blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Sept 9, 2014 2:52:15 GMT 5
In the case of Purussaurus mirandai it seems to be because its skull is so damn flat but in the case of P. brasilensis you are right, the proportions of the snout measurements they took are like an scaled up american alligator but that's probably why it ended so low, is not extra robust for its size, though like I said they say that it could probably still be able to perform it despite the low value.
Another thing that could be decreasing the values are the estimated bite forces almost 180kN in the case of P. brasilensis based on Erickon's equation. To be honest, if this equations hold up I think 35-57kN for T. rex is too low because I don't believe that Crocodylus thorbjarnarsoni bites as hard as a full grown T. rex.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 9, 2014 16:12:48 GMT 5
At least for crocodiles in vivo measurements, such as Erickson et al. 2012 tend to be considerably higher than estimated ones (Foffa et al. 2014.). The figure you cite for T. rex was already the upper bound of the estimates in Bates & Falkingham 2012, but it might be too low along with other estimates using the same method. It also depends on whether it’s peak or sustained bite force that’s measured I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 31, 2015 10:20:38 GMT 5
blazeI've seen that you suggest Aureliano et al. are wrong about Purussaurus size ? This makes Deinosuchus being the largest/most powerful crocodilian ?
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on May 31, 2015 19:41:57 GMT 5
That seems to be the case if the UFAC 1403 skull is only 122cm in DCL rather than even the 134cm claimed by Moreno-Bernal (2007) and the 159cm long UFAC 1118 is associated with it then the 175cm long mandible can't come from an animal with a DCL much over 134cm, putting the largest Purusaurus as a sub10m crocodilian (assuming alligator/caiman like tail proportions)
However one has to remember that Farlow et al (2005) estimate of 147.5cm DCL for TMM 43632-1 is based on the average of 3 linear measurements ranging from 14% to 41% in comparison to a 118cm skull, it is very fragmentary and if several of this measurements are positively allometric then is possible that TMM 43632-1 was less than 25% larger than the one with the 118cm skull but unless we can evaluate that then Deinosuchus as the largest crocodilian seems correct for now.
|
|
Apex
Junior Member
Posts: 207
|
Post by Apex on Jun 14, 2015 16:10:57 GMT 5
Does anyone have any information on Pallimnarchus Pollens?
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 14, 2015 18:08:28 GMT 5
According to Molnar (2004), it was "only" ~5 meters long.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on May 13, 2019 6:02:54 GMT 5
Wasn't Smilosuchus comparable to Sarcosuchus in size?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 1, 2019 17:09:56 GMT 5
RE "Aegisuchus vs male megalodon" dinosauria101Nope. Really. theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/10388/threadwww.deviantart.com/randomdinos/art/Tick-Tock-Mk-III-703542464Nothing about Aegisuchus is particularly big. Even the endocast volume of 40cm³, which the authors weirdly claim to be "huge", is only a third larger than that of a 277 kg Alligator (Hurlburt et al. 2013). Now endocast volume presumably doesn’t scale isometrically among crocodiles, but frankly, getting a 15-22m animal with a 2m+ skull out of this material is ridiculous when looking at both the volume and external size of the braincase. Aegisuchus is not a 20 ton crocodilian, it is likely more of a 200kg crocodilian. And on top of that, probably a piscivore or filter-feeder, not a macroraptorial predator. Holliday, C.M. and Gardner, N.M. 2012. A new eusuchian crocodyliform with novel cranial integument and its significance for the origin and evolution of Crocodylia. PLoS One 7 (1): e30471.
Hurlburt, G.R., Ridgely, R.C. and Witmer, L.M. 2013. Relative size of brain and cerebrum in tyrannosaurid dinosaurs: an analysis using brain-endocast quantitative relationships in extant alligators. Tyrannosaurid paleobiology: 1–21. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 1, 2019 17:18:17 GMT 5
theropodMoved your post here; it will likely be helpful concerning the size of Aegisuchus
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 1, 2019 17:39:58 GMT 5
You know you could have just quoted it, as it was relevant to your thread, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 1, 2019 17:47:54 GMT 5
Um...okay?
But there really isn't much to discuss between a 200 kg piscivorous crocodile and a 24 ton shark
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 1, 2019 18:01:16 GMT 5
Sorry, I did not see that you deleted that thread.
Assuming it was still there, leaving a post explaining why this is a mismatch would have been sensible.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Sept 1, 2019 19:37:26 GMT 5
The evidence I’ve seen supports Purrusaurus.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 17, 2019 3:12:08 GMT 5
Well let’s see your methodology giving you 8 t for Purussaurus then! It was based on the 2015 study from which they scaled based on the proportions of the broad snouted caiman. Well, what about thr problem randomdinos noted, regarding the proportionately longer snout of Purussaurus? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 17, 2019 16:28:53 GMT 5
It was based on the 2015 study from which they scaled based on the proportions of the broad snouted caiman. Well, what about thr problem randomdinos noted, regarding the proportionately longer snout of Purussaurus? What problem? I think it would be best to scale from Purus' closest cousin |
|
