Ceratosaurus

 Ceratosaurus is pretty cool. Good info.

Hey Carnosaur, there's no need for you to flip out.  Everyone has their opinion.  Not everyone will agree.  And no need to trash Godzillasaurus' opinions on Spino.  Honestly, this is not the kind of thing people need to get all defensive and rude about.

Dino Fan, no offense, but you haven't been here for a while. If you had seen Godzillasaurus' remarks and comments in earlier posts, you'd be pretty ticked too.

Carnosaur, personally I love Ceratosaurus. Don't forget some evidence points to it living in Africa too ;)

Godzillasaurus, now you're just trying to start a fight and you know it. Grow up will you! If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all.

Are you telling us that it's an opinion that Ceratosaurus is a genus of Ceratosaurian? I think it's a Stegosaur, thanks for clearing that up Godzillasaurus, it's an opinion that Ceratosaurus is a Ceratosaur. The facts are very little, and very obvious (won't use the Rex/Spino tooth example, that ticked people off). 

You would be ticked if you saw what he's posted though Dino Fan.

*Facepalm* So you guys get ticked off at a post that somebody makes that is not even remotely intended to offend or piss off anyone? Really? *Sigh*, I am going to go to a good animal forum now like World of Animals where people can actually engage in logical dinosaur conversation without saying "urgh! im hulk angry at ur post just cuz!!!11 argh!! im so mad rite now!!!!"

Quote: Godzillasaurus, now you're just trying to start a fight and you know it. Grow up will you! If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all.

Huh, well unless I am mistaken, aren't you the guy who blew up just because I said that you were biased towards tyrannosaurus?

Quote: You would be ticked if you saw what he's posted though Dino Fan.

"HULK ANGRY!!!! HULK DOESN'T LIKE FORUM POST BECAUSE IT IS FACTUAL/THEORETICAL AND UNBIASED! I AM GOING TO WRECK IT!!!!!"

it seems his post was removed.

It was not... I deleted it because you guys flip out whenever I make such a post...

It seems as though I don't give a damn about what you have to say. Press 1 for a sarcastic answer at a time of my choosing. Press 2 to screw off. Beeeeeeeeep.

In reply to Carnosaur's second post:

You are sounding like a little bitch, you know that? This is what you sound like "hahahaha i am rite and u r wrong!!! i do reserch and u dont even though i have nothin to proof that!!!! ahhhhhhh troll alert!!!!!!!11"

I am not disagreeing with you, just that you guys are hypocritical beyond belief. And to claim that my posts about spinosaurus are BS, you have no true evidence of that (I read a lot about it online and in books, and I actually have the skills to observe the physical fossils that we actually have)/ Try to disprove any of this, why don't you?:

-Spinosaurus was the largest theropod and in fact the largest terrestrial predator to have ever walked the Earth (what? Is that an opinion as well? Do you think that the house cat is a much larger and more imposing predator?)

-Spinosaurus was most likely a primarily piscivorous animal: it had a slender but yet generally robust rostrum that was built to withstand the pressures in gripping without fracturing (and yes, we do have rostra to work with: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Spinosaurus_skull_MSNM_V4047.jpg), its teeth were built much like spikes and were in fact generally quite sharp and relatively slender; they were ideally designed to deep penetration without very much reliance on bite strength (unlike typical large crocodylomorphs, its teeth were in fact designed for piscivory and were in general a sharper structure. It is no surprise as to why its teeth were erect, conical, and generally sharply pointed and slender; its bite force was quite weak and its lifestyle required dentition that could impale deeply and grip efficiently), it had enlarged and particularly powerful forearms tipped with claws that would have worked mostly as hooks, nares positioned closer to the cranium than in more terrestrial carnivores, and an enlarged spinal column which would have hindered a role as a primarily terrestrial animal

-It was poorly adapted for killing the same kinds of animals as most land-based carnivores such as carcharodontosaurus in that it was designed to predate mainly on fish and did not go for animals like paralititan

-It was a megalosaur

-Its spinal column was built more like a muscular ridge than an actual sail (the vertebrae were considerably more robust than that of dimetrodon, which sported an impressive sail)

-It likely competed with genera like sarcosuchus, carcharodontosaurus, bahariasaurus, and saurionops

-Its habitat was most likely in tropical freshwater plains filled with mangrove forests

-Its role in Jurassic Park 3 was flawed and inaccurate (one of the most notable of these was that it was in fact TOO SMALL by comparison to modern estimates of its size. In reality, it should have dwarfed tyrannosaurus. It would have easily lost in reality if they were scaled to such similar sizes)

Why not try to disprove that?

