Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusFeb-08-2014 10:54 AM
Baryonyx is a genus of Spinosaur from the early cretacious of England and Portugal. The first described remains of Baryonyx was a huge claw, which gave the spinosaur its name,("Heavy Claw"). The enormous thumb claw was dug out of a clay pit in England. shortly after, the owner of the claw was unearthed deeper in the clay pit. It's the Holotype, and being around 70% intact is now on display at the Natural History Museum in London.
Baryonyx has its own sub family in the Spinosaur group, the Baryonychinae. The family has distinct differences from the rest of the family, such as lacking the impressive sail most members in the family have. The holotype of Baryonyx is thought to be a sub adult, although it measured an impressive 30 feet long and 9 feet tall. This means it could be a bit larger then previously thought. Coincidently, studies conducted in 2007 point to Baronyx being a junior synonym of Suchomimus. This is due to the fact that Vertabrate in the two theropods are remarkably similiar, as well as the teeth. In his study, Buffetaut noted that teeth in Baryonyx seem to differ slightly with the individual, as seen in the larger genus, Spinosaurus. This is all still open to debate, however.
Like most Spinosaurs, Baryonyx had a snout that greatly resembled the modern day crocodile. From the number of skulls that have been unearthed, we now know Baryonyx had 96 teeth. 32 of those being in the upper jaw, and 64 being in the lower jaw. The upper jaw has a sharp angle in it, this evolved to prevent prey from slipping out of the Spinosaurs jaws, and is even seen in modern day Crocodilians.
Despite this, Baryonyx wasn't just a fish eater. The remains of the Ornithopod Iguanodon have been found in close proximity to the spinosaur, suggesting the spinosaur occasionaly preyed on it. Another recent study showed the Jaws had stronger resistance to bending and torsion than Spinosaurus, suggesting a more land oriented diet then other Spinosaurs.
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Lord Vader
MemberTyrannosaurus RexFeb-08-2014 11:15 AMCool. Nice information.
Jack of all trades. Master of none
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusFeb-08-2014 11:35 AMthanks! tomorrow i'm going to highlight a nodosaur, puttin some herbivores into the fray ;)
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Gojira2K
MemberCompsognathusFeb-08-2014 12:30 PMOne of my favorite Dinosaurs.
"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self." - Ernest Hemingway.
Raptor-401
MemberAllosaurusFeb-08-2014 12:48 PMI love Spinosaurus! I truly think It was the king of the dinosurs!
IT'S TIME TO DU-DU-DU-DU-DUEL!!!
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusFeb-08-2014 1:36 PMall i have to say on that is Spinosaurs were truly enormous animals, even the smallest was around 26 feet long!
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Raptor-401
MemberAllosaurusFeb-08-2014 1:55 PMWell what i find cool is that if you watch the documentary i watched they said that it was much like a crocidile, it could swim, and might even knock a T-Rex unconciouse just by ramming it's head against the T-Rex! They believe that that's how they would kill their prey, they think that it would get it's victim and shake their head violently unti the the body ripped apart, and the other half would fly 60 feet away, and the SPino would then eat the stuff in it's mouth and go look for the other part!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu8Ve-3N2Ho It' the documentary and I promise it's worth every minute!
IT'S TIME TO DU-DU-DU-DU-DUEL!!!
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusFeb-08-2014 2:08 PMeh, Monsters Resurrected isn't the most accurate thing in the world, watch this: much more accurate
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Raptor-401
MemberAllosaurusFeb-08-2014 2:10 PMI actually watched it 5 minutes ago lol.
IT'S TIME TO DU-DU-DU-DU-DUEL!!!
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusFeb-08-2014 2:12 PMi liked it, it would be cool if that was the reality, but click on my link above, probably the more realistic depiciton
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Raptor-401
MemberAllosaurusFeb-08-2014 2:14 PMI did, I wacthed the BBC video 8 minutes ago while I was waiting for your reply. I think it's accuruate. that's what's cool about the only thing we really know is it's size, then we can IMAGINE how this thing was!
IT'S TIME TO DU-DU-DU-DU-DUEL!!!
Lord Vader
MemberTyrannosaurus RexFeb-08-2014 2:35 PMThe BBC depiction of Spino is more accurate. I saw Monsters Resurected and backed out, knowing I was in for the viewing of complete BS.
Jack of all trades. Master of none
Raptor-401
MemberAllosaurusFeb-08-2014 3:13 PMWhy are they considered inaccurate? I mean that's the only video I have seen from them...
IT'S TIME TO DU-DU-DU-DU-DUEL!!!
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusFeb-08-2014 3:40 PMit picked up a 30 foot long, 2 ton rugops like nothing, made it seem like it was 2 meters long and a few hundred pounds. It's size was ridiculously over exaggerated, and it showed it tearing the face off a Sarcosuchus, something it most likely would not have actively sought to do.
Don't get me wrong, i liked it. Gave me a good laugh ;)
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Raptor-401
MemberAllosaurusFeb-08-2014 4:01 PMHeh, overexaggeration, I see!
IT'S TIME TO DU-DU-DU-DU-DUEL!!!
Zeeshan
MemberCompsognathusFeb-08-2014 4:13 PM"Another recent study showed the Jaws had stronger resistance to bending and torsion than Spinosaurus, suggesting a more land oriented diet then other Spinosaurs."
Baryonyx had stronger jaws when scaled to that of spinosaur*
Spinosaur had superior resistance to bending and torsion but performed poorly when the jaws of baryonyx, modern alligators and modern crocodiles where scaled to the jaws of spinosaurus.
Correct me if i'm wrong. :D
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusFeb-08-2014 4:22 PMno, it was tested on them seperatly. Baryonyx had its own results, there wasn't any scaling going on.
" When size is accounted for, B. walkeri performs mechanically differently from the gharial, contradicting previous studies whereas Spinosaurus does not."
That suggests Spinosaurus was more Piscovorious, while Baryonyx might not have been tied to the water as much as Spinosaurus, as Gharials are mostly fish eaters.
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusFeb-08-2014 4:25 PMhere:
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusFeb-08-2014 6:30 PMBaryonyx was cool. Monsters Resurrected was also complete BS. Not only did the Spinosaurus pick up a Rugops and shake it around(Rugops was said to be 9 meters long in the show which makes it even more inaccurate), tore up a Sarcosuchus, but Spinosaurus was also seen killing a Carcharodontosaurus with one claw swipe.
As far as Baryonyx killing large prey goes, it's possible. However, it may have also scavenged the Iguanodon. It's hard to say.
(that's the Rugops in it's mouth)
(Rugops was even shown as a hunter, even though it's almost certainly a scavenger).
