Spinosaurus aegypticus vs. Tyrannosaurus rex
Spinosaurus aegypticus vs. Tyrannosaurus rex [REDUX]
Thumbnail by Altforrule34_ez
Thumbnail by C-tops
Thumbnail by ElementalNinjas69
Thumbnail by Gamerzilla2018
"Dinosaurs are nature's way of reminding us of the power and mystery that lies in the world beyond our understanding" — David Attenborough
Tyrannosaurus rex, the Tyrant Lizard King
Spinosaurus aegypticus, the Egyptian Spined Lizard
The lizard king and the lizard.. thing
These two theropods are legends among legends, rivals throughout the world in the public and private eye. Two incredible, awe inspiring animals; as Richard Fortley said, "Dinosaurs remind us that the world is full of mysteries to be discovered, and curiosity is the key to unlocking them."
· They're both famous because of the Jurassic Park films, where an iconic fight against another theropod propelled them to heights that they lacked before (Velociraptor and Tyrannosaurus)
· They both lived in fossil formations known for their extremes, like the walking arsenals of the Hell Creek or the car sized fish and titanic sauropods of the Bahariya
· They both possessed distinctive faces, due to bony structures as well as their specialized and derived shapes— Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are both incredibly distinct, even among their close relatives, and in completely contrasting ways
· They're both in the top five most iconic theropods of all time, and maybe dinosaurs in general
· They're both infamous for new fossil discoveries causing absurd new changes to their capabilities or morphology. These changes are the cause for their controversies, maybe being the most controversial dinosaurs of all time
· They're both depicted as rivals to each other across media, from paintings, to films, to video games, to tv shows
· They both have dubious relatives from the same fossil formations, Nanotyrannus and Sigilmassasaurus (Moroccotyrannus vs. Montanospinus when??)
BEFORE WE START ..
Art by Jacob Hollars
It's obviously important to note that these are real animals, not fictional characters, so a fight to the death is incredibly unlikely. We will be going off the same assumption that Death Battle uses, that a degree of mischaracterization will be used to justify a death. While Tyrannosaurus has a very robust fossil record, Spinosaurus' are far more limited, and so the pool of what can be used to parse capabilities is limited. Science marches on; these two, especially Spinosaurus, change constantly, and just about anything here is liable to being outdated in a matter of days.
Yes, dinosaur fights provide literally zero scientific utility, so they are useless, however, who cares? There's nothing wrong with doing it in good fun, or even finding it cool. There's more than one way to appreciate something, and if someone chooses to have this be their way, what's the harm in that?
For the purpose of the debate, we'll be using the largest and most competent possible Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus, "composited" in that all of their specimens and fossil formations will be considered, such as the Bahariya Formation and Kem Kem beds for Spinosaurus.
We'll also presume that the fight takes place near a deep water lake or river, to keep the environment fair for both combatants.
ALSO APPARENTLY NANOTYRANNUS WAS ACTUALLY REAL????
Special Thanks
· Tyrannosaurus vs. Giganotasaurus by The Vividen
· Armin Reindl for sources on Tyrannosaurus intelligence
· The blogs of Mark Witton and Dan Folkes
· The thankless paleontologists that study and research these incredible animals every day
BACKGROUND
TYRANNOSAURUS REX
Art by Mark Witton
"We have a T-Rex!" — John Hammond
It was the Gilded Age of fossil discoveries, and Barnum Brown, also known as Mr. Bones, would discover the most famous in history in 1900, after which it would gain its powerful name from Henry Osborne. The most complete adult specimen would be found in 1990— Sue. Tyrannosaurus would slowly climb the ranks of popularity, originally overshadowed by Allosaurus, gaining its lucky break when the film Jurassic Park, based on the novel of the same name, would release in 1993. After which, Tyrannosaurus would become the mascot of not only dinosaurs, but prehistory in general, a title fitting for the "Tyrant Lizard King".