Quote: It seems as though I don't give a damn about what you have to say. Press 1 for a sarcastic answer at a time of my choosing. Press 2 to screw off. Beeeeeeeeep.

-Well then why don't you guys stop living in mediocrity and join a real animal forum for once (such as the World of Animals forum, which is filled with intelligent and logical-thinking people) instead of cowering here and refuting everything in paleontology as mere opinion and then go off claiming that "it is only counted as true fact when we say it is"

ENOUGH. Guys come on. Godzillasaurus knock it off! You can't be that unreasonable, and try and blow things up every time! Stop trying to start something and blaming other people. You call Carnosaur too biased towards Rex when you won't even be reasonable about spino, and all the things Carnosaur said about Ceratosaurus were up to date.

ENOUGH. Guys come on. Godzillasaurus knock it off! You can't be that unreasonable, and try and blow things up every time! Stop trying to start something and blaming other people. You call Carnosaur too biased towards Rex when you won't even be reasonable about spino, and all the things Carnosaur said about Ceratosaurus were up to date.

ouch, i'm so hurt XD  you're an ignorant dumb shit who  keeps blabbering about his favorite dinosaur spinosaurus. I have news for you dude Spinosaurus probably wasn't the largest land carnivore. If you actually knew your stuff, you would know \'largest\' refered to weight? With pleasure, i will debunk half of that. :

!.) spinosaurs were light weight animals. not particularly heavy at all. a thirty foot Baryonyx, for example would weigh around two tons. Meanwhile, just for example, a thirty foot tyrannosaur(Daspletosaurus) would weigh in the neighborhood of 3.5 to 4 tons. a thirty foot long Acrocanthosaurus would weigh in the 4 ton ball park as well.

2. " it had enlarged and particularly powerful forearms tipped with claws that would have worked mostly as hooks, nares positioned closer to the cranium than in more terrestrial carnivore\" you don\'t have its forearms. or anything close to arms. Your inferring based on nothing!  this is what you have.

3.) it was a megalosaur. Mainstream paleontology would have to disagree with you, mate. Paul Sereno put the Spinosaurs in a different group in 98. 

for the rest, we all KNOW spinosaurus shared its environment with Sauroniops, Carchar, and Baharia. Thats basic. We KNOW its habitat. This made no sense to your pathetic attempt. You think we didn\'t know this? XD

These are the things i don't agree with:

Since Spinosaurs in general were relatively light-weight, it is safe to assume that Spinosaurus wasn't the 'largest', it was definitely the longest and if we include the sail, it was without a doubt the highest.

Long snout, sail/ridge, yep seems that Spinosaurus was a Spinosaur.

We can't know for sure, but since it lived in a humid area a sail would have a lot more advantages, since it would cool the animal down when hot and warm it up when fishing in a cold river.

Since Charcarodontosaurus, Bahariasaurus and Sauroniops hunted a different kind of prey, they would only come in conflict during dry seasons.

The Spinosaurus in Jurassic Park III was all sorts of wrong, it wasn't long enough, nor was it high enough, but it was too muscular, the snout was too wide, the arms were too big and quite a lot of what was shown as body mass was in fact part of the sail/ridge. A couple years ago people thaught that Spinosaurus was 15-18 m long and weighed about 20 tons, the newest estimations are at 12-15 m length and 5-8 tons weight. I wouldn't say that it dwarfed Rex since it was slightly longer, but slightly lighter.

My list of sources

reliable, unlike your wikapedia one:

http://dinoweb.ucoz.ru/_fr/4/My_theropod_is_.pdf

http://www.redorbit.com/education/reference_library/animal_kingdom/dinosauria/1112499441/spinosaurus/ 

http://www.jurassictimes.com/spinosaurus-aegyptiacus

He says we are immature/biased? Let's just stop talking to the 6 year old with a computer.

