology alike. Its snout was designed to grip large and powerful fish without breaking, and its teeth would not simply crack as well as you are implying. Simply put, its snout was likely far stronger than that of allosaurus and carcharodontosaurus; it was designed for multidirectional resistance and would most likely not be injured in gripping. This is the opposite case for allosaurs; their snouts would likely be fractured in just events, as their less heavily-constructed and more pneumatic (less dense) build wouldn't allow for as impressive gripping strength.

Just drop it. Your arguing isn't doing any good, and it won't change the fact that we say this is your opinion (I'm trying to be nice, don't start arguing, you will be biting off more than you can chew). 

Ahhhh... aren't dinosaurs amazing?

5 pages of 'pacific' debate for reptiles dead from the beginning of time... reptiles that we can only dream out of what left of their bones... claiming our dreams as facts...

Again, that's why I love dinosaurs.

:)

Listen, Godzillasaurus, do you have any real ****ing Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus to do your tests on, do we have a living full sized healthy dinosaur for us to test, no. We have bones. Can you actually know something from a bone, no. I mean, there is nothing to stop your arguments and everyone on earth will agree with you unless their brain is mentally deformed? If you answer no, then you probably don't know it. (This is a bit exaggerated, but you get the point) Basically, you can infer general shape with bone, general diet, and general things from bone, but not specifics. So please, stop ****ing arguing everyone before I unleash my army on you all. Leuitenant 9097, and the dinos.

---Then why the fuck do you guys have a whole sub forum about dinosaur discussion if it is all "opinions"??? You cannot have scientific dinosaur discussions if you refute everything as an opinion... You guys have literally zero logic.

Listen, Godzillasaurus, do you have any real ****ing Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus to do your tests on, do we have a living full sized healthy dinosaur for us to test, no. We have bones. Can you actually know something from a bone, no. I mean, there is nothing to stop your arguments and everyone on earth will agree with you unless their brain is mentally deformed? If you answer no, then you probably don't know it. (This is a bit exaggerated, but you get the point) Basically, you can infer general shape with bone, general diet, and general things from bone, but not specifics. So please, stop ****ing arguing everyone before I unleash my army on you all. Leuitenant 9097, and the dinos.

Ok, now I have lost patience with all of you. If you think of fossils as poor indicators of what an animal's general ecology was, you are wrong. One can easily theorize based ON WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE WE ALREADY HAVE; it is not a fucking opinion. If I dig up a sauropod femur and say "wow, this thing is huge. This is way bigger than that of diplodocus!" (or something like that), it isn't going to be a fucking opinion. You guys must really be pretty young if you all sound like this "carkarotontosauris had a mutch mor thik skull then spinasaurus becuz it was so mutch biger!" and refute everything as an opinion even when you have an entire sub forum devoted to scientific dinosaur discussion...

Ah bloody hell just shut up and play some Primal Carnage.

Its called opinions for a ****ing reason! Quote this, quote that, quote quote quote, that is ****ing annoying! Why the **** are you spelling stuff like "carkarotontosauris"? What is a carkarotontosauris anyway? We are young, not stupid! You've lost patience with us? We lost patience with you a while go, but after trying and failing to give you some reason, it's come to this, so at this point, I say **** it. I was in a good mood, but now you've pissed me off. I am trying to be an adult (seeing as to how you are not), but I will lose it, very shortly. 

Thats not good you pissed off MrHappy.

dude, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. so shut up. Like Deltadromeus said, and i've said REPEATEDLY you cannot know jack S*** about an animal that died millions of years ago. Like Spinosaurus, this debate is dead. And hopefully no one goes and digs it up again.

Great you pissed OFF PFG to.

You know you've done something annoying when you piss somebody off who's called 'Mr.Happy'

Quote: these are opinions

---What the hell is wrong with all of you people!? You can't have a full subforum about scientific dinosaur discussion if you claim that everything is an opinion. What do you want to make of that? Decide!

Quote: If you going to talk about it as a fact,show a complete skull.

---I already did this, and when I did so, I compared it to carcharodontosaurus firmly, in which case spinosaurus firmly possessed the more robust snout.

Yes, a complete skull that is half, if not more, plaster.

you have it's snout. minimal at best. You do not have ANYTHING else for you to claim fact. my god, are you this ignorant? or just a troll Godzillasaurus? we have been over this man....it is your theory. NOT A FACT! quit flaunting your ambiguous theories around when you have not provided proof that they are fact. in fact, you have completely ignored my sources for my claims...stuff that has been actually acknowledged by paleontologists. but you conveniently didn't read it. yes?

This is hilarious

i'm enjoying it ;)

I've been reading it since the beginning and it just keeps getting better and better