SPINOSAURUS AEGYPTICUS
Art by ddinodan
"If we base the ferocious factor on the length of the animal, there was nothing that ever lived that could match this creature" — Jack Horner
Discovered in 1912 by the Czech Paleontologist Richard Markgraf and described by the German Ernst Stromer in 1915, alongside much of the rest of the Bahariya formation, it has always been clear that Spinosaurus was special. The original specimen— its lower jaw and dorsal vertebra as well as a few smaller areas— were striking to Stromer, strange even. An all too common feeling for those that study the animal. Unfortunately for Stromer and the world at large, the Nazi party had risen in Europe, and with that, came the second world war. Stromer begged for the original specimen to be safeguarded, however he was denied this request, and they would perish in the infamous Bombing of Munich on the 24th day of the bombing, alongside other specimen.
And because this short history will feel incomplete without it, Spinofaarus.
EXPERIENCE AND SKILL
TYRANNOSAURUS REX
Tyrannosaurus was indisputably the largest predator in the entire Hell Creek Formation. It's various growth stages acted as other terrestrial predatory niches in its ecosystem, something that may be the cause of the Nanotyrannus misconception. Younger ones hunted the more nimble ornithomimids, and as they aged and grew more bulky, they transitioned into larger more dangerous prey. However, due to their high infant mortality rate, they weren't likely to reach the later stages. Tyrannosaurus adults also frequently engaged in combat with each other, as facial bite marks have been found on several fossils.
SPINOSAURUS AEGYPTICUS
Art by Joschua Knüppe
Spinosaurus occupied a semi aquatic (see before the verdict) niche, hunting the massive fish that it shared its environment with. That said, it was perfectly capable of predating upon non aquatic animals, such as pterosaurs. Spinosaurus certainly wasn't a slouch in terms of active combat, with Spinosaurus teeth being found in unhealed Carcharodontasaurus fossils, implying that it had killed it. Unfortunately, this fossil was sold to private collectors, so it cannot be studied any further.
Spinosaurus lived in a diverse predator food web, within the Bahariya Formation and Kem Kem beds. There were several meter long sawfish, several ton megatheropods, crocodile sized mosasaurs, etc
ARSENAL AND ABILITIES
Both of them are normal animals and so these are one in the same, as such, they'll be grouped together.
TYRANNOSAURUS REX
Art by Mark Witton
Famously, Tyrannosaurus had a bite of 6 to 8 metric tonnes. This bite had something known as "tooth pressure", which allowed it to pulverize bone more meaningfully than simply possessing a high bite force would. Tyrannosaurus had vision that was 13× greater than humans, padded feet which allowed it to sneak up on prey, was allegedly as smart as some great apes (see Before Verdict), and was remarkably agile for an animal of its size, twice as much as an animal of equivalent size, in fact.
Steak Knife Teeth
That fucking mouth that I hate. Tyrannosaurus' teeth were of course designed to crush the armored prey that it shared its ecosystem with.
Ramming
Art by John Conway
They might've had limited ramming abilities.
Foot Claws
Tyrannosaurus' feet were used for combat, providing surprisingly good damage
SPINOSAURUS AEGYPTICUS
Spinosaurus has many adaptations to its environment, but few that are useful to this discussion. The important ones however, are its impressively fast snapping mechanism, as well as its notable swimming ability (debatable see Before Verdict).
Conical Teeth
Teeth designed to catch and hold onto slippery prey.
The Dorsal Spine
Art by Emily Steppe
God strike me down. Ok so, we don't know what the iconic dorsal spine was used for! It will certainly have a use for this debate, but in a non combat scenario, who knows! Maybe temperature regulation, maybe display, maybe creating shade in the water to catch fish. Strange!
Spinosaur Arms
Spinosaurs had strong arms, robust, with gnarly claws, that could handily hold and lift their prey. Some estimates even place its swing force at a metric ton!
Whiskers
Spinosaurus likely had 'Whiskers' or another form of aquatic prey detection, similar to the way that crocodilians have dots around their jaws to sense the electrical field. Spinosaurus' were likely concentrated around the opening of the mouth.