LARGE Spinosaurs were longer than T. rex. However T. rex was heavier and much more heavily muscled. I don't understand why you Spino fans won't be reasonable. Everything you say is fact and everything we say is offensive and wrong.

Indeed. They give their "evidence" and we give ours and ours is always wrong and their's is right. Unfair much?

Anyways, back to the topic at hand. I'd rather not discuss the whole facts vs opinions, Rex vs Spino thing again with someone who can't see both sides of the case. 

I really love Ceratosaurus. My second favorite dinosaur. It's just so underrated.

LARGE Spinosaurs were longer than Rex. Rex was on average were heavier and more well muscled. It has always been in Rexs favor. Also Spino was not a megalosaur. It was OBVIOUSLY a spinosaur. Which looks closer to spinosaurus?

Baryonyx

Megalosaurus:

Spino:

LARGE Spinosaurs were longer than Rex. Rex was on average were heavier and more well muscled. It has always been in Rexs favor. Also Spino was not a megalosaur. It was OBVIOUSLY a spinosaur. Which looks closer to spinosaurus?

Baryonyx

Megalosaurus:

Spino:

Sorry guys my account keeps double posting. :P and Cerato is my 3rd favorite too :D

-Many reconstructions point to spinosaurus being a relatively bulky animal, actually. But it is hypothetical at most, as we do not actually have that much of spinosaurus to work with. Spinosaurines seem to be particularly more heavily-built than baryonychines (which were particularly gracile animals), especially in the case with spinosaurus where a more robust build seems to be more necessary to compensate for its enlarged spinal column. Spinosaurus was likely not a very gracile animal in terms of body morphology... What you said right there is basically along the same lines as what I am saying; it is hypothetical. But I am no expert on sizes

Quote: you don't have its forearms. or anything close to arms.

We can infer this based on what we have found from other spinosaurs, particularly baryonyx. Such a lifestyle would make this completely reasonable to believe as well, as powerful forearms would be particularly useful in fishing.

it was a megalosaur. Mainstream paleontology would have to disagree with you, mate. Paul Sereno put the Spinosaurs in a different group in 98.

And what group might that be? Carnosauria? Ceratosauria? Because much of what I have read indicates that spinosauridae was included in megalosauria (spinosaurus diverged more recently from megalosaurus and its closest kin than megalosaurs did from carnosaurs). Of course, I guess your sources are more accurate just cause you said so...

Quote: The Spinosaurus in Jurassic Park III was all sorts of wrong, it wasn't long enough, nor was it high enough, but it was too muscular, the snout was too wide, the arms were too big and quite a lot of what was shown as body mass was in fact part of the sail/ridge. A couple years ago people thaught that Spinosaurus was 15-18 m long and weighed about 20 tons, the newest estimations are at 12-15 m length and 5-8 tons weight. I wouldn't say that it dwarfed Rex since it was slightly longer, but slightly lighter.

And where is your source for this? Being so much larger than genera like tyrannosaurus, it would not be affected THAT much by its proportions in terms of being comparable in weight, and even then, they are hypothetical.

Quote: reliable, unlike your wikapedia one:

So I guess that my image that I posted (which was on Wikipedia) is photoshopped? I have only been citing Wikipedia for pictures...

Quote: http://www.jurassictimes.com/spinosaurus-aegyptiacus

46 feet long, huh? Well what ever happened to the 56 foot estimate? But overall, I do agree with that source. But one thing that you guys need to realize is that, to analyze the creature's snout and dentition, we really don't need sources. The same thing goes for its entire body as well. Reconstructions are made using what evidence we already have, and theories are made from those. So if you can explain to me why that requires a source and makes you right, please explain to me the details.

you say it's a bloody MEGALOSAUR, then you go back to being a Spinosaurian? uh, alright. While in the Megalosauria family tree, they have their own group, based on obvious anatomical differences. Don't be a smart ass.

You....obviously don't get how these things work. A picture is not PROOF. at all. the 46 foot estimate is probably the more accurate one any way. 60 or even the 80 foot fanboy estimates are just B.S. and 20 tons? yeah, no biped can weigh that much if it is to remain on two legs. "it seems bulky based on reconstructions" well i have bad news for you mate, they're probably wrong. 

