Does anyone know if they ever named this Dino yet? It probably would have gotten more publicity if it wasn't for the new Supersize Spinosaursus that "won" the title back again.

On March 10th Dr. Phillip Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology and Dr. Rodolfo Coria of the Museo Carmen Funes in Argentina announced the ...
www.geocities.com/stegob/bigargentinatheropod.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages
GIGANTIC THEROPOD DISCOVERED IN ARGENTINA
Not only is is larger than T. rex, but it also hunted in packs!

A Tyrannosaurus rex at the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh.
In an evolutionary sense, size does matter, and nowhere was this more present than in Cretaceous Argentina, an environment which hosted 41-foot long predator Giganotosaurus, 100-foot long sauropod Argentinosaurus, and a newly discovered 110-foot long sauropod. Now add to that mix a new, ferocious speices of theropod dinosaur which may have grown in the upwards of 45 feet and given T. rex a good scare!

On March 10th Dr. Phillip Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology and Dr. Rodolfo Coria of the Museo Carmen Funes in Argentina announced the discovery of a new species of carnivorous dinosaur from the Cretaceous of Argentina, dating to about 100 million years ago. The initial discovery was made by Coria's team in 1997, but Coria spent the better of three years determining if the discovery represented a new species or a version of the beast he named in 1996-Giganotosaurus, the first carnivorous dinosaur discovered that was larger than Tyrannosaurus rex. On March 10 Coria and Currie finally made their announcement of the currently unnamed find at the Riverfront Arts Center in Wilmington, Delaware.

Not only is this find importance because of its size, but Currie and Coria believe that the discovery has very important social and ecological significance as well. During their 1997 dig Coria discovered the remains of six individuals of this species, ranging from youth to adult, which has led him to hypothesize that the fearsome beasts traveled in hunting packs, which would make them even more menacing to their prey. This fact is regarded as surprising to paleontologists, who have largely considered large predators to be solitary hunters.

"The bigness of it - well obviously it gets headlines - but scientifically, it's not that important. But the fact that they traveled together, that's very interesting," said Dr. Jack Horner, a Montana paleontologist who earlier this decade led a team that uncovered a nearly complete Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton and has publicized the notion that T. rex may have been a scavenger.

The individual of this species would have been characterized by a long, narrow skull and a jaw shaped like scissors. According to Currie, this suggests that it could have dissected its prey with almost "surgical precision." Currie estimates this new dinosaur at about 45 feet in length, while Giganotosaurus was approximately 41 feet long and the familiar North American Tyrannosaurus rex exhibiting a length of roughly 40 feet. Although T. rex will most likely remain the most popular dinosaur in the media and with children, Currie commented that he would much rather run into T. rex than this new dinosaur.

"I think it would look just as nasty, if not worse (than T. rex),'' Currie said. ``This guy has a long snout, long skull, incredibly sharp teeth - I think it would have been terrifying."

At the Wilmington, Delaware exhibit, which focused on the career findings of Dr. Currie, the Canadian scientist commented on the family relationships of this new dinosaur. He stated that the new species is apparently related to Giganotosaurus, or about as closely related as a dog and a fox. He also commented that this new dinosaur is much farther removed from T. rex, making the two about as close as a dog and a cat.

Paleontologist and theropod expert Tom Holtz, of the University of Maryland, believes that researchers are not likely to come upon carnivorous dinosaurs much larger than Currie and Coria's new discovery.

"I think we're getting close to the size limit you could be and still be an effective meat-eater,'' said Holtz, who has documented theropod evolution over his career. ``If you get too large, you won't be able to hunt down prey because you'll simply be too ponderous.''

The March 10 comments by Currie were only a preliminary announcement, and a scientific research paper describing the dinosaur will not be published for quite some time. In their paper Currie and Coria will apparently give the dinosaur a South American Indian name, but any details about the name have not yet been announced, according to Holtz. So, as with most paleontological discovery, stay tuned!