FEATS
TYRANNOSAURUS REX
Art by Mark Witton
· Was strong enough to rip the head off of Triceratops horridus
· (Maybe) tanked hits from Ankylosaurus' club, as seen on FMNH PR2081 / Sue
· Specimen Wyrex survived with an amputated tail, bitten off by another rex.. holy shit. Although, this is debated and it may have been post mortem
· Could survive its own bite
· Engaged in frequent enough interspecies combat that it fossilized
· Specimen Stan survived a broken rib and a bite at the top of its brain case
· Could ambush and take down Anatosaurus, which could weigh up to 12 tonnes
· The indisputable apex predator of the Hell Creek Formation
SPINOSAURUS AEGYPTICUS
Art by Duskyvel
· Could kill Carcharodontasaurus, which weighed up to 9 tonnes
· Survived for millions of years on land after its habitat dried, implying that it was capable of hunting on land
· Could catch pterosaurs mid air
· Could hunt car sized fish, as implied by its ecological niche
· Was the largest and most dominant predator in an environment with other large predators, such as Carcharodontasaurus and Bahariyasaurus, which weighed up to 4 tonnes
SCALING
In every way possible, Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus represent the pinnacle of their families. They're the largest, the tallest, the longest, the most "extreme", so to speak. Therefore, it stands to reason that they should be perfectly capable of the same showings as their weaker relatives.
TYRANNOSAURUS REX
· Deinocheirus has bite marks from Tarbosaurus preserved
SPINOSAURUS AEGYPTICUS
· Suchomimus was the dominant predator of the Elrhaz formation, which included the 5 ton Sarchosuchus
WEAKNESSES
TYRANNOSAURUS REX
While certainly not a slouch in a direct confrontation, Tyrannosaurus was an ambush predator, and there are many fossils of Tyrannosaurus taking immense damage from its prey and being forced to run off. While Tyrannosaurus has plenty of experience facing other Tyrannosaurus', there's zero evidence of them being able to take on other large predators.
It's infamous arms weren't weak by human standards, but they did take away a significant amount of dexterity and range for the animal.
SPINOSAURUS AEGYPTICUS
While not an aquatic dinosaur per say, Spinosaurus was clearly acclimated for its environment. While not a fish out of water on land, it's unlikely that Spinosaurus was taking down large sauropods or hunting in that environment often in general. Spinosaurus was in its niche for a reason.
BEFORE THE VERDICT
"ALAMOSAURUS SCALING?"
Art by Mark Witton
No. At least, probably not?
The Southern Tyrannosaur is likely Tyrannosaurus, and so it's reasonable to claim that Tyrannosaurus was hunting younger specimens, but adult predation is out of the question. It isn't designed for sauropod predation, and even the sauropod killer families need group behavior to take out adults, if at all. The Yutyrannus sauropod killer claims are indecisive, and Tyrannosaurus has no clear evidence of pack hunting the way that Yutyrannus does.
"APE INTELLIGENCE?"
Oh boy, this is a big one. The idea that T. rex, and non avian dinosaurs in general (shout out Crows and Parrots), could have been as intelligent as modern apes is a bit of an overcorrection of the historic view of these great reptiles as dumb and lumbering. While ape like intelligence is occasionally cited in popular sources and most recently in the works of Herculano-Houzel (2022), experts disagree with this idea.
While Herculano-Houzel argued that neuron count suggests that T. rex was about as smart as a great ape, and theoretically smart enough for tool use, Casper et al. 2024 not only highlights the faulty methods used by the study, but also highlights that neuron count is a poor indicator of intelligence. Among their examples is the fact that though corvids have 2-6 times lower neuron counts than primates, they actually perform on par once put to the test. Tool use likewise is shown to be a matter not influenced by neuron count. While reptilian intelligence is vastly understudied and underestimated compared to that of mammals and birds (which while reptiles, aren't exactly the same), there is no evidence that non avian dinosaurs, and specifically T. rex were as smart as modern primates.
"SPINOSAURUS' SWIMMING ABILITY"
Let's get this out of the way, Spinosaurus was a semi aquatic predator. Its tail was an aquatic adaptation no matter how you interpret it. Spinosaurus' morphology would have made it difficult for them to swim, as they were much too buoyant to dive, however modern experts much prefer a heron like wading hunting strategy. This doesn't mean that Spinosaurus wasn't capable of moving about in the water, as it's ecologically tied to the water. Lets look at other animals, like Polar Bears or Bears in general, animals that are more than capable of swimming despite not appearing as such in the fossil record.
