The Spinosaurus

Theres not much to elaborat. On S-rex...

it simply means Spinosaurus didn't have a large amount of muscle compared to other theropods. in fact ALL spinosaurids appear to be loghtly bulit.

TY Nature has repeted designs that are succesfoul, like say rhinos to trikes, Wolves hunting in packs strategy to raptors, spinos long mouth to gharials, so maybe spinos design whas succesfoul by having lees competition for food

I agree with carno and was actually about to say that sorta.

But Happy, it seems that you always just take the latter side of anything towards Spino, so i dont think you should just do that strictly because its partial remains are in poor condition.

@ Tyrant King, well...yes we can. Morphilogically speaking ( i just butchered the hell out of the spelling on that..) Spinosaurus' skull is very crocodilian like. The conical teeth are also a shared trait, and that was one of our first hints to what this thing possibly ate. Conical teeth are good for gripping slippery prey, but they are also good at making sure prey doesn't escape the jaws also. Therefore, the diet of Spinosaurus can be established as not strictly Piscavorious, but also being able to take small - sized prey. Honestly, Spinosaurs weren't built to kill adults sauropods, so it wouldn't prey on them. Babies? Subadults? absolutely.

Spino rex, what do you think the bite force of spinosaurs is?

It's all just my opinion on the matter, and Spinosaurs were rather lightweight as stated by HHA. 

Well, the bite force is usally estimated at around 4-7 tons??

Closer to 2-3 tons 401. You're thinking Rex's bite there. 

I put it at 2-2.5 tons.

Baryonyx Walkeri, scaled up to 55 feet in length, would have a bite force of ~2.5 tons. A Fully grown spinosaurus therefore would have a bite force of 3-3.5 tons

@ carnosaur are crocodiles bibedal? No. So we can't compare them. They had a niche similar to that of other spinosaur. 

Everything else you said I agree.

Yes, Cat, but another thing is that its hard enough to catch a fish with a fishing pole, so biting at fish that arent always to be claimed as his, it would lose patience and go for a more sizable and easier meal.

I put it at 3 to 5 tons.

T-K, Spinosaurs were very closely related to Crocodiles. That's like saying Raptors weren't birds because they couldn't fly.

PX see they are very simmillar

Good point Cat!

If I'm not mistaken, Spino had sensors on the end of its snout, similar to what Vipers have. That would help it in catching fish and such, and keep in mind, fish weren't small back then. 

It doesn't matter if crocodilians are bipedal or not, because we're talking about the skull. Mainly the dentition, which is similar to that of the Spinosaur family. That's a pretty good reference point, considering these guys have been dead for Millenia..

We can infer about its lifestyle by the skull, as that's pretty much basically all we've found of it with the exceptions of scant remains found here and there - though the Sereno find might prove me wrong.

3 to 4 tons is where i put its bite, more than enough to suffocate a large dinosaur.

They don't have the exact same lifestyles. Would droneosUrs leap from trees down to there prey like modern birds of prey?

And I do belive the arms would be an advantage. A couple of slaps could kill a well-sized herbivore.

S-rex, lets not forget these aren't people. Animals when looking for food, don't run out of patience.

Spino'slong jaws and claws made catching fish easier than tring to claw swipe a biig prey, the reason he could be so big is little competition and the saill intimidates other predators, he won the figth wihout a battle

I agree with spino rex.

Animals do run out of patience. Evidence? My dog. Other animals.

I estimate Spino's bite force as 3-5 tons, as well.

Spinos huge arms cause serious wounds to prey.

and if you really think tere like crocs then I say spinosaurs could hunt anything it wanted by ambush.

Hiphop, they most certainly do run out of patience. In predation in almost all cases, the predator goes for the easier-to-get prey, hence my reasoning.

@Tyrant king, actually, A study conducted in i believe 2009 shows that Dromaeosaurs actually very likely could have climbed trees; an excerpt:

The Manning team also compared the curvature of the dromaeosaurid "sickle claw" on the foot with curvature in modern birds and mammals. Previous studies had shown that the amount of curvature in a claw corresponded to what lifestyle the animal has: animals with strongly curved claws of a certain shape tend to be climbers, while straighter claws indicate ground-dwelling lifestyles. The sickle-claws of the dromaeosaurid Deinonychus have a curvature of 160 degrees, well within the range of climbing animals. The forelimb claws they studied also fell within the climbing range of curvature.

Baby sauropods require more energy to hunt, plus spinos thin jaw means it can't have a very big bite force, even tough it migth scavee, by intimidating other predators