VERY nice find draconic, very nice find indeed.

Could u give me the link to the source of info please?

Ah, more evidence to support my thinking of Allosaurus hunting in packs. Now, I think there have been a couple exceptional 45-foot T-Rexs, but if this thing regularly grew to 45, it's a monster. So, I take it it's an Allosaurid?

Im only going to say one thing,The day the the tyrannosaurus is re-named is the day it loses its title and along with that it would have to lose its name.So topics like this one with the name that makes one assume that it allready lost its title is just wrong 110%.

Title and name are two different things. By title as the article states, it that T-Rex can no longer claim to be the largest meat eating dino by a longshot. Now there are several contenders ahead of it, and Spino is so much huger that any of the others. I just saw a reference to Jack Horner stating there is evidence for a 75 foot Spino in West Africa, possibly a new species. More to follow.

It sounds like something completely different becasue they imply it has no relation to Gigantosaurus, who is an Allosauride. With the long scissor like skull, it almost sounds like another spino! Or maybe another giant raptor as these also have long low skulls.

There is a jaw fragment that suggests T Rex coulld get almost to 50 feet but it is just one small piece postulated to be from a much bigger rex. Now I have to find out about this rumor of an even bigger Spino in West Africa. If real, it might be able to swallow your average T Rex whole! Certainly a Komodo dragon could swallow one that much smaller.

What it wrong with you? Don't you know anything about living animals? What is this fixation on eating fish, and why would that make it less of a hunter? In fact this proves it was an active hunter and not a possible scavenger like the T Rex. Have you ever heard of the the Nile Crocodile? Yes, they eat fish, but they also eat just about every other animal in africa including humans, buffalos and lions. We know spinos smaller cousin Baryonyx ate other dinosaurs, and we know spino ate pterosaurs, and only a fool would think that it wouldn't eat other dinosaurs, we just don't have any stomach content fossils yet. And crocodiles have the strongest bite force of any living animal, and spinos have the same kind of jaws. No scientist would question that spino with a seven foot long head would have less bite force than a rex with a four foot head. What are you thinking? The new Spino is almost TWICE as big as the biggest T Rex. Seriously, it could probably swallow an adult T-Rex whole with such a great size disparity. How do you figure a 60 to 80 foot animal is "allosaurus size"? And this animal probably weight many tons more than a T Rex, but was still a more gracile built, and undoubtedly a faster and more maneuverable animal.

Ok i will comment once again on the bite force thing

the nasals [of T. rex] were fused, all of the bite force was transmitted to the food instead of some of the force being distorting the skull. The T. rex especially had a very strong skull and jaw muscles that would turn it into a zoological superweapon." Snively said.

It was calculated that a medium-sized T. rex had a more powerful bite than larger carnivorous dinosaurs, like Carcharadontosaurus saharicus, with a head about 1.5 times longer than that of T. rex and this results even from conservative estimates.And if the spinos jaw is larger as the carcharas is than it makes no difference because the size dosnt matter even if the rex was medium and it was in fact smaller it still had a stronger bite.

If it had stronger bite and its head was that much smaller,than it would no doubt have a stronger bite when fully grown.

But you seem to forget that when they they are both adults, the spino's head is twice as big. The whole head could fit in spinos mouth. I never disagreed that equal sized spinos and rexes would be a fairly even match, but the point is that a 70 foot spino would have all the advantages against a 42 foot Rex, the biggest known right now.

What an image. I can practically see the tiny arms trying to arrest the downward slide towards doom. It is interesting that more theropod forms are still being discovered. This was clearly a very successful evolutionary niche, it is somewhat surprising that mammals or birds did not develop a parallel.

I have seen a skeleton of a gigantosaurous in comparison to a skeleton of T-Rex. The thought of a 75 foot long theropod gets the imagination going.

Thanks for the info DC.