VERDICT
Art by Vincent
Art by Vosstess
Artist Unknown
Art by PaleoEntertainment
Art by Mantian2006
ARMIN REINDL
Ok so, I 100% agree with the fact that Spinosaurus' bizarre anatomy probably renders it an incredibly awkward foe to take on. The tail and sail make cause long term issues, but discounting it being torn into literal pieces are unlikely to be immediately fatal if attacked. The snout and ability to rapidly snap at T. rex is likely to be most useful at keeping it at a distance. It's rapid, possibly able to make the opponent flinch, but I don't think the conical teeth would be best at dealing damage. Looking at crocodilians, the teeth are merely a vector to secure a grip, while movement of the body is ultimately what causes the damage, tearing into the prey animal— there's videos of niles literally tearing Zebra faces off.
The claws I think are the thing that would need to be used to secure the kill, ironically in a reverse of the Jurassic Park 3 with the head being used to restrain (although it would be difficult, given the rexes mass), and the claws tearing through flesh and skin.
Intimidation could also be a factor, again Spinosaurus is strange, and would be a daunting prospect to an animal only really familiar with predators smaller than itself. In a pinch, Spinosaurus would have a much easier out. Of course swimming is debated, and T. rex could likely swim itself, but it's hard to imagine it being a better swimmer than an animal that's ecologically tied to the water.
Now like I said, I'm conflicted because I think there's some good arguments for rex as well. If it can get past the initial shock and awkwardness, it would be like playing crocodile dentist with a bear trap. The sail and tail are fine, but still, and to be tied to the suspension of disbelief with such scenarios in their entirety. How much would the Spinosaurus be willing to endure before thinking better of the encounter?
If the rex can focus enough to not be overwhelmed and grab ahold of an arm, then that arm is probably a gonner, and could create an opening. For a moment I did consider the possibility of the rex being able to latch onto the spine and jerk Spinosaurus around, but then again, the angle and height would make that a move that the animal wouldn't even consider without an unrealistic level of intelligence and foresight. Facial biting is a thing for Tyrannosaurus, but obviously there's nothing stopping them from reaching each others faces, while Spinosaurus would likely be able to use its arms to defend itself.
It's genuinely really tricky for me, but I think that versatility favors Spinosaurus overall, but if T. rex manages to push for an advantage, I think the tide would turn heavily in its favor.
DINO MAGENTA
I think the size difference is maybe a liiittle too lenient just given rough mass differences, but at the higher extremes of the scale (esp given Spino’s fragmentary nature) that’s pretty negligible (unless we find one of those hypothesized 17 ton rexes). I do wonder too, is the Spinosaur tooth in the Carcharodontosaur vertebra evidence of antagonistic combat or potential scavenging behavior?
Either way, I feel like Spino’s posture too could play a big role, if it was more upright those arms could definitely fold an overconfident megatheropod but if more horizontal it might be more energetically expensive to raise its body high enough for that? Just speculation on my part there. Even if I think Rex is just a liiittle more equipped given it’s built like a brick shithouse for toppling large animals, the pendulum has def swung too far in rex’s favor and Spino has been perceived as far weaker than it was for too long. For instance, the point about the sail being at the wrong/too high of an angle for rex to get a good bite in is 100% correct but something everyone overlooks anyways. I will say if my friend’s thesis defense on tyrannosaur social behavior proves true for rex specifically pack hunting might be something we have to consider in future.
I think it would’ve been more 50/50 with lots of individual and especially environmental factors tipping the scales, but I can def appreciate the Spino support and necessary uplift in an age of (deserved) rex hype.
Oh, the tail being an obvious aquatic adaptation, ehhh? I mean, it might seem redundant on Spino given it has a crest and sail, but then again more convoluted display structures have evolved. The pretty heavy-hitting computer modeling and physiological reconstructions are some strong contenders against primarily subaqueous Spino—a nuance we definitely pointed out and elaborated, I just would be remiss to mention it as a member of team ‘heron wader’ lol!
But like, the tail was tall and narrow, which is the exact opposite structure most animals that use their tails for locomotion today have—eg crocodiles, who need a broad and muscular base. Spino tail would’ve produced *a lot* of drag underwater, so idk if it can conclusively be said to be an adaptation for primarily subaqueous locomotion—tho I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir 😭 I know there’s rebuttal papers in the works and more specimens being described, so I’m sure that’ll be contested in the coming years!