Just FYI, my sources have actual discoveries by paleontologists, while you've posted what? one sorce that said spinosaurus jaws were WEAKER THAN A CROCODILES and pictures of skulls? you do need its body, especially when you have 5 neural spines, a few vertabrate and parts of its jaws. good proof mate, good proof indeed. My sources don't mean i'm 100% right, as no one is in paleontology. They just make me a tad bit righter then you.

Quote: you say it's a bloody MEGALOSAUR, then you go back to being a Spinosaurian? uh, alright. While in the Megalosauria family tree, they have their own group, based on obvious anatomical differences. Don't be a smart ass.

-Uh, spinosauridae is part of megalosauria... Spinosaurids are more derived from basal megalosaurs. You are thinking of megalosaurids, which include megalosaurus and its closest relatives. Spinosauria doesn't exist

Quote: You....obviously don't get how these things work. A picture is not PROOF. at all. the 46 foot estimate is probably the more accurate one any way. 60 or even the 80 foot fanboy estimates are just B.S. and 20 tons? yeah, no biped can weigh that much if it is to remain on two legs. "it seems bulky based on reconstructions" well i have bad news for you mate, they're probably wrong. 

-Where did I ever say 20 tons? I admit that claiming that it appears bulky based on reconstructions is probably inaccurate, but is there any real reaso nto believe that spinosaurines were all that slender (as in, as slender as baryonychines)? A bulkier body shape would be logical considering spinosaurus' enlarged spinal column, in which case a gracile body would likely not sustain it very well. You are theorizing right there buddy, using baryonyx and its closest kin as comparisons for what we don't know of spinosaurus. But yet you still criticize me of being wrong when my theories are completely logical. Man you are one stubborn asshole...

Quote: Just FYI, my sources have actual discoveries by paleontologists, while you've posted what? one sorce that said spinosaurus jaws were WEAKER THAN A CROCODILES and pictures of skulls? you do need its body, especially when you have 5 neural spines, a few vertabrate and parts of its jaws. good proof mate, good proof indeed. My sources don't mean i'm 100% right, as no one is in paleontology. They just make me a tad bit righter then you.

-Ok, so using fossil evidence to make theories is only "accurate" if you are a paleontologist? What? Ok... There you go again, claiming that the sources that I post are always wrong and yours are right (not to mention the reconstructions, which are all drawn by skilled paleontologists...). Numbers do not lie buddy... The majority of that post just killed a few of my brain cells

Oh shit, not the two brain cells you had left. What ever happened to "I'm not coming back here, you're all thick headed hypocrits, blah blah blah" bullshit? If you don't like it here, you don't have to stay. You and FACT DUDE might get along.

Starting post: Ceratosurous.

Ending post: Another fucking fight over spino.

 Back then, yeah, douchebags would bring Rex or Spino into a debate because f*ck you all, that's why. We could be talking about, I dunno, Parasaurolophus, and someone would say Rex is bigger than Spino, or vice versa. It seems to have died down again though, fortunately. This time around, the douche was Zillasaurus.

Me Happy, I am not always true to my word. Sometimes I just feel as if I need to come back, because I know this shitcake of a forum still exists. Impulsions

If YOU GUYS weren't so damn sensitive, none of this wouldn't have happened. I did nothing wrong in the first place, you guys just fucking flipped out over nothing. 

Me Happy? I don't see anyone called "Me Happy" around here. Is that what you six year olds say? 

We flipped out because....... Why exactly? You're the one who gets pissed the f*ck off because we say stuff is our opinion, and it would appear as though that hasnt changed. Just saying. Don't piss me off. 

i guess you're back huh? fine. There's no use in flipping out over the past. LEt it go, and there shouldn't be a problem

and after reading your recent post, can you provide proof that spinosaurs were bulky animals? Or is it just spinosaurus? in that case, that's a laughable argument.

The  baryonychines were slender animals, i don't think any of them peaked 3 tons. They bones are just too light weight to support a mass of 4 tons or more..

I will admit, some of my arguments were pisss poor. That, was due to my hotheadedness flairing up over this stupid rex vs spino thing.