|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 19, 2015 1:26:17 GMT 5
So if we subtract 500kg for the thighs, but add 250kg for the ridge, that ends up pretty similar to what isometric scaling of shartman’s Giganotosaurus would indicate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2015 11:44:38 GMT 5
If we make the thighs as wide as the shanks without changing it's other dimensions, the individual thighs would go from ~663.7 kilograms to ~521.5 kilograms, for a total of ~1.043 tonnes.
It loses a tiny bit above ~284 kilograms in mass. And if we make the spines simply raise the back height rather than form an actual ridge then they would add even more than ~250 kilograms.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on May 13, 2019 6:00:47 GMT 5
I think some of the most underrated giant theropods (some of which have been mentioned) are Tarbosaurus, Sauroniops, Tyrannotitan, Acrocanthosaurus, Mapusaurus, Siats, and Carcharodontosaurus iguidensis
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 26, 2019 4:27:34 GMT 5
And Oxalaia as well. Hardly anybody seems to consider it in comparison to Spinosaurus
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Dec 30, 2019 11:07:52 GMT 5
And Oxalaia as well. Hardly anybody seems to consider it in comparison to Spinosaurus Because there's so little of it. "A new spinosaurid taxon, Oxalaia quilombensis gen. et sp. nov., is described based on the anterior part of a snout and a fragment of a maxilla." Kellner et.al (2011) |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 30, 2019 21:39:32 GMT 5
And Oxalaia as well. Hardly anybody seems to consider it in comparison to Spinosaurus Because there's so little of it. "A new spinosaurid taxon, Oxalaia quilombensis gen. et sp. nov., is described based on the anterior part of a snout and a fragment of a maxilla." Kellner et.al (2011)That's true. However, there are things like Bruhatkayosaurus (probably a tree) and UCMP 137538 (random toe bone) getting far more attention, which stinks. On that note, also Kelmayisaurus and Bahariasaurus are pretty underrated |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 4, 2020 23:58:57 GMT 5
And Oxalaia as well. Hardly anybody seems to consider it in comparison to Spinosaurus Because there's so little of it. "A new spinosaurid taxon, Oxalaia quilombensis gen. et sp. nov., is described based on the anterior part of a snout and a fragment of a maxilla." Kellner et.al (2011)And now it's gone from history. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 16, 2020 2:28:43 GMT 5
This one might be fitting for this thread. www.ivpp.cas.cn/cbw/gjzdwxb/xbwzxz/201501/P020150112592082762393.pdfNHMG 8500 is a big tooth crown comparable in size to some large carcharodontosaurid or tyrannosaurid teeth, but its morphology suggests it came from some other theropod. The recent Dinosaur Facts and Figures book (for theropods and other dinosauriformes) says that this tooth may suggest a 12.9 meter, 5.2 tonne theropod. Here's-> a link (my phone lets me see a page where it goes into more detail, but my laptop won't for some reason, so you'll have to make do with this).  Of course, it's just a tooth, and the postulated size of the whole animal should probably be taken with healthy skepticism at the least. But for whatever it's worth... EDIT: there are actually quite a few surprisingly large theropods in that book. Of course, whether or not the estimates are accurate are another thing, but yeah. According to the book at least, there is also: - an 11.3 meter, 3.7 tonne abelisaurid - a 12.6 meter, 6.4 tonne " Megalosaurus" ingens (which a recent paper suggests is safe to refer to Torvosaurus) - a 10.1 meter, 4 tonne (probably) carcharodontosaurid trackmaker - and others I take at least some, maybe most, of these with a pinch of salt (certainly the tooth- and footprint-based estimates), however. |
|