Yep, it seems the majority of these dino artists and animators do not know enough about real reptiles, or the way Theropod skulls are designed to realize these creatures, exactly like modern archosaurs (crocs and birds), only tear their prey into smaller pieces if they cannot swallow it whole. They have the mindset they eat like lions and tigers, which, of course, is false.

It would be great to see a talented artist or animator realistically depict the biggest known spino swallowing an adult T Rex. It is very possible. The "reptilan feeding rule" seems to be " If the head fits..... you can swallow it" (meaning the rest of the animal)

i thought the title was lost couple of months ago to spinosaurs

here's another t rex & spino chart I made. a 60 ft spino vs a 40 ft T Rex



Ol' T Rex doesnt stand a chance against this spino

I changed the size. the Spino in JP3 was smaller than average ,it was 50 ft. Spino really averaged 60 ft

So this is the real size

I'm not buying it

Spino was actually 60 ft on average

Click

Draconic, could you include a source link with the article in your first post please.

Always include a source link, unless it's your article then not doing so constitutes plagiarism.

Thanks.

I think the king shold be one of the smartest like Troodon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troodon

Sorry, I have edited the first post with the link at the top.

And below is the link of the official paper describing the animal, now named Mapusaurus roseae printed in the journal Geodiversatas.

It is a Charcodonosauride. so really not as exciting as the first article, but this is an excellent full report available free, unlike so many on the internet.

http://www.mnhn.fr/museum/front/medias/pub...653_g06n1a4.pdf

Ive been thinking,What if the king was a sauropod?But that will never happen because people want to see bloodthirsty beast that could rip a bull apart,I think it would be cool to make apatosaurus.

It said in the article that medium sized rex would have a stronger bite than a Carchara that has a head 1.5 times longer than that of T. rex,But if you size the t-rex up to its max average size it would have doubled the bite that it had priviously.So even if the spinos head was larger than a 1.5 spino skull it would have to be triple in order for it to be stronger than a rexs bite.

About the ORIGINAL article, there is a possibility that the new theropod is just a subspecies of Giganotosaurus. Saurophaganax, the 50+ ft. theropod is now believed to be a subspecies of super-sized Allosaurus.

No, its Mapusaurus before they named it. It is the same team, same circumstances, but the description of the head is misleading.

Oh, ok. Didn't see your previous post!

By title I assume you mean largest. T. rex has not been the largest or longest carnivorous dinosaur for a long, long while. However, it is one of the more intelligent (I'm too lazy to look up the documentary) of the carnosaurs and I don't believe that an allosaur would have been able to compare. Prove me wrong.

I want some sources for these apparent 75-ft Spinosaurs. I haven't heard a single peep about them, and from past research on Spinosaurus I think Jurassic Park 3 gave it far too much credibility. Such a long, thin neck would not have the muscles to support the incredible jaw power that carnosaurs such as T. rex and Giganotosaurus could have attained. Spinosaurs would be relegated to much smaller, one-snap prey (See here) whereas T. rex (despite that dinosaur document on television that everyone is obsessing over) could easily have ambushed creatures around its own size. See here.

At 75 feet I'd imagine the weight of the creature would be so sheer as to be ridiculous. Spinosaurs were lightly built and at that weight only pillars of legs like those of the large sauropods could support them. Show me what journal you read that in and maybe I'll listen, but at this point that sounds as ridiculous as the "facts" people gleaned from the Jurassic Park movies.

Edit: A paleontologist I consulted said that the Wikipedia section that Raptor x& posted was the latest information on Spinosaur size. No 75-footers. -.- /endrant

t-rex would get owned lol

There are loads of good Spino articles out there and some suggest the creature could attain that length. SINCE the film JPIII, a gigantic new skull was found by the University of Milan although not a whole animal. But this has brought in all of the new estimates of up to 20 tons and 75 feet.

Remember too, that bones from this creature are extremely rare. The Stromer specimen was a Juvenile, and already it challenged the largest Theropods, and now, a single adult skull has been found, and this suggests this dino is a THIRD bigger than all other theropods. What are the chances this one specimen is the maximum size? In probability it is not, and eventually we may find a truly "large" example.

