This was one of the earliest debates on the paleontology forum, but since then a huge Spinosaur skull over six feet long was discovered which now proves this was the biggest Theropod dino yet discovered. Ironically, the dino advisors believed this years ago when making Jurasic Park III. Scaling up earlier fossils to the huge new skull, this new Spino is estimated at being 55 to 60 feet long. All other contenders still hover around 45 feet as the largest so any more debate is pointless now. Sorry Frogfish, guess I was right after all

Can you provide the source for your information containing the discovery of the Skull?

This site mentions the possibility of an 8 foot skull, but no reliable sources. Unless of course DC is talking about an actual confirmation about that skull.

Edit: Found a better link: Yahoo News Story

Although the fact that it's only skull fragments is kind of disappointing.

Thank's crusty. Informative.

You could be right, but the doubt that it is an INCOMPLETE skull...It is ESTIMATED at 6 feet long...Ever hear of Saurophaganax? Its a giant theropod suspected of being a subfamily of Allosaurs...from it's incomplete skeleton, it is estimated at 50-60 feet long...

You stand corrected?

Considering the astronomic odds against any living creature being preserved sufficiently for scientific study millions of years later, one must wonder at the size these creatures really attained and the numbers in which they existed. And when discussing these monstors I always have to remind myself that the remains of the first dinosaur was only revealed a little over a century and half ago and that we are literally only scratching the surface in our study of this species.
We all can expect some surprises over the next century of research and discovery.

You are right fantazum. The greatest and most unique dino may not have been found yet. The interesting thing about the Spino is that though rare, the two major finds were both from huge animals. The original was over 40 feet long but still a juvenile because of lack of fusion in the bones. This new one may easily have been 60 feet long. With such a small sample, we do not even know if we found a "large" adult speciment yet! Though in the case of T Rex, enough specimens have been found to suggest they normally attain a length just over 40 feet.

A somewhat more sobering thought is that, given the odds against fossilization are astronomical, there are thousands, even millions of species of which we will never find any trace whatsoever. Countless more we will know only from fragmentary evidence, like Deinocherious.

One hundred million years from now, it may be our bones lying forgotten in the dirt...

-Pilgrim

Deinocherius, a relative of Avimimus could of reached lengths of 40 feet and possible be the fastest dinosaur ever....Sadly, it is only known from a 7-foot long arm.

Still, no challengers to Saurophaganax?

That's incredible, what a large beast. though i've still got a soft spot in my heart for the t-rex.

I don't think any Paleontologist would agree with you frogfish. Spino is now that biggest, hands down.

Why not, just because there is a dinosaur possibly larger than Spinosaurus doesn't mean paleontologists disagree....I think your BIAS played a bigger role in that statements, as many paleontologist acknowledge Saurophaganax.

Frogfish, you are right in some ways. Yes, Deinocheirus had the longest arms of any theropod, and is estimated to actually be a 35-foot dinosaur that hunted little but mammals and insects. Those hands were large enough to actually fit a 6-year old boy in them full scoop (Yes, the hands is actually longer than the arm itself, largely because of the massive 2-foot long claws. And, Draconic, you stand correct in other ways. Spino is one of the longest theropod currently discovered, but, however, is NOT the largest. The title of largest theropod belongs to a very new, unknown species known as Gigantosaurus, meaning 'Gigantic Reptile'. This Argentinian dinosaur could grow up to lengths of 15m when fully grown and could weight well over a good 7-8 tonnes. Spinosaurus grew to 12m at very best and weighed a decent 5-6 tonnes. Gigantosaurus actually fed off of the mighty saurapod Argentinosaurus. It was a member of the Allosaur family and for a big guy, it could run. 30km/h in short bursts, actually (Roughly the same as T-Rex, which weighed 500-700 pounds less and was about 10m long) Argentinosaurus has been documented and shown on TV a few times, but not much of the public know of the true 'Tyrant Lizard King'.

Plus, according to fossil files, databases and books, fellow American Spinosaur Acrocanthosaurus was actually larger than Spinosaurus

And please, don't try to create an argument concerning my knowledge of the Mezozoic Era, or thou shall eat my dust

With all due respect, I think you are mistaken. I have seen photographs of the deinocherious fossil, and while they would no doubt be sufficient to scoop a 6-year-old boy up, the hands are most definately not longer than the arms. They are quite large in proportion to the arms, but not longer by any stretch of the imagination.

Sadly, this reconstruction was all that I could find on-line, however, the illustration clearly shows that the arm is far longer than the hand. Perhaps you meant that the hand is longer than the individual bones of the arm? That certainly is possible.



