The truth behind the giant Theropods

First of all, hi. I'm back. It's been a while since I was last online. It's good to be back.

Alright now, to the topic:

I've seen a lot of people who are misinformed about the four "Giant Theropods". AKA: Spinosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus (Mostly the first and the last, though). So, I felt like making this thread. Let me tell you the truth behind these four magnificent creatures.

1: Spinosaurus
Now, there's 3 kinds of people: Those that worship Spinosaurus, those that severely underrate Spinosaurus, and those that accept it for what it is. The last is about 2% of the people who know what a Spinosaurus is. So, if you are not one of those, let me tell you the truth. Spinosaurus was a 16-18 meter long, 10-14 ton apex predator living in Africa, around 100 million years ago. I'm sure you already knew that, though. So let me tell you things that surprisingly few people know.
1: Spinosaurus was not a wimpy Fish eater.
This is an argument often used by haters to make Spinosaurus look weak. The truth is, Crocodiles eat mainly Fish. You don't tell a Crocodile it's a wimp and get away with it. If what you ate mattered in combat, a 6 foot Velociraptor could beat a 100 foot Argentinosaurus.
2: Spinosaurus had a weak bite.
While this is not completely false, it's far from true. If one where to take a look at Spinosaurus' skull, one can easily see it was surprisingly robust, more robust than that of Carcharodontosaurus, actually. An 18 meter Spinosaurus would've had a bite force of roughly 3 tons. That's at least half that of T.rex, if not more!
3: Spinosaurus was very fragile
Nope. It's about as robust as Giganotosaurus, actually, and Giganotosaurus is not something you can call fragile.
4: If it rolls over, it breaks it's back and dies
This is very, vey false. And so many people believe it. If Spinosaurus rolls over, it's spines will break, yes. The spines are attached to the vertebrae, yes. But the spinal chord is not attached to the spines.
5: 4/5 ton Spinosaurus
There are way, way, way to many people who believe this. Even something like a Gallimimus would weigh over 10 tons when scaled up to 18 meters in length. Even a 14 meter Spino (Which probably was very, very, very, extremely rare) would've reached 7 tons at the very least.
6: Spinosaurus was like it was in JP///
The Spino in JP///, while smaller than the real thing, was overpowered, able to twist the neck of a struggling T.rex with ease and overall being the most powerful thing on the island. The real one was an actual animal, not a killing machine.
7: Spinosaurus was the top predator
Not necessarily true but also not necessarily false. It was the top predator of the lakes for sure, but whether it ruled Africa or not is debatable.

2: Carcharodontosaurus
Most people are make the mistake of thinking they know a lot about this predator. Why is this a mistake? Well. Carcharodontosaurus is a really poorly known Theropod. We only have bits and pieces of it. One thing these bits and pieces DO tell is, is that it was a giant apex predator.
Now onto some thing some people think, but are definitely false.
1: Carcharodontosaurus had a strong bite
The answer to this is no. Carcharodontosaurus' skull was to weak to withstand high pressure. In fact, even if it was strong enough, it wouldn't help it. Carcharodontosaurus was an animal designed to leave gaping holes inside it's prey and wait for them to bleed to death. It sacrificed a strong bite for a wide gape to help it perform this job. With a strong bite, it's prey selection would've been a lot more limited, as it wouldn't be able to hunt the giant tasty Sauropods walking around the place and wouldn't gain the ability to hunt anything it couldn't hunt before.
2: Carcharodontosaurus is almost exactly the same as Giganotosaurus
When people think of Carcharodontosaurus, they generally think of something different. Then they notice how similar that something different is to Giganotosaurus and say that the 2 are essentially the same. Little do they know, that something different actually IS a Giganotosaurus. Carcharodontosaurus probably was quite different. What are the differences? Well, take a Giganotosaurus. Make it longer and give it longer legs. Make it more slender and make it's head a bit smaller. Now you have what Carcharodontosaurus probably looked like. And it's quite a bit different from Giganotosaurus.
3: Carcharodontosaurus was top predator
Basically the same thing as with Spinosaurus. It was the best African Sauropod slaughterer, but not necessarily the undisputed king of Africa.

3: Giganotosaurus
Ah. The Giant southern lizard. My all time favorite Dinosaur. Unfortunately, that does not mean everybody knows it perfectly. Let's point out some common mistakes.
1: Giganotosaurus had a strong bite
I used to think this for a long time. Eventually, I realized that I was wrong. Why does it not have a strong bite? For the same reason Carcharodontosaurus doesn't. It would hinder it.
2: Giganotosaurus hunted Argentinosaurus
Evidence points towards the answer to this question being nope. We have yet to find Giganotosaurus in the same time and place we have found Argentinosaurus in. However, there was a close relative of Giganotosaurus hunting Argentinosaurus. Mapusaurus was very similar to Giganotosaurus, but still a bit different, and lived together with Argentinosaurus. This most likely caused people to think Giga and Argent lived together. The largest Sauropod that we know Giganotosaurus probably encountered was Andesaurus, reaching around 20 meters in length.
3: The 14/15 meter Gigas
When the first Giganotosaurus was found, it was an amazing discovery. We found a carnivore around the same size as Sue the Tyrannosaurus (For those of you who don't know, Sue is roughly 12.3 meters long)! Now, later we found a fragment of a likely even larger Giganotosaurus! This Giganotosaurus was likely 6.5% larger than the first one. Now, it's not difficult to calculate that A Giganotosaurus 6.5% larger than a 12 meter one isn't gonna be 14/15 meters. It's actually only 13.2 meters long.