Understand that the only fairly complete remains of a spino comes from the Stromer "Juvenile" and naturally a juvenile is not going to be heavily built. The adult could have been very hefty. In fact, one artist depicted it like a Sauropod using its front limbs to walk, though it could still rear up on its hind legs, like a bear. And you think it is a lightweight becasue of the long neck, what about the heaviest of all dinos, the Sauropods?

I agree, the T Rex was probably more intelligent than the earlier Allos. But Spino is a late Cretacious theropod too, so probably has a similar intelligence to the T Rex.

Sources, sources, please! I finally found something on it; it wasn't even a skull found, it was fragments, and you don't have to look hard to see where we've gone wrong with that in the past. It's hard to say a beast was 75 feet long with only skull fragments.

Stromer's specimen was destroyed, but yes, it is described as subadult - this could mean on the verge of maturity, and sexual maturity. That does not mean that the creature could grow an additional 20 feet or so. Also, again, if Spinosaurus WASN'T lightly built then it would be a hell of a lot heavier, which would mean legs even stockier than those of the generally accepted lightly-built (note that this is in comparison to the classic-type carnosaur) version when it came to 75 footers. In any case, all of Spinosaurus' near relatives are slenderly built and there is nothing to suggest that it may have been more robust.

I don't think the long neck indicates a slender build - how on earth did you associate those? The long neck indicates a lack of powerful jaw muscles. It says that in my post; don't put words in my mouth.

Spinosaurus was not "probably" as smart as T. rex; think of the apes. Humans are indefinitely smarter, and we're from the same period of time. Also, spinosaur jaw shape and tooth anatomy indicates a fish-eating lifestyle, which involves far less thought than hunting. There needs to be a study on this before we can conclude anything.

I suppose I'm getting a little too worked up over this, it's just that Jurassic Park gave an awful interpretation of this dinosaur and when the spino flipped the T. rex with those puny little jaw muscles I got pretty angry. xD In any case, I'd imagine a 75-footer as incredibly impractical and I'd like to see some theory reports on muscle proportion in the leg and how bipedalism could support such a massive beast. Quadrupedalism would help a lot, and since its jaws are so very similar to a crocodile's, maybe its behaviour was as well. The relatively high nostrils add support to this.

There are many websites, including threads here as well that discuss "who would have won" the JP3 fight. In truth, I doubt they would even fight. It is just like the American Crocodiles and Alligators that have the same ranges. They don't try to kill each other.

But calling Spino a fish eater doesn't make it a pushover. Crocodiles eat fish too, and have teeth adapted to do this, yet also take down very large mammalian prey.

And do not forget that a certain famous paleontologist has made a well received argument that Rexie is just an overgrown, scavenging, flightless vulture.
Spino teeth have been found imbedded in both Pterosaurs and dinosaurs.

Both animals have advantages and disadvantages. At realatively the same size, it would probably be a toss up, yes Rex has more powerfull jaws, but Spino had bigger jaws, as well as formidible clawed forearms compared to Rex's almost useless ones.

Even if it wasn't that apparent, JPIII tried to emphasize Spino was MUCH bigger than Rex. In the film, Dr. Grant calls it a "super predator" as I recall, something he doesn't call the Rex.

And that film was made long before the new Spino. Now, being a third bigger, and also heavier, and with those huge clawed forearms, Spino really would have all of the advantages.

Really, the 70-footer is not confirmed, please stop stating it as fact. I realize that the theory is out there, but don't say like you'd say the sky's blue. The scavenger thing is a theory (you obviously watched the documentary, didn't you - it was quite biased) but the ambush predator theory is just as good. "Now a new biomechanical model suggests that the movie characters wouldn't have had much to worry about. In the 28 February issue of Nature, John Hutchinson, a postdoc at Stanford University, and Mariano Garcia, now at BorgWarner Automotive in Ithaca, New York, argue that a 6000-kilogram Tyrannosaurus could not have packed enough muscle into its legs to hustle faster than about 40 km/h" - 40km/h is still faster than any human, and would definitely be enough to cover short ground in an ambush. (Source). Rexy wouldn't be able to chase jeeps like in JP, but he'd be able to jump out at a herd of, say, some kind of iguanodont, and if he got his one bite it it would be game over.

