Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Animation Styled Dinos by arvalis Animation Styled Dinos by arvalis
Here’s a fun thing I did. I was trying to adapt a couple dinosaurs into a more western animation style. Think like DC animated movies. I’m not sure how successful I was but I had a lot of fun. Who do you think would win a fight between these guys?


More Dinosaurs!
Saurian by arvalis  The Isle-Magnaraptor by arvalis  Naked Boy Stan by arvalis  Dinosaurs vs. Beasts by arvalis  



|  INSTAGRAM  | TWITTER  | TUMBLR  | FACEBOOK  |  TWITCH  |  STORE  |

Add a Comment:
 
:iconcountlazuli:
CountLazuli Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
This Tyrannosaurus is extremely similar to your current redesign of the version for Saurian. The mix of Brown and Maroon for the hide, the pale underside, striped tail, yellow mouth, brow shape, and even the general position it stands. And for a time during your redesign streams, the eyes were also red before being changed to gold (which I think was a nice choice).
Reply
:iconarealhumanperson:
arealhumanperson Featured By Owner Jun 16, 2018  New Deviant
Unless the conditions are perfect for Spino (ie: in a swamp or river), Tyrannosaurus would likely win. The Spinosaurus was built for killing large fish, sharks, and other aquatic life in the Kem Kem river valley, whereas the Tyrannosaurus is made to kill large, well armored prey animals which fight back, like large ceratopsians, ankylosaurids and even other smaller tyrannosaurs. Spinosaurus lacks the raw bite force or neck strength to cause serious injury through the thick hide and (probably) feathers of Tyrannosaurus Rex. Although it has strong arms and good claws for slashing and cutting, it would have to rear up on its small hind legs to reach the height of the Tyrannosaurus. Meanwhile, the Tyrannosaurus, with its significantly stronger bite force could easily kill or mortally wound the Spinosaurus with one good hit to its exposed neck. Although the Spinosaurus has the size advantage, it doesn't have the strength advantage, especially in the context of bite force.
Reply
:icontyrannosauruslives00:
TyrannosaurusLives00 Featured By Owner May 12, 2018  Hobbyist Artist
Why didn't you work on The Good Dinosaur? Like, at least it would have decent designs.
Reply
:icongancanagh22:
Gancanagh22 Featured By Owner Apr 7, 2018
Tyrannosaurus may win or not, Spinosaurus just look a trillion times better, cooler and scarier. He wins in every way.
Reply
:icondovahkiinhu3br:
DovahkiinHU3BR Featured By Owner May 7, 2018
Put them on a big lake=Spinosaurus wins

Put them on land=T. rex wins
Reply
:iconmerkavadragunov:
MerkavaDragunov Featured By Owner May 9, 2018
its basically like making a Lion/lioness (solo) and a nile crocodile (again solo, yes they have a social hierarchy) to fight each other. when it reality they would never even WANT to fight each other. 
honestly these fights in real life ends with heavy cost for both of them (too much energy spent when they should have). 
Reply
:icondovahkiinhu3br:
DovahkiinHU3BR Featured By Owner May 9, 2018
Yep
Reply
:iconaflahrman:
AFlahrman Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2018
This is amazing! How'd you do it? :D
Reply
:iconglobin347:
Globin347 Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
who Wins? That depends on whether this fight is on land or in the water. I’ve heard it compared to a fight between a gorilla and a shark; there is no way to make it fair.

nice work, by the way.
Reply
:iconmr--jack:
Mr--Jack Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2018  Professional
Fantastic stylisation, man :D
Reply
:iconarvalis:
arvalis Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2018
Thanks so much dude!
Reply
:iconguzma1:
Guzma1 Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2018
My God its like Jurassic Park 3. #fanboysdon'tletotherfanboyswin
Reply
:icontitanlizard:
titanlizard Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2018
"Who do you think would win a fight between these guys?"