RIAMUS
I vote Trex. If it really is an ambush predator I don't think it'll be too difficult for it to sneak up on a Spino and end things quick and clean before letting them get messy.
It's jaws evolved to destroy and crush because its prey were too tough. Both triceratops and Trex are the biggest, toughest, heaviest examples of their entire superfamily that also took the family's specialty to the max. Trike is the only ceratopsian to have a shield with no holes on it, its solid bone. Trex had to deal with a tank, so its jaws are also much more heavy duty than any other tyrannosaur, taking things to the max. Shantungosaurus is the biggest hadrosaur known so far, but some Edmontosaurus specimens are known to come close to Shant sizes. Ankylosaurus is also the biggest member of its family. Literally all examples of the gigantofauna of Hell Creek are the biggest species of their entire families. Edmonto lived with Trex so it makes sense it's something hardy enough to manage to escape a rex attack and heal from it.
Spinosaurus did not evolve to deal with an environment of such hard hitters. If a Trex can get around Spino's defences it could end the fight in a single shot. It's a hydraulic press vs a glaive.
when animals fight their own species, they tend to go for the face. Lions and hyenas bite each other's faces, goats lock horns, humans tend to prefer face punches over gut punches, and tyrannosaurs show too much evidence that their teeth reached the bone underneath the faces. So if a Trex attacks Spinosaurus head on, I wouldn't be surprised if it manages to grab shut the speen's long narrow jaws. If it chooses not to snap those jaws immediately, it can drag its face away from the body, it can still manage to stay clear of the arms.
But about Spino's arms. We have no arm bones from Spino besides a knuckle I think. No idea what its length would've been. Its relative's arms aren't too extremely long either to matter imo.
Overall :
TYRANNOSAURUS REX
Art by ddinodan
+ Bite force is 4x greater and designed to crush and bleed..
+ Likely larger ..
+ Designed to hunt prey comparable to Spinosaurus in size ..
+ Likely much smarter and more analytical
+ Greater senses, especially vision and smell
+ Quite literally built for this
+ May have hunted in groups, given its ancestry
+ Twice as agile
+ Everybody's favorite
+ Jurassic Park is a damn good movie
+ Won in Dinosaur King, and Jurassic Park : Camp Cretaceous, and Primal Carnage, and ( .. )
= Experience
= Adaptivity
- .. but the spine prevents it from using it anywhere vital
- .. but Spinosaurus' superior reaction speeds renders this moot
- .. but Spinosaurus' bite was fast enough to make up for this discrepancy
- .. but not remotely comparable in morphology
- No experience facing other large theropods quite like Spinosaurus
- HORNER DID WHAT
- Papo T. rex made finding good paleoart difficult
SPINOSAURUS AEGYPTICUS
Art by bossasaurus
+ Far superior in the water ..
+ Far greater reaction speeds, and a superior jaw opening and snapping mechanism
+ More dense, and thus, harder to tip over than the Tyrannosaurus' usual game or rivals
+ Equally as dangerous in water and on land, meaning it'll never be at a true disadvantage
+ The dorsal spine is a very difficult obstacle, especially in a direct confrontation
+ Its arms are perfect for keeping Tyrannosaurus away
+ Would've been substantially more intimidating to the Tyrannosaurus than vice versa
+ Won in Jurassic Park 3
= Experience
= Adaptivity
- .. but Tyrannosaurus isn't likely to let them get there in the first place
- Gets utterly stat stomped, and *will* be outclassed if it ever comes to a contest of power
- Likely responsible for the awesomebro phenomenon
- Actually DID have to face the indignity of showing up in the Jurassic World films, and I had to rewrite this bit
This was a surprisingly difficult fight to solve, despite the Tyrannosaurus' reputation as an unstoppable, unbeatable monster or Spinosaurus' fragmentary remains, but I think I have a strong case for Spinosaurus aegypticus edging out a victory.
Truly, this is the prehistoric equivalent of a "stats vs. hax" matchup.
