Lord Vader
MemberTyrannosaurus RexAug-06-2014 9:27 AMSpinosaurus: The Internet's Most Overrated Dinosaur
Yes, I do know this could piss some people off. No, I don't care how this is viewed.
Spinosaurus Aegyptiacus, perhaps the longest and tallest theropod to walk the Earth. At around sixty feet in length, almost twenty two feet in height, upwards of twenty tons in weight, wielding seven foot long arms with claws over a foot long, Spinosaurus seems like an unstoppable monstrosity. Not the case. We don't actually know how big the creature got.
Could it be over sixty feet long? Yes. Could it be over twenty tons in weight? Yes. Could it have seven plus foot long arms with claws over a foot long? Yes. Is this likely? Hell no! It's more like 99.999999999% not a flippin' chance in hell.
First discovered in the Sahara desert in 1912, Spinosaurus's very existence was proven by fragmentary remains that were in poor condition. Just the same, the bones were brought to Germany and looked at before being bombed in World War 2.
Average size estimates for Spinosaurus range anywhere from five to nine tons (scientific), to twelve plus tons (Spinosaurus fanboys). Let's say, by some fanboy miracle, Spinosaurus was over twelve tons in weight, it would likely be unstoppable in its time, as Carcharodontosaurus, a large theropod that lived alongside it, has no fanboys putting it at freakishly (not to mention unreasonably) large.
I will say, quite a dinosaur Spinosaurus is. It's amazing what speculation will do.
From this:
We have this: 
On the topic of Spinosaurus being oversized by fanboys, here are two comparisons.
I heard somewhere that the small dinosaur is Allosaurus. Must be a young one I guess.
I also heard that the small dinosaur is a Tyrannosaurus Rex. That's a funny way of spelling "Gorgosaurus" if you ask me.
And now, here's a link to an event by national geographic, stating Spinosaurus's size. It says over fifty feet long, twenty feet tall, and six tons in weight. Don't believe me? Click here
Back to size, here is a comparison with Spinosaurus that is actually reasonable. 
What else makes Spinosaurus overrated by internet fanboys? Since the extreme size is BS, here's more reasons it is overrated. Diet and behaviour.
Let's start with diet. Spinosaurus was mainly piscivorous, meaning it ate mostly fish. I know what you're thinking, the fish it ate were huge. That's why it's assumed Spinosaurus, much like it's relatives, had large arms. How large? No one knows, though it's often speculated at about six feet long. Using it's long, thin jaws and conical teeth, Spinosaurus would be able to grab its prey and hold it in place while the large arms and claws did the dirty work. After killing, or during the process of killing, Spinosaurus would likely walk to shore, drop the fish, and begin eating.
Why the big arms if it would just carry it's victims in its mouth? It needed the arms to be able to reach far enough to actually do anything to said victim. There is no doubt that Spinosaurus would be able to carry its victims in its mouth as it likely didn't catch anything over a ton in weight. For an idea on strength to support Spinosaurus being able to easily carry heavy fish, the Jurassic Fight Club version of Tyrannosaurus Rex (about seven tons in weight) was capable of carrying a five ton Edmontosaurus carcass. It carried something that was over half it's weight, so Spinosaurus should have no trouble lifting and carrying something a mere sixth of its weight.
What does behaviour have anything to do with this? Well, being mainly piscivorous, it would be put into less competition with other predators such as Carcharodontosaurus. Less competition means less fighting, which means not as good at fighting as similar sized, or even smaller predators such as Carcharodontosaurus.
Spinosaurus also had a large sail on its back. It would likely be useful for temperature control, but beyond that, it's only other useful purpose would be making Spinosaurus look larger, a great intimidation tactic. The sail however, was attached to its spine. If Spinosaurus got past the intimidation part of a fight, the sail would be nothing but trouble during the actual fight. If the sail was hit hard enough, or Spinosaurus was knocked onto its back, the fight would be over, as the Spinosaurus would be dead or paralyzed.
Jack of all trades. Master of none
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 9:30 AMYou know me, I agree with what's said.
JRR
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 9:35 AMYou can't be more rigth :), lets hope the fanboys don't get mad
Evacuate?, Godzilla is just a Legend!-Woman in GMK
Lord Vader
MemberTyrannosaurus RexAug-06-2014 9:39 AMThanks guys, and CZ, that doesn't matter.
Jack of all trades. Master of none
Hiphopananomus
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 9:40 AMDefiantly true, I'm expecting the new spino fanboy, to have something crazy and unrealistic to say....
"Somewhere on this island is the greatest predator that ever lived. Second greatest predator must take him down."Roland Tembo"
"Jurassic park: The Lost World"
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 9:44 AMi laughed harder then i should have at this.
On the topic of Spinosaurus being oversized by fanboys, here are two comparisons.
That's actually an Allosaurus Fragilis fully grown adult mr. Happy XD
Does it suprise you guys this scale was made by a Spinosaurus fanboy not too long ago? Fragilimus335 over on deviantart and carnivora made this. Severely overestimates Spino and Amiphicoelias(who he believes was in excess of 35 meters, 170 tons) It's quite sad actually..
Concerning the new kid, i don't think he will be coming back..but if he does..well it'll be like his last posts
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 9:46 AM35 meters isn't crazy for Amphicoelias but 1570 tons, well, uh, yeah.
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 9:49 AM175* yeah no, 1570.. that's a bit past over kill
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Hiphopananomus
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 9:50 AMI've heard estimates of a 60 metre and 200 ton Amphicoelias, so 35 metres isn't crazy but, 1570 tons, is impossible IMO.