"Whoever wins we lose."
Reply
:iconneilfinnstudios:
NeilFinnStudios Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2018  Student Digital Artist
Simple, Rex
Reply
:iconthaanonymousperson:
ThaAnonymousPerson Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2018
Why?
Reply
:iconneilfinnstudios:
NeilFinnStudios Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2018  Student Digital Artist
Cause Rex got dat jaw. 😂
Reply
:iconthaanonymousperson:
ThaAnonymousPerson Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2018
Spino got dat arm
Reply
:iconindominator650:
Indominator650 Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2018
"Who do you think would win a fight between these guys?"
You have no idea of the can of worms you just unleashed on the world with that question.
Reply
:iconthebatmeme368:
TheBatmeme368 Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist

The ‘new’ discovery has shed some light on Spinosaurus as a whole, not just the legs. Firstly, its length was reduced, Spinosaurus had a much larger head proportionally than what was previously believed, that's where the 15.6 metre and 16 - 18 metre, 12 - 21 tonne estimates came from* (for MSNM V4047, the largest specimen, which was just a mandible). And, by extension, its mass. Which, when talking about animals, is used as a measurement of size, instead of length, height or width. As an Elephant is clearly larger than a Giraffe or a Reticulated Python, despite the latter two being taller and longer respectively, as mass is easier to measure than volume, and most of the time is indicative of volume.

The mass was estimated using an equation with terrible logic and reasoning, assuming all theropods had the same mass at equal lengths and also had the same head:body ratio.

In the 2014 paper, MSNM V4047 was estimated at ~15.2 metres, and 6 - 7 tonnes in weight. However, some other people have made extensive estimates and measurements, and ended up with different results:

Either way, Spinosaurus is no longer the undisputed largest theropods, at 6 - 7.6 tonnes in weight. As Giganotosaurus carolinii was 12.4 - 13.2 metres in length, and 6.8 - 8.2 tonnes,  T. rex was a 11.3 - 12.3 metres in length and 6.4 - 8.4 tonnes, etc.

The similar weights at different lengths are due to their builds, the large Tyrannosaurines were really robust, solidly built and had almost comically wide abdomens. Spinosaurus was by far the longest theropod, but, by comparison was quite skinny and more streamlined, likely for aquatic life, and had a shallow torso for its length. While the Carcharodontosaurids were somewhere in the middle. Now keep in mind, since most of these giant theropods have very little, and some fragmentary remains, we cannot reliably estimate the actual mass of their populations. Even T. rex, with the most specimens, we cannot assume, we can, at best, use their average individuals, or the mean between their individuals (e.g. if 95% of specimens were 6 tonnes, and there were 5% that were 10 tonnes, use the 6 tonnes as the average. But if we have very few specimens, either use the likely adult, as with Spinosaurus, or use the mean).

The best I can do is compare individuals, so, since we cannot compare the averages of the species, I can use the average of the individuals, and the average estimates of said individuals. So:

Mapusaurus roseae - 11.4 metres, 5.5 tonnes
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus - 15 metres, 6.9 tonnes
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus - 12.7 metres, 7.2 tonnes
Tyrannosaurus rex - 11.7 metres, 7+ tonnes
Giganotosaurus carolinii - 12.8 metres, 7.5 tonnes

Again, the few specimens of most of these theropods make it nigh-impossible to accurately determine the average of the species. So for all we know, Mapusaurus' ‘maximum’ could be its average, and Giganotosaurus' ‘minimum’ could be its average.

Now, for the largest, here are the highest estimates that are actually plausible, and have solid reasoning backing it up:

Mapusaurus roseae - 12.4 metres, ~7 tonnes
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (MSNM V4047) - 14.8 metres, 7.6 tonnes
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus (SGM-Din 1*) - 13 metres, ~8 tonnes
Giganotosaurus carolinii (MUCPv-95) - 13.2 metres, 8.2 tonnes
Tyrannosaurus rex (FMNH PR 2081) - 12.3 metres, 8.83 tonnes

DO NOT, use these sizes as the averages of the species, but feel free to debate on the individuals. Also, this is really getting on my nerves... BITE FORCE IS NOT EVERYTHING. A slashing, cutting bite can be just as deadly as a crushing one. Just in different ways, and in some cases, one will be highly effective against one creature and less useful against another, while the other will be the opposite way around. For example, a crushing bite will be more useful against an Ankylosaurus (which, is also overrated, the largest specimen was 5 tonnes), but not as useful against a large Sauropod, just for the latter's sheer size. While a slashing bite will be less effective against an Ankylosaurus, but more useful against a large sauropod, as they can let it bleed out, and use hit and run tactics more effectively.