To begin, Spinosaurus already has great proof of taking down predators of similar size, that hunted prey larger than Tyrannosaurus' typical game. As the previously referenced fossil indicates an adult, we're going to assume that the Carcharodontasaurus was about 6 to 8 tonnes, with the average Tyrannosaurus reaching an estimated 8 to 10 tonnes— a very close difference.
Tyrannosaurus cannot rely on a size advantage to win, especially with estimates for Spinosaurus placing it at a similar average weight of 7 to 9 tonnes. This begs an important question: could the Tyrannosaurus' hadrosaur predation edge it a victory? Edmontosaurus weighed more than all of them, at 10 or 12 tonnes, as an adult, but what's important to note is that Tyrannosaurus was not invincible.
Let's look at modern examples. Predators like Lions, Tigers, and Bears (oh my!), while certainly being capable of hunting the large game in their ecosystem, overwhelmingly prefer to hunt sick or young prey, especially when alone. This isn't to say that Tyrannosaurus would be incapable of hunting adult hadrosaurs, quite the contrary, as we have fossils of Tyrannosaurus teeth embedded in their tails and their dorsal spines.. with signs of healing, implying that they got away. Edmontosaurus wasn't a weak animal by any means, but if they were capable of escaping the bite and pursuit of an adult Tyrannosaurus, why wouldn't Spinosaurus? Now obviously this isn't to say that Tyrannosaurus never hunted large hadrosaurs, but the failures and their causes are important to examine.
Regardless, Edmontosaurus predation is entirely irrelevant, considering that much weaker members of Spinosaurus' family like Baryonyx are more than capable of hunting Iguanodon, another large hadrosaur. It really, really isnt unreasonable to think that Spinosaurus could've also hunted hadrosaurs of a similar size to Edmontosaurus if push came to shove; and it did! Spinosaurus survived for a short while after the Kem Kem beds dried up, and had to have been hunting something in that time. The only reasonable prey items for the nearly 10 ton predator would've been the sauropods in the region.
A quick look at their win conditions paints a good picture.
TYRANNOSAURUS REX
Art by Caxela1
Tyrannosaurus' main win condition is to use its likely superior weight and greater survivability to wait for an opportunity to get a good bite in, while Spinosaurus is forced to lunge up to strike at something vital, exposing its neck or head away from its sail.
Tyrannosaurus' likely superior intelligence would be all but useless here, as Spinosaurus would be entirely unlike anything that it had ever faced. Equating the frill of Triceratops and the dorsal spine of Spinosaurus isn't a good comparison, as Spinosaurus' was much larger, and Tyrannosaurus got around the frill through ambush tactics, which it wouldn't have the luxury of in a fight like this.
OTHER
· (High Diff) Overpower the Spinosaurus, ram it, and attack the soft underbelly or the now exposed neck
· (Counter) While designed for doing this exact maneuver, it still has to get close enough for Spinosaurus to use any of its own win cons, like luring it into deeper waters. Spinosaurus is also considerably more difficult to tip over due to its density, and it was able to rear up sort of like a Grizzly Bear, giving it an intimidating height advantage
· (Extreme Diff) Drag Spinosaurus out of the water and attack it while it's out of its element
· (Counter) Even with Tyrannosaurus' might, it would have to drag another animal of similar size out of its element, while it's constantly fighting back and trying to shake it off. The Tyrannosaurus would also be forced to put itself into the disadvantageous position of practicing amphibious combat against Spinosaurus
SPINOSAURUS AEGYPTICUS
Spinosaurus' main win condition is to bleed the Tyrannosaurus out with its quick bites and superior range, while staying near the water to keep the Tyrannosaurus disoriented enough to kill it or force a surrender.
Even if the fight is taken towards the land, fossils indicate that Spinosaurus was more than capable of defending itself from predators of equivalent sizes and weight classes.