And giganotosaurus is hardly a new discovery. It was the largest theropod known when I was still in high school, ten years ago. Given how quickly the field of paleontology moves a decade is quite a long time indeed. Also, I have found at least one reliable source (the Natural History Museum of London) which lists spinosaurus as being considerably longer than giganotosaurus (16m for the former, 12m for the latter). Various sources do suggest a considerable range of estimates for giganotosaurus's size, from 12 to 14m, but it seems that 12m is the most widely accepted figure.

However, in terms of mass, giganotosaurus is universally listed as being the larger overall, at least in the sources I have found.

-Pilgrim

When I said Deinocheirus' hands were bigger than it's arms, I did mean the individual bones, plus the structure in which the bones are layed out and the fact that part of the arm is useless anyway.

And overall, yes, Gigantosaurus is classified as the biggest, because of it's sheer size and bulk.

Actually, paleontologist speculate that Deinocherius did grow up to 40 feet. Since it was an Orninthosaur, it ate small rodents and insects.

Actually, DC is right. Spinosaurus is longer than Giginatosaurus by 5 feet. Like Pilgrim said, Giginatosaurus is not a new discovery.

Another mistake you made Moose is about Acrocanthosaurus. Acro barely grew over 40, no where close to the size of Spinosaurus, or the larger Saurophaganax.

Moose, as Frogfish stated your information is very outdated. Though we only have the skull, the new spino can be reliably sized to around 60 feet, and that outclasses every other predatory dinosaur for the time being. When proof of a bigger contender is actually found, I will acknowledge it.

I am trying to imagine the sizes these creatures attained....its almost nightmarish and of course impossible.
Here's an extract from an interesting BBC article . For the rest go to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4031789.stm

The world's biggest and heaviest dinosaur is commonly said to be Argentinasaurus, a 37m-long (120ft), 80-100-tonne creature known from South America.

However, a 2.4m-long (8ft) fossil vertebra from a creature called Amphicoelias fragillimus was pulled out of the Morrison Formation of North America in 1877.

Based on the description of the bone made by its discoverer Edward Drinker Cope, the animal it belonged to would have been some 52m (170ft) in length.

However, the huge specimen has since disappeared, which makes this impossible to verify.

The vertebral bone described in the latest research paper was found by fossil hunter Gavin Leng. It was cleaned up by David Cooper, a volunteer at the Dinosaur Isle museum in Sandown, Isle of Wight.

It could of been a subspecies of Argentinosaurus. Saurophaganax, possibly the worlds largest theropod is thought to be a rare subspecies of Allosaurus Fragilis.

No frogfish, where do you get this stuff. The new Spino is 60 feet, the bits of Saurophaganax aren't even close.

Technically, Sauropods may have been omnivores, and therefore "carnivorous" too. Dinos are more closely related to birds than they are mammals, and there are virtually no strictly vegetarian birds. They are nearly all opportunistic omnivoresand will eat any small creature they can swallow. Ducks for example, though mostly vegetarian, won't hesitiate to gulp down fish, frogs, insects, and even mice. With their long necks, Sauropods may have actively hunted small animals they could swallow whole.

For example, if those were real Brachiosaurs in that silly scene in Jurassic Park of the kids petting their noses and the paleontologist reassuring them that the creatures were harmless........ well, the kids would have been very, very, surpised as they slid down those long throats to their doom, and the paleontologist would have received a good lesson in the fallacy of stereotyping dinosaurs as "vegetarians".

I doubt it...they were slow moving beasts, with tiny brains, poor eyesight, and a mouth full of molars. Where did you get this?




Actually, the estimate of the vertebra of Saurophaganax was that this dinosaur could reach lengths over 60 feet.

I think it would be wise to remember that while birds are considered dinosaurs, not all dinosaurs are birds. Specifically, sauropods bear little in relation to the coelurosaurs which are believed to be the ancestors of birds. Coelurosaurs were carnivores; sauropods were not. Coelurosaurs were bipedal; saurpods were not. Coelurosaurs are noted for their frail builds; sauropods most definately are not. Furthermore, the sauropod line became extinct at the end of the Mesozoic, and have no descendants.

The divisions between the theropod line and the sauropod line are deep and date to the very earliest age of the dinosaurs, the late Triassic. In fact, the only thing which they share in common is the shape of their pelvis (both are saurischians), and there is some debate in the palontological community as to whether or not the saurischian grouping is a valid one given the wide variations seen within it (quite unlike the ornithischians, which all possess certain universal traits).

In short, while it is not impossible for sauropods to have eaten small animals, the fact that birds are omnivorous should not be taken as evidence that they might have been, as well. Sauropods are very distantly related to birds if related at all, and may not share anything in common with them.

-Pilgrim

These are artist renders of Spino and Saurophaganax......




And here's a archaeologists and palaeontologists size refernce for Saurophaganax



Is it just me, or do I doubt that thing would grow more than 60 feet in length normally?