Carnivores with a slashing bite also tend to have a larger gape than ones with a crushing bite, but there are exceptions, such as Crocodiles. Now Spinosaurus' bite is obviously a gripping one, it likely had a higher bite force than a Carcharodontosaurids. Due to the nature of the teeth, and the robustness of the skull from a top view. Similarly to how Crocodiles have powerful bites despite their elongated skulls, though to a lesser extent. It wasn't as slim as a Gharial's, nor as robust as a true Crocodiles. Somewhere in the middle, so its not going to have a 10 tonne bite force. Obviously specialized for fish. Though, against these theropods, its going to just be a weaker version of T. rex's bite, though still deadly, it would only have a fraction of T. rex's 6 tonne bite force. And admittedly would be the least effective, though, it could potentially use its bite to keep a hold on and possibly use its arms, though they are often exaggerated in efficiency. They are also obviously not adapted to slashing at a similarly sized opponent, against said opponent(s), they would probably have to use a grip and tear strategy. However, obviously, in deep(ish) water, they're all fodder to Spinosaurus. I also feel a need to post the 8.4 tonne estimate for T. rex, as it seems to be the most rejected estimate of all of these...for whatever reason some people still cling on to the 5 - 6 tonne T. rex of old... Anyway, here it is! www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/m…

It also has the mass estimation for Giganotosaurus too, so there's that.

Edit: Lengths are measured along the centra, not over the curves of the spine, even though the latter is the "correct" way to measure their lengths, it avoids confusion, as 12.3 metres for Sue is pretty much universally accepted (except for people living in the past). Here's an example of Sue measured in a straight line, along the centra and over the curves of the spine: drive.google.com/file/d/0B-K0f…

I'd also like to note that Spinosaurus could not flip over larger dinosaurs to expose their belly and neck. Spinosaurus would have been in an awkward position, as its long neck and head prevents it from reaching in front of its head, not to mention it lacks the muscle. Its not going to flip over a 7+ tonne T. rex, and 'stronger legs'? Yes, there is a debate on whether or not the 2014 paper is correct regarding the size of the hind limbs, but even those that disagree with it (e.g. Scott Hartman), still acknowledge that they are much shorter than previously thought. T. rex had larger, and likely more heavily muscled hind legs due to the need to accommodate a fully terrestrial life with a similar, or higher body mass. 

It didn’t have ‘spikes’ on its back, the neural spines are rounded off and would likely be covered by a decent amount of flesh and muscle in life, not a skin sail. The spines are too broad to be of that nature. Also, the hollow bones would’ve made it 7% lighter. The bones  themselves do not make up the majority of the animal’s mass.

Spinosaurus didn’t have much of a height advantage, if we use the actual sizes - 3.bp.blogspot.com/-eB57odkCy_Q…
 Compared to - img00.deviantart.net/1129/i/20…

These were skeletals created by Scott Hartman (T. rex + ‘Corrected’ Spinosaurus) and the 2014 paper the ‘new’ Spinosaurus.’ 

Also, MOST PREDATORS hunted prey smaller than itself. Usually juveniles, sick and/or old individuals. Tyrannosaurus didn’t have several (mass-wise) creatures potentially larger than itself in its environment, Alamosaurus, Edmontosaurus, Triceratops, etc. Though it did not spend every day hunting adults of these creatures. Spinosaurus was no different, it wasn’t a sauropod killer, that niche was occupied by Carcharodontosaurus (same rule of thumb as T. rex, though). Which leads it to being far larger than its prey, fish. Granted, these were large fish, the size of large modern day sharks, but nothing even approaching Spinosaurus’ size...

Reply
:iconblomman87:
Blomman87 Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2018
You writing a bible but you dont provide one single scientific article except that you nemtion "the paper of new spinosaur". 