"Somewhere on this island is the greatest predator that ever lived. Second greatest predator must take him down."Roland Tembo"
"Jurassic park: The Lost World"
lxlplictz
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 9:52 AMDamn! Carnivoria is so bais towards the spino its really annoying! Spinointhewoods the fragilimus guys and so many more dern sure annoying.
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 9:53 AM35 meters is only 114 feet.
Anyways, I was reading some of what Fragilimus335 wrote on Carnivora. Wow, talk about a fanboy. He said 19 meters for Spinosaurus. A 62 foot Spinosaurus? I doubt that.
Hiphopananomus
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 9:56 AMWow, talk about fanboy.
"Somewhere on this island is the greatest predator that ever lived. Second greatest predator must take him down."Roland Tembo"
"Jurassic park: The Lost World"
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 9:57 AMHis were probably around there i just haven't really looked lately...Carnivora is pretty cool actually, and its always fun debating with some of their people
seeing how he claims to be a paleontological student he should know showing a bias towards the animals you study is pretty immensly frowned upon. His art is pretty cool though
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
JRR
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 9:58 AM35M, thats to much thats more than half the size of the originall godzilla that whas 54M
Evacuate?, Godzilla is just a Legend!-Woman in GMK
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 9:59 AMCatzilla, he thinks Amphicoelias is 35 meters, not Spinosaurus(I think and seriously hope).
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 10:10 AMhere's the kicker: you can estimate a sauropod off of a vertebrate, that's vaguely reminiscient of diplodocus, but you can't estimate off of the 'fragmentary giant' tyrannosaurs because there's not enough? come on..no logic in that..
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 10:11 AMFair point.
x_paden_x
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 10:14 AMValid points indeed.
I'd imagine your a tad curious how they estimated size and such, With just those Few bones.
If I'm correct, They already do this Technique with Anthropology, (Study of Man) In which, By finding a single bone they can size and tell you a great bit about the creature.
I'd imagine they'd be able to do this with the bits of Spine they've currently got.
PLUS
There is bound to be surviving records from WW2 on the Bombed Spinosaurus there.
I also find it a bit hard to beleive that we've only found one in about 100 years... I think thats a bit of a lie.
There's most likely something like 20 we currently have in museums, But they are currently be processed and are in Casts in storeage.
Life cannot be contained, it breaks walls, crashes through barriers sometimes painfully, but uh... Life uh, finds a way
Lord Vader
MemberTyrannosaurus RexAug-06-2014 10:14 AMGlad everyone that's posted so far agrees with me. I actually had fun putting this together.
That is interesting indeed Carno.
Jack of all trades. Master of none
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 10:16 AMThere's been tons of teeth and a few fragments, but nothing more than that has come to light since the type specimen was destroyed.
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 10:24 AMPaden, i knew this already haha i use it in some of my "the size of..." posts.
Don't you think it's weird though that they'll jump the gun estimating off of a vertabrate - that's not even around anymore, only in drawings! - to estimate an animal, and "oh god look...it's huge!" But it's no mans land doing this with Mor 008? C. Rex? F. Rex? The UCMP individual? Just makes me shake my head..
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 10:29 AMI agree. Not only do we actually have those fossils, but we have other T.rex specimens to go off of. There aren't any actual Spinosaurus skeletons to go off of for the fragments that pop up.
x_paden_x
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 10:29 AMValid point again.
I'm just saying, That the protocol for Documenting SPecimins hasn't changed much in the past 70 years.
I'd imagine most of todays Estimates are based off of the Records from the one that was destroyed.
But, You can base some things off Vertebrae, It's difficult, But can be done.
Life cannot be contained, it breaks walls, crashes through barriers sometimes painfully, but uh... Life uh, finds a way
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 10:36 AMit can be done, but basing off of a drawing done almost 150 years ago? i mean here's what we get:
n his paper Carpenter* says he simply scaled up Diplodocus c.'s vertebra to 2.7 meters. The only problem is that he used the dimensions from Seismosaurus for diplodocus's vert, but said the length of Diplodocus was only 26.25 meters
This small mistake of recording diplodocus's vert as 1.22 meters instead of .946 meters has lead to the widespread belief that Amphicoelias was 60 meters long and 120 tons in weight. In reality using carpenter's method with the correct numbers we get, 2.7/.946=2.864. 2.854x26.25 meters=75 meters long. Also 2.856^3=23.2. 23.2x12 tons=278 tons.
off of this vertabrate, which we don't even know if it was the 10th,9th, or even 12th dorsal! That could change some estimates pretty drastically..
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
**Al**
Community ExecutiveMemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 10:41 AM
The world will spin well past our last breath, but I will always care about you
Silver_Falcon
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 10:45 AMI've gotta agree with you Mr. Happy. (except maybe the overrated part, I find overestimated to be more accurate.)
Here, have a waffle (-'.')-#
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 10:51 AM^ how and why?
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
dinoboy22
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 11:04 AMthank you mr happy. i agree with everything you said
Sci-Fi King25
MemberAllosaurusAug-06-2014 11:11 AMIt's kind of funny that I'm on Team Spino but I agree with every sentence of this discussion. It's annoying when any dinosaur is overestimated! Wether it be Spinosaurus, Ampholecias, or any other dinosaur.
“Banana oil.”- George Takei, Gigantis: The Fire Monster
Silver_Falcon
MemberCompsognathusAug-06-2014 11:16 AMWhat do you mean Carno?
Overrated: to rate, value, or praise (someone or something) too highly
(according to merriam-webster.com)
Overestimated: to estimate at too high a value, amount, rate, or the like.
(according to dictionary.com)
Although overrated could work, I find many other dinosaurs (read: velociraptor) to be far more overrated, whereas Spinosaurus' behavior and size are constantly getting blown out of proportions.
Here, have a waffle (-'.')-#