And when I was talking about Gigantosaurus, again, I was judging by SIZE, not length. Gigantosaurus is much bulkier than Spinosaurus.

And with the Acrocanthosaurus, maybe I screwed up. But blame the books, I picked up this knowledge from an expert book I have. Then again, it is also an expert book from from 1994, so, meh.

Saurophaganax is known from a single vertebrae that is almost 3 feet long...Certainly it can grow over 60...

Nice Todd Marshall drawings, I love his artwork (my avatar and background for my Signature)

Pilgrim,
Fact of the matter is there are virtually no strictly vegetarian archosaurs, or stricly vegetarian reptiles save for possibly some tortoises and the marine iguana.

Unless a person saw a duck swallow a mouse, they would assume it was a herbivore, and yes the bulk of their food is vegetable, but there are exceptions.

Many Sauropods have simple peglike teeth which cannot chew vegetation, which instead is swallowed whole. Despite their large size, it is possible their heads/necks could be moved rapidly to snatch small prey.

There is cdocumented evidence that even such obvious mammalian herbivores sometimes become carnivorous.

Therefore to dismiss this trait in archosaurs/dinosaurs if foolish indeed, and I believe it is highly probable that they did, because virtually all living archosaurs do.

I did not say that the idea should be dismissed, as we do not yet know enough to say with certainty that they did not prey on small animals. What I said was that sauropods have no living descendants, having belonged to a line of animals which went completely extinct, and that the fact that modern archosaurs are not entirely herbivorous should not be taken as evidence that they were not, as well. Their closest living reletives are crocodiles, and they are carnivorous. Birds are descended from a line entirely seperate from the sauropods, and their habits tell us nothing about non-theropod dinosaurus.

-Pilgrim

Many, many birds do not eat more than seeds, fruits, and insects.

Insects denote predation, and little birds eat insects. A much bigger omnivore would probably eat larger prey, but still relatively small animals they could swallow whole, just as the largely herbivorous ducks turkey, ostriches, emus, etc. etc.

Thing is, small prey would live on the ground, and to catch them, their necks would need to move at high speeds. This would cause serious damage to the necks of sauropods, not to mention dizziness

What about the gigantasaourse? or whatever its called...

frog fish according to oklahoma knwo the state they said that Saurophaganax maximus is known by more thne just a veterbra and that it was about 40 feet. and i think oklahoma would know about there state fossil http://www.statefossils.com/ok/ok.html please give a link that shows why u thin it reached an added 20 feet? also it better be reputable. i mean i gave u the goverment lol

http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/content/scien...o_card/408.html

http://www.keltationsart.com/saurophaganax.htm

http://www.dinodata.net/Dd/Namelist/Tabs/S025.htm

those gave an upwards of 50 feet still didnt top the scale at 60 feet like u said.

I said that there WAS a possibility of 60 feet...As its only known from a single vertebrae

from what i read it is known froma few bones not just one

I wonder how much food a creature of this size would eat every day.

probly not alot reptiels dont eat ot much compared to mammals

Lets say "longest" cause he's not the "Biggest" 50% of spinos size is his tail, Giganotosaurus is actually a bigger animal.

The debate is still not dead...Saurophaganax could of easily been longer than Spino.

The Spiniosaurus has taken the cake!

No, what do you people not get about the fact the SAUROPHAGANAX could be longer!

Maybe they just belevei what the
Bible and movies say.

Yes Saurophagnax could be longer
but so could Spinosaurus

...Saurophaganax was a relatively new dinosaur...

This debate is not dead.

Could is a very weak word in a debate spinosaurus Could be 100ft long and we Could have onyl seen baby fossils and the bible Could be right in that there were never dinos and ur dino buddy Could be smaller then any one thinks. and i Could hate dicussions about dinos because ther so litttle we know aobut them lol

Give it up frogfish. Until new discoverie are made, Spino wins. And there could realistically be far bigger spinos as some of the loose teeth indicated.

This is an extremely rare fossil, and the first speciment was HUGE, and it was just a juvenile with unfused vertebre. And now only the second one found is far bigger than any other known theropod. So we do not even have a large sampling, yet everything says they are gigantic.

What is your problem with spinos, frogfish? Childhood nightmares about it killing your beloved T- Rex in Jurassic Park?

Frogfish, its only a movie, its only a movie its only..................

And then it must be realistic that a dinosaur estimated to be over 50 feet long from a single vertebrae is possible longer. (Saurophaganax)


Nothing, they are awesome dinosaurs. I just want people to know that there are dinosaurs that are bigger.

o.k Sorry Guys But we all Know the Biggest One hear is Giganotosaurus And if it was not There is No Way Spino was i would Bet Saurophaganax was bigger Then Spino. Lets Face No one Even cared about Spino Till the Full Of Poo MOive JP3