But there is some points i find interesting and some i would throw in the garbage can because fiction and reality is not really a good combination. 
Reply
:iconthebatmeme368:
TheBatmeme368 Featured By Owner Edited Mar 25, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Sorry, with such a long post I sometimes forget to provide a source, here it is - www.researchgate.net/publicati…

Regarding scientific papers (that support my argument), most papers regarding (or including) the mass of Spinosaurus or Tyrannosaurus are flawed. As old estimates were based off of flawed methods, misconceptions on the length, volume, density, etc of these creatures, as well as not having sufficient material for Spinosaurus.

However, John Hutchinson in 2011 actually scanned the mounted skeletons of several specimens of Tyrannosaurus and calculated the volume through that, here’s the paper - journals.plos.org/plosone/arti…

Unfortunately, using the mounted skeletons has its flaws, due to the rib orientation, pectoral girdle positioning, etc. Remember, these skeletons were mounted by museums, not from palaeontologists were knowledge on which way the ribs should point. Anyway, this gives Tyrannosaurus a bloated belly, it’s ribs are too far out, giving the soft tissue from the public boot onwards far more space to fill up than in reality.

Scott Hartman fixes this, and while it’s not a scientific paper, it’s still a post from a palaeontologist, the results based off perhaps the best Tyrannosaurus skeletal known. It fixes the problem of the previous estimates, as Hartman has knowledge of the anatomy of these creatures, and it reflects in his skeletals. I provided the link in my first post, but for your convenience...here - www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/m…

Oh, and surprisingly, there aren’t any scientific papers regarding who would win in a fight between Tyrannosaurus rex and Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, a fight that not only couldn’t happen due to the geographic impossibilities, but also due to the fact that they lived millions of years apart. And so, is for all intents and purposes, is a completely fictional and implausible battle. So if that’s what you meant by not providing an articles, that’s why.

PS: Most articles aren’t accurate anyway; it’s the scientific papers and studies that you can rely on.

I also didn’t provide a source for the size of Carcharodontosaurus and Mapusaurus, because that wasn’t really important. The post was about Tyrannosaurus vs Spinosaurus

Oh, and the link I provided with Scott Hartman’s estimate for Tyrannosaurus’ mass also has estimates on Giganotosaurus’ mass. 
Reply
:iconblomman87:
Blomman87 Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2018
h, and surprisingly, there aren’t any scientific papers regarding who would win in a fight between Tyrannosaurus rex and Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, a fight that not only couldn’t happen due to the geographic impossibilities, but also due to the fact that they lived millions of years apart. And so, is for all intents and purposes, is a completely fictional and implausible battle. So if that’s what you meant by not providing an articles, that’s why.

PS: Most articles aren’t accurate anyway; it’s the scientific papers and studies that you can rely on.

I also didn’t provide a source for the size of Carcharodontosaurus and Mapusaurus, because that wasn’t really important. The post was about Tyrannosaurus vs Spinosaurus


Meant more specific mass for the more advanced Tyrannosaurs because that is what i am studying.
Reply
:iconthebatmeme368:
TheBatmeme368 Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I thought so, but I wasn’t completely sure, so I gave an answer to both. 
Reply
:iconmojoceratops:
mojoceratops Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2018  Professional Digital Artist
Can you summarize this in 15 words or less please? I have a disability where I can't read more than 15 words in a row without my IBS kicking in
Reply
:iconthebatmeme368:
TheBatmeme368 Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Basically what ForbiddenParadise said, as well as being better adapted for terrestrial combat.
Reply
:iconmojoceratops:
mojoceratops Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2018  Professional Digital Artist
Ok but what was your point?
Reply
:iconthebatmeme368:
TheBatmeme368 Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
T. rex was the heavier animal, and had better weapons.
Reply
:iconmojoceratops:
mojoceratops Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2018  Professional Digital Artist
OK but why are you telling me this?
Reply
:iconmojoceratops:
mojoceratops Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2018  Professional Digital Artist
Right, but why are you making that point to me?
Reply
:iconthebatmeme368:
TheBatmeme368 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Because you asked what my point was.
Reply
:iconforbiddenparadise64:
ForbiddenParadise64 Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2018
Rex-stockier- nearly 9 tonnes. 
Spino-long but thin-7.6 tonnes. 
Giga-middle, 6.8 tonnes. 
Reply
:iconthaanonymousperson:
ThaAnonymousPerson Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2018
I'm sorry, but you're far from correct. I was once like you, a T rex fanboy but over time I learned to accept facts over dreams. Please see my size comparison on my pages for more detailed analysis. 
Reply
:iconforbiddenparadise64:
ForbiddenParadise64 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2018
You know that chart is enormously (no pun intended) dated, right? Kirkseven doesn't support anything like that anymore if he ever did. A look on his profile clearly says otherwise.