OTHER
· (Low Diff) Hit it with a single good force swing against the face, using its swing force of a whole metric tonne. Animals tend to go for the face, and Spinosaurus in particular has just about every means to get a good hit in
· (Counter) Try its hardest to avoid its arms, which it couldn't do in a head-on fight
· (Mid Diff) Lure the Tyrannosaurus into the water during the amphibious stage, keep forcing it deeper through attacking whenever it tries to escape, and drown it. An aggressive animal like the Tyrannosaurus wouldn't likely realize the danger until it's too late; modern big cats face the same issue when attacking crocodilians
· (Counter) Relies on Tyrannosaurus allowing itself to come into such an obvious disadvantage, which such an intelligent predator might not do
· (Extreme Diff) Drag Tyrannosaurus into the water, and drown it
· (Counter) Good luck
Spinosaurus' win conditions are simply much easier and more reasonable when analysed more thoroughly. Tyrannosaurus was an intelligent predator, but it wasn't going to be using humanoid, corvid, or cetacean levels of problem solving on the fly.
Spinosaurus also has more and better counters than Tyrannosaurus does.
This fight is most commonly compared to a duck fighting a lion, but a more apt comparison would be a 9 ton Grizzly Bear fighting a 9 ton Siberian Tiger. The Spinosaurus' common diet of fish is not a mark against it, any more than Grizzly's and their diet of salmon and fruit, with occasional active predation.
Now to address one of the big factors for this debate: the living hydraulic press. This, more than anything would be the Tyrannosaurus' biggest win condition, but how likely is it to get a good bite off? As addressed earlier, the Tyrannosaurus got around the smaller neck guarding frill of Triceratops through ambushing, which it couldn't do here.
Furthermore, in order to access this incredible bite strength, Tyrannosaurus would have to open its mouth at a full 28° angle. Spinosaurus' dorsal spine is angled too strangely for Tyrannosaurus to get a solid bite in.
The bite is not a truly determining factor. Tyrannosaurus could not kill things just by nibbling at them, and their bites have fossil evidence of failing to take out prey of similar sizes to Spinosaurus. Spinosaurus is a large, awkwardly built, and aggressive animal, it would be more than capable of shaking off or freeing itself. The small details, the tertiary factors, they matter more here.
Lets circle back to another point of comparison: carcharodontasaurids. Spinosaurus has direct fossil evidence of killing not just a carcharodontasaurid, but one of the largest.
So how would a Tyrannosaurus fair? Well, Tyrannosaurus as the largest and most powerful theropod dinosaurs shouldn't be discounted in a fight against one. But another thing to consider is that the predatory style of carcharos are a hard counter against Tyrannosaurus. They possessed interlocking spines, and had thick, muscular necks, for the purpose of tearing chunks off of, and even potentially pulling down sauropods.
Art by Tess Gallagher
Think of Carcharodontasaurs like you would Doom Slayer. Rip and Tear. You cannot afford to make a single mistake in an encounter against one, it will literally rip you apart. These are the types of predators that Spinosaurus lived with, and managed to survive against. To contrast, we have numerous fossils of Tyrannosaurus falling victim to the horns of Triceratops after a failed ambush. I would personally put a confrontation between a Tyrannosaurus and a large carcharodontasaur at 45/55, respectively. These are not animals to be scoffed at, they were easily some of the most efficient and dangerous predators in history.
Art by Prehistorica CM
I'd like to take a look at the notion that Tyrannosaurus was a pack hunter, and would've outnumbered Spinosaurus in an encounter. There's zero fossil evidence to indicate this, which you would expect for there to be, considering how often Tyrannosaurus fossils are found. In fact, the Tyrannosaurus' level of aggression against other Tyrannosaurus' should be a major mark against this idea.
Overall, the Tyrannosaurus is the most powerful predator in natural history, its size, experience, and incredible adaptations made this an incredibly close match. But the Spinosaurus' counters, equivalent adaptations, and strange existence earned them the win. I'd put the Spinosaurus' chances at 55/45 in its favor, with the Tyrannosaurus having a considerable win condition of potentially ramming the Spinosaurus over and attacking the soft underbelly, or just.. overpowering it. However, that's reliant on speculation, as well as the Tyrannosaurus putting itself in biting and swiping range.
Looks like in the case of the Tyrant Lizard King, the Emperor Has No Clothes, the winner is Spinosaurus aegypticus
Tyrannosaurus ~ Dino Magenta, Riamus (2)
Spinosaurus ~ Permian, Armin Reindl (2)
Comments
Post a Comment