4: Tyrannosaurus
Ah. The Tyrant Lizard King. Such a classic, and still a terrifying creature today! But there's quite a lot of people why think of it as a bit to terrifying.
1: T.rex was named the Tyrant Lizard King for a reason
So many people think T.rex is the most powerful Theropod, capable of taking down almost any animal on it's own. This isn't true. A Triceratops probably would've been more than a match for Tyrannosaurus. How on Earth could it take on a 30 meter Sauropod? Not to mention, it's quite debatable whether Tyrannosaurus really was king of the Theropods. I'm not gonna pick a side, because I'm sure that if I do, people will start flaming and stuff.
2: The 15 meter T.rex
Now, there have been lots of rumors of a T.rex that would've been 15 meters long. Well, all we have of it is a toe which was roughly 20% larger than that of Sue. And scaling it up from Sue we would indeed have a T.rex around 15 meters in length (Actually it's more like 14.7 meters, but that's close enough). But scaling up from Stan, the individual would be around the same size as Sue. Tyrannosaurus had lots of variations in proportions between individuals, so it can be extremely difficult to calculate just how big an individual was using just a single bone. Not to mention, a larger T.rex would need proportionally larger feet (And thus toes) in order to bear the greater weight. So this 15 meter T.rex could actually be an only 13.5 meter long individual, which would still be extremely impressive, but not as impressive as a 15 meter one.
3: The infectious bite
Jurassic Fight Club has taught us that T.rex apparently had an infectious bite. Well, it probably didn't. The Komodo Dragon was their only example for an animal with an infectious bite. But Komodo's don't have any deadly bacteria in their mouths unless they are unhealthy.
4: T.rex's teeth could easily slice huge chucks out of it's prey
This is false. The teeth of T.rex where very blunt compared to other Dinosaurs, perfect for crushing armor and bone, but not for slicing and dicing. True, it's teeth where serrated. But serrations alone don't make something razor sharp.



Well, that's just a small list of facts I felt like posting. I'm sure I could've debunked more myths surrounding these Theropods if I had the time, but alas, I do not. If you find something you feel like I should've added to this list, feel free to post it in this thread.

And YOU are 13?
Take off the mask, please.

Acctually I think Mapusaurus are adult Giganotosaurus not a different species and the familiar Giganotosaurus are acctually 8 to 10 years old meaning it is a young adult or juvenile. Giganotosaurus DID hunt Argentinosaurus but all died in the process. Lets say that the adult Giganotosaurs (Mapusaurus) suceeded in the killings. So this is what I think.

Fixed a minor error in the "15 meter Tyrannosaurus" section. I confused one specimen with another.

jfgoofy wrote:Acctually I think Mapusaurus are adult Giganotosaurus not a different species.

Well, there is enough evidence to support them being a separate species.

Wikipedia wrote:Coria and Currie diagnosed Mapusaurus as follows: "Mapusaurus n. gen. is a carcharodontosaurid theropod whose skull differs from Giganotosaurus in having thick, rugose unfused nasals that are narrower anterior to the nasal/maxilla/lacrimal junction; larger extension of the antorbital fossa onto maxilla; smaller maxillary fenestra; wider bar (interfenestral strut) between antorbital and maxillary fenestrae; lower, flatter lacrimal horn; transversely wider prefrontal in relation to lacrimal width; ventrolaterally curving lateral margin of the palpebral; shallow interdental plates; higher position of Meckelian canal; more posteriorly sloping anteroventral margin of dentary. Mapusaurus roseae is unique in that the upper quadratojugal process of jugal splits into two prongs; small anterior mylohyoid[disambiguation needed] foramen positioned above dentary contact with splenial; second and third metacarpals fused; humerus with broad distal end and little separation between condyles; brevis fossa of ilium extends deeply into excavation dorsal to ischial peduncle. It also differs from Giganotosaurus in having conical, slightly curving cervical epipophyses that taper distally; axial posterior zygapohyses joined on midline; smaller and less elaborate prespinal lamina on midline of cervicals; remarkably sharp dorsal margin of cervical neural spines; tall, wider neural spines; curved ischiatic shaft; more slender fibula."

and the familiar Giganotosaurus are acctually 8 to 10 years old meaning it is a young adult or juvenile.

This is unlikely. Partially because of the reasons stated above and also because a 8-10 year old Giganotosaurus would still have a lot of growing to do and would most likely end up reaching lengths of greater than 18 meters, which is certainly exaggerated. Not to mention, if they where a juvenile, we'd know. They are quite easy to distinguish from adults.

Giganotosaurus DID hunt Argentinosaurus but all died in the process. Lets say that the adult Giganotosaurs (Mapusaurus) suceeded in the killings.

So you're saying every time on of the "juvenile Giganotosaurs" hunted Argentinosaurus they died? Highly unlikely. No predator is going to send it's young to commit suicide if it means getting itself a meal, especially if it's better of just hunting with it's adult buddies.


Some more things that make Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus being the same species but at different ages unlikely:
They where around the same size. Mapusaurus was probably a bit smaller when it comes to mass.
Mapusaurus was likely less robust and had different proportions.
They didn't live at the same time or place. Kind of difficult to have parents that never even stepped a foot in any location you've ever been to, but are also younger than you.

hey ug. sup man?

well the 3 of these pretators (giga,spino and carcha) discovered about 20 years ago and we found only one or two incomplete fossils.i want so say that we dont know as much thing from these creartures like t.rex that discovered about 120 or more years ago.and these thing are easily change when the scientists found another one.

Well about t-rex he can take down triceratops (biting him in the neck) but argentinosaurus im not sure.And i can tell that your facts are right especialy about spinosaurus and carcharodontosaurus (he didnt have strong bite but he waited his victim to bleed out)

Other dino truth wil be know at other time

Spinosaurus looked strong bite because their teeth are closely packed together that much and helped the bite, so he looks strong in biting