You mean various scientific measurements using GDI (by far the most reliable for measuring weight) are all fanboyisms? I don't think anyone took 21 tonne Spinosaurus seriously given its (iirc) the same measurement system that claims 200kg Tigers weigh 370kg, and used the old pre-Ibrahim model. Now we believe Spinosaurus reached a maximum size of 15m long and 7.6 tonnes, whereas Rex reached 8.4 based off Hartmann and 8.8 based off Franoys. Not fanboyism, that's what the scientific data tells us.
Reply
:iconthaanonymousperson:
ThaAnonymousPerson Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2018
1) Not outdated. Anyway, Kirk was the one who told me about those sizes, (he helped me) and what if his profile is lying?
2) Yes. It's not what people want to hear, but it's true.
3) Actually, many take 21 tonne Spino seriously. Franoys and his fan base has a Dunning Kruger effect. 
Reply
:iconforbiddenparadise64:
ForbiddenParadise64 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2018
1. Ibrahim's studies all tell us that the Spino is outdated and that it easy the awesomebro Kaiju of JP3. The 18m estimate comes from extrapolation with no evidence to support it, ignores the fact Spino had a proportionally larger head than all its relatives (same as Rex and Giga had larger heads proportionally than their close relatives) and as I mentioned, it uses allometrics, which grossly overestimated the weight of animals.
2. I'd like it if you actually provided a shred of evidence for this. If you're saying all the latest scientific data which *consistently* compares best with real animals is wrong, you need *a lot* of evidence to back you up. Wiki is a contradictory meds so that doesn't c
Reply
:iconthaanonymousperson:
ThaAnonymousPerson Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2018
1) It's not outdated. There's no proof it is. 
2) Del Sasso
Reply
(2 Replies)
:iconnymuz:
Nymuz Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2018  Hobbyist
The Spinosaurus would easily win. 
It's taller, a lot longer, heavier, it can swim like a fucking motorboat, it has giant spikes on his back, it has arms that are actually useful and so on...
The T-Rex probably only hunted prey smaller than him - and that was by either taking a beating and slowly killing his attackers, stealing other dinosaur's prey (since they probably couldn't fend him off) or just chasing after them until they tired out (since he was slow as fuck, but had great stamina and could endure a lot). Some of his bones were also hollow, which might have made him lighter, but can't reaaally be a great advantage in straight up combat.
If you want a real battle, you should take someone else to fight mr. Stego here :D
I was never that big with dinosaurs (except as a kid) but the Spinosaurus is easily my favorite~

-Nymuz
Reply
:iconthaanonymousperson:
ThaAnonymousPerson Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2018
THANK YOU! Finally someone who accepts facts over fanboyism. 
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Edited Jan 7, 2018
Every volume based mass estimate after 2014 has put Tyrannosaurus at a higher weight than the largest discovered Spinosaurus. This is mainly due to T.rex having a wider, deeper torso and skull than that of Spinosaurus. Even the experts who helped with the 2014 research know this. images.discordapp.net/.eJwFwVE…
Tyrannosaurus rex size.
A mathematical analysis on Spinosaurus mass.
Most mass estimates Put Spinosaurus at 6-7 tonnes (with my cited source giving a higher 7.6 t estimate due to adding extra bulk) while estimates for the most complete Tyrannosaurus specimen cluster around the region of ~9 tonnes. So no, Spinosaurus would not be the heavier animal in this situation.

The prey items Tyrannosaurus likely hunted reached sizes of ~10 tonnes or more, so the notion of ''T-Rex probably only hunted prey smaller than him'' is almost certainly false.

