Post by Grey on Feb 14, 2013 0:15:42 GMT 5
Use this thread to post imaged scales of animals, with a human or another animal for comparisons purposes.
If it comes from another source, links it.
A selection of Matt Wedels (6Âf2ÂÂ or 1.88m tall) with various long-necked amniotes for scale.
svpow.com/2013/02/12/peerj-launches-today-and-were-in-it/
NOTE FROM MOD, regarding RULES FOR THIS THREAD:
As mod of the discussions section, I feel it has become necessary to introduce some rules for this thread. This is to maintain (or reintroduce) a certain minimum standard for size comparisons to be posted here, which have declined to a level of quality that I find frankly unacceptable.
Rules (I will copy these to the opening post as well)
1) When posting a comparison, members must explain briefly how they scaled the animals (e.g. animal A scaled to 2.7 m tall at the top of the back, animal B scaled to 12.24 m axial total length), either in the picture itself, or in the post.
2) Scaling in comparisons must be consistent with the given sizes (e.g. if you say your animal is scaled to 2.7 m tall, it mustn’t be 3.4 m tall), and measurements must be reproducible and anatomically sound (i.e. the landmarks you describe must be visible or clearly pointed out, and in accordance with the measurement you are talking about.
3) Comparisons that don’t adhere to the first rule will be moved (by me) to this new thread, link→ until the information is provided.
4) As for the second rule, I will check comparisons randomly or when I have reason to suspect they may be in violation. Comparisons found to be irreproducible with the listed sizes (e.g. a post says an animal is scaled to 10 m long, but the animal as shown in the comparison is actually 8.6 m long) will likewise be moved and hopefully, improved. The level of tolerance depends on the resolution and the precision of the measurement. If you say you scaled something to 11.9 m, it should be reproducible to one decimal digit, when factoring in the imprecision of measurement (e.g. if I cannot see whether a measurement is 2 px longer or shorter, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and taking the figure more likely to be consistent with your measurement, but if it’s still inconsistent then, I’m moving it).
These rules is strictly to ensure technical accuracy of comparisons, because for them to actually show what members claim they show shouldn’t be too much to ask.
This does NOT constitute censorship of the content itself (e.g. if you want to make a comparison comparing a 10 m T. rex to a 14.5 m Giganotosaurus, you can still do that, no matter how inaccurate it is scientifically, as long as your post clearly says that they are scaled to these sizes), which is a different matter.
However of course obvious guidelines still apply, and outside my function as mod I will continue to critique the scientific accuracy of comparisons. I general, please make sure the sizes you scale your animals to have a firm scientific basis, and are consistent with the artistic depictions you use. If asked, you should be able to provide evidence for the sizes you are showing also being accurate scientifically.
also it makes sense to reiterate this here
5) Provide proper citations for whatever images you use, preferably on the image itself, or below it if necessary.
6) In light of a couple things that have been posted here, I do want to emphasize: this is a thread meant to seriously compare the sizes of only real animals and/or their body parts. Fictitious creatures are not the real focus of this thread.
If it comes from another source, links it.
A selection of Matt Wedels (6Âf2ÂÂ or 1.88m tall) with various long-necked amniotes for scale.
svpow.com/2013/02/12/peerj-launches-today-and-were-in-it/
NOTE FROM MOD, regarding RULES FOR THIS THREAD:
Rules (I will copy these to the opening post as well)
1) When posting a comparison, members must explain briefly how they scaled the animals (e.g. animal A scaled to 2.7 m tall at the top of the back, animal B scaled to 12.24 m axial total length), either in the picture itself, or in the post.
2) Scaling in comparisons must be consistent with the given sizes (e.g. if you say your animal is scaled to 2.7 m tall, it mustn’t be 3.4 m tall), and measurements must be reproducible and anatomically sound (i.e. the landmarks you describe must be visible or clearly pointed out, and in accordance with the measurement you are talking about.
3) Comparisons that don’t adhere to the first rule will be moved (by me) to this new thread, link→ until the information is provided.
4) As for the second rule, I will check comparisons randomly or when I have reason to suspect they may be in violation. Comparisons found to be irreproducible with the listed sizes (e.g. a post says an animal is scaled to 10 m long, but the animal as shown in the comparison is actually 8.6 m long) will likewise be moved and hopefully, improved. The level of tolerance depends on the resolution and the precision of the measurement. If you say you scaled something to 11.9 m, it should be reproducible to one decimal digit, when factoring in the imprecision of measurement (e.g. if I cannot see whether a measurement is 2 px longer or shorter, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and taking the figure more likely to be consistent with your measurement, but if it’s still inconsistent then, I’m moving it).
These rules is strictly to ensure technical accuracy of comparisons, because for them to actually show what members claim they show shouldn’t be too much to ask.
This does NOT constitute censorship of the content itself (e.g. if you want to make a comparison comparing a 10 m T. rex to a 14.5 m Giganotosaurus, you can still do that, no matter how inaccurate it is scientifically, as long as your post clearly says that they are scaled to these sizes), which is a different matter.
However of course obvious guidelines still apply, and outside my function as mod I will continue to critique the scientific accuracy of comparisons. I general, please make sure the sizes you scale your animals to have a firm scientific basis, and are consistent with the artistic depictions you use. If asked, you should be able to provide evidence for the sizes you are showing also being accurate scientifically.
also it makes sense to reiterate this here
5) Provide proper citations for whatever images you use, preferably on the image itself, or below it if necessary.
6) In light of a couple things that have been posted here, I do want to emphasize: this is a thread meant to seriously compare the sizes of only real animals and/or their body parts. Fictitious creatures are not the real focus of this thread.