I never said the fight was likely to occur, but if it did all T. rex needed was that one bite and it would be done, whereas Spinosaurus is not equipped to deal with prey as large as itself - the LONGER (not bigger) jaws really don't mean much and actually support the case of a much weaker bite. I suppose its only advantage would be the forelegs (have they even found them or is that purely speculation from close relatives? You'd think that if they're found them they'd be able to theorize better about whether or not it was quadrupedal); it would need to grapple the T. rex to the ground, as I doubt it would have the sheer weight to do it. Also, when it comes to the killing blow, Spinosaur claws were not slashing and its teeth were designed to pierce and grip, not to cut, and because of the lack of jaw muscles it would not be able to tear hunks out of the T. rex. I really can't imagine how it would win. Think about any predator that takes down large prey, even in modern times, and look at their necks. Canines, felines... none have a long neck. Predators that DO have long necks, and I can't think of any predatory mammals but let's think of birds such as heron and storks, are one-snap. Spinosaurus would be the same way.

Crocodiles are opportunists, not designed fish eaters as Spinosaurus is theorized to be (I personally don't think it was exclusively fish-eating either, though large bony fishes in inland seas/lakes were far more common than they are now). I'm sure Spinosaurus was not exclusively a fish eater. Consider HOW crocodiles and alligators take on their large prey. Careful ambush and a snap of powerful jaws, then rolling in the water and thrashing around. Their jaws are wider proportionately than a spinosaur's, and again they have a short, stocky neck like T.rex to support their muscles. I can't imagine a Spinosaur exhibiting these behaviours, somehow. =)

Well, if the skull's long and narrow, it's probobly a spinosaurid. I have some confusion about Megaraptor though, I've variously heard that it was a large raptor, but I've also heard it was a species of Allosauride.


Ooh, Sarophaganax, haven't heard that name in a long time. Those things were positively titanic.

"There are loads of good Spino articles out there and some suggest the creature could attain that length." You said suggest, that means it could be wrong. "SINCE the film JPIII, a gigantic new skull was found by the University of Milan although not a whole animal." Yet again, you said since, that could mean it is a hoax...

No it is definately not a hoax. It is fully acknowledged and no paeleontologist can dispute that Spino is unquestionably the largest theropod, with nothing else even coming close. But the prblem of establishing an exact length is difficult, as there has never been a complete enough spino ever found. But based on related species, Spinosaurus aegyptus now wins hands down.

You can't really say things like this when we havn't found evry therapod that ever lived in the ground,But until I see some of these "Articles" my thoughts will stay firm.If these "Articles" DO in fact EXIST and arn't a hoax as brassmonkey sas they are then you can say that its the largest therapod THAT WE KNOW OF.

Obviously, that is what I, and everyone else means. Spino is the largest theropod that has ever been found.

Tyrannosaurus was not a carnosaur, it was a Ceolurosaur (however thats spelled)...just a really big, stocky one.

I personally think if Tyrannosaurus saw a Spinosaurus, it would have backed away as animals tend to flee from larger ones. But if they ever got into a fight, it would have been the Spinosaurus that would have lost.
And Spinosaurus having longer arms than Tyrannosaurus means it just needed them for its lifestyle.
Rex just lost the need for them as its mouth was sufficient, now thats saying something, this thing didn't even need its arms to kill. Spinosaurus would have needed them to support its weight. Now...as for size, I'm sure that Spinosaurus could have hit a maximum of 60 ft, but Tyrannosaurus would have been able to reach about 50 feet or just under. So i think the size difference, while pretty big, is kinda exaggerated.

I agree 100%.