Scott Hartman and almost every expert in bio mechanics agree that Tyrannosaurus was almost certainly the fastest large theropod discovered so far due to the fact that 
tyrannosaurids in general were better adapted for high speeds than other large theropods were. (having longer tibia, metatarsals, specially adapted "compressed" central metatarsals as well having absolutely enormous thighs even for an animal if its size). if you seriously think that Tyrannosaurus was ''slow'' then what word should we use to describe the speed of the theropods slower than Tyrannosaurus? (yes im referring to Spinosaurus here)

Tyrannosaurus had the most robust bones of any theropod dinosaur, implying that they are not suited for combat is false. In fact the slender bones of Spinosaurus should be the main concern here if you're curious to know which is more 'fragile'

No opinion on said fight, but your info here is in dire need of an update.
Reply
:iconnymuz:
Nymuz Featured By Owner Edited Jan 8, 2018  Hobbyist
Oh boy I forgot to edit this comment after getting smashed on my other one.
I've been corrected by multiple people already, and withdrew from the argument due to my lack of actual knowledge :P

Thanks for correcting me in this friendly and rational manner mate, it makes learning new things easier even though my English skills come from watching tv-shows and movies in their original language.
I'll edit my post now~

Have a nice day
-Nymuz

Edit: Or I won't edit my post since it's obviously been to long for that xD Guess I'll get a couple more of those comments...
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2018
We all make mistakes :p
Reply
:iconthaanonymousperson:
ThaAnonymousPerson Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2018
I have to disagree. Based on the very limited Spinosaurus fossils we have, and comparing them to relatives of it, it appears that Spinosaurus is 18 meters, and at least 21 tonnes. Spino has a longer body, therefore heavier. The original 2014 experts have been falling behind on new Spinosaurus knowledge. Furthermore, they are not perfect. Most mass estimates are biased towards Spinosaurus due to outlandish fanboyism.
Reply
:iconthebatmeme368:
TheBatmeme368 Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Except that Spinosaurus is an enlongated animal, compared to Tyrannosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, etc. Is an anaconda heavier than a Rhinoceros? No. Obviously Spinosaurus is not as narrow and elongated as an anaconda, but it’s still much less robust than other giant theropods. Also, regarding the biased and outdated figure of 18 metres and 21 tonnes, see my post.
Reply
:iconthaanonymousperson:
ThaAnonymousPerson Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2018
Anacondas and Spinosaurus are two different animals that cannot be compared. 
Reply
:iconthebatmeme368:
TheBatmeme368 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Same can be said for T. rex and a rhinoceros. It was just to draw a sense of scale, T. rex is much stockier, more heavily built 
 and more robust than Spinosaurus.
Reply
:iconthaanonymousperson:
ThaAnonymousPerson Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2018
I politely disagree. 
Spinosaurus is actually 18 tonnes, so that would be impossible.
A common misconception is that if it is 18 tonnes, its bones would be too dense for swimming. However, that can easily be disproved. First of all, Spino's bones were similar to that of modern birds to loosen weight. In addition, more weight = more muscle, so Spino can swim better.
Reply
:iconthebatmeme368:
TheBatmeme368 Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Except it’s not, it’s 7.6 tonnes according to GDI by Franoys, and 6 - 7 tonnes according to the authors of the 2014 paper. 

Also, you fail to account for the square-cube law. Dumbing it down a bit (I’m not going to explain the whole thing), basically, as something gets larger, it’s mass increases by a cube, but it’s strength increases by a square. As muscles get stronger when they get taller and wider, but not longer. So an 18 tonne Spinosaurus would be only ~1.6 times stronger than a ~7 tonne Spinosaurus, despite it being 2.5 times larger. Give me a source for an 18 tonne Spinosaurus, that wasn’t rendered inaccurate by the Ibrahim paper and FSAC kk 1888.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2018
hush.

much to learn you still have.
Reply
:iconimperator-201:
Imperator-201 Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2018
I believe you have Spinosaurus confused for some sauropod.
Reply
:iconthaanonymousperson:
ThaAnonymousPerson Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2018
No I haven't. I know the difference between Spinophorosaurus and Spinosaurus. 
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
November 25, 2017
Image Size
4.0 MB
Resolution
6918×4739
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
30,546 (7 today)
Favourites
3,000 (who?)
Comments
347
Downloads
295

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
×