|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 17, 2019 17:14:37 GMT 5
On another note....
The flaming was so, so funny, I almost* wish mountainlord and kodiak were going at it here again
*There's a reason why I said almost
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 17, 2019 17:28:36 GMT 5
The one "regarding the proportionately longer snout of Purussaurus". Namely, Purussaurus has a proportionately longer snout than a broad-snouted caiman, the proxy used by Aureliano et al.. Crocodilians with proportionately longer snouts tend to have proportionately longer skulls, which is why you don’t scale a gharial (or Sarcosuchus) based on a caiman’s head body proportions. I think you should try to compare similarly reliable methodologies in terms of the error margin you expect, or the closest we can get to it. In one case, scaling from a close relative may give relatively lower results, and in another case relatively higher ones than another method for some reason. It also makes a difference whether that scaling from relatives is based on an allometric equation, or just isometric scaling. There is no one method that is always better, it depends on size ranges (interpolation vs extrapolation), sample sizes (statistical noise), on whether or not there is a significant amount of allometry (extrapolation beyond data range resulting in potentially implausible results) or an ecomorphological disparity between the two (comparing measurements that aren’t actually comparable with regard to the size of the fossil, such as when one skull length has a proportionately longer snout than another), even on how robust the phylogenetic assignment is. actual remains>scaling from close relative>scaling from more distant relative, but this is just a general rule of thumb On the issue of Purussaurus specifically, Blaze made some posts regarding it: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/21430/threadtheworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/21430/threadIn short, I wouldn’t necessarily trust scaling Purussaurus from a sample of <90 cm caimans, and even if the caimans were bigger, there would still be the problem of Purussaurus skull having a proportionately much longer snout. Alligators might be a better analogue, actually. Conversely, it’s quite plausible the same factors actually lead to an underestimated size for Sarcosuchus when scaling it from Terminonaris (based on both the size difference, the even more longirostrine and far more slender skull of Terminonaris, and the postcranial remains of Sarcosuchus, which appear to suggest a larger size than 10 m). Whatever, the point is that it’s not accurate to present " Sarcosuchus is 3 tons while Purussaurus is 8 t" as a fact like you seemed to be doing, it is quite possible to get 8t estimates for Sarcosuchus and 5 t ones for Purussaurus. And of course that’s only talking about maximum sizes, the average situation might look quite different anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 17, 2019 17:30:49 GMT 5
^Oh, it's longer-snouted?
Maybe it's more likely to be around 7.5 tons, as per the proportions of a black caiman.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 17, 2019 17:50:39 GMT 5
^Well, yeah, it is longer-snouted, I think I wrote that in my first post already. There are obviously some other problems with the estimate too, as well as with the 9 m one for Sarcosuchus that you are comparing it to, even if the latter has more uncertainty generally. I don’t think there are very good grounds for claiming Purussaurus was larger than Sarcosuchus (at least based on known maximum sizes).
Source?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 17, 2019 18:26:35 GMT 5
^Well, yeah, it is longer-snouted, I think I wrote that in my first post already. There are obviously some other problems with the estimate too, as well as with the 9 m one for Sarcosuchus that you are comparing it to, even if the latter has more uncertainty generally. I don’t think there are very good grounds for claiming Purussaurus was larger than Sarcosuchus (at least based on known maximum sizes). Source? My bad. I meant to type 7.5 tons. Well, going by this black caiman. It seems to have a length 6.7 times that of skull length  This yields 11.725 meters, which should weigh about 1.3 t more than the 6.2 ton, 10.3 meter croc here images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/032f9906-240a-4b4a-b0cf-33f511222887/dbmvcu8-60e0b462-798c-4640-abcb-a7efe4884c54.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzAzMmY5OTA2LTI0MGEtNGI0YS1iMGNmLTMzZjUxMTIyMjg4N1wvZGJtdmN1OC02MGUwYjQ2Mi03OThjLTQ2NDAtYWJjYi1hN2VmZTQ4ODRjNTQuanBnIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.s-AY9_wAxFRrMG9-IEg4S2oDHSYlZu-WxW7sV5ooo1E(not scaling, just guessing, could be wrong, but not randomly. Crocs get bulkier as they get bigger) |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 17, 2019 18:50:12 GMT 5
^Well, yeah, it is longer-snouted, I think I wrote that in my first post already. There are obviously some other problems with the estimate too, as well as with the 9 m one for Sarcosuchus that you are comparing it to, even if the latter has more uncertainty generally. I don’t think there are very good grounds for claiming Purussaurus was larger than Sarcosuchus (at least based on known maximum sizes). Source? My bad. I meant to type 7.5 tons. Well, going by this black caiman. It seems to have a length 6.7 times that of skull length This yields 11.725 meters, which should weigh about 1.3 t more than the 6.2 ton, 10.3 meter croc here images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/032f9906-240a-4b4a-b0cf-33f511222887/dbmvcu8-60e0b462-798c-4640-abcb-a7efe4884c54.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzAzMmY5OTA2LTI0MGEtNGI0YS1iMGNmLTMzZjUxMTIyMjg4N1wvZGJtdmN1OC02MGUwYjQ2Mi03OThjLTQ2NDAtYWJjYi1hN2VmZTQ4ODRjNTQuanBnIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.s-AY9_wAxFRrMG9-IEg4S2oDHSYlZu-WxW7sV5ooo1E(not scaling, just guessing, could be wrong) Why on earth would you guess instead of scale?
If a 10.3 m croc is 6.2 t, then an 11.7 m one is over 9 t. However 6.2 t might be too much at 10.3 m.
I’ve already explained how the estimate using Aureliano et al.’s body mass regression at that total length would be less than 5 t. While it seems this equation actually suffers from the same problem I just explained on another thread (using mean mass and mean total length) it seems that by chance it actually gives surprisingly reasonable results, even if a bit on the low side: scaling up Lolong (6.17 m, 1.075 t) to 10.3 m gives almost exactly 5 t.
The ratio in the photograph actually seems to be about 8.5, not 6.7. For a 1.4 m skull, that would give us 11.9 m (certainly this would be a lot better than Aureliano et al.’s size estimate, although it’s still not great. That’s pretty meaningless considering there’s definitely some perpectivical distortion in there that we cannot account for (not to mention we probably have the same difference in snout length with M. niger), but how did you get 6.7? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 17, 2019 18:54:01 GMT 5
1:Why on earth would you guess instead of scale?
If a 10.3 m croc is 6.2 t, then an 11.7 m one is over 9 t. However 6.2 t might be too much at 10.3 m.
I’ve already explained how the estimate using Aureliano et al.’s body mass regression at that total length would be less than 5 t. While it seems this equation actually suffers from the same problem I just explained on another thread (using mean mass and mean total length) it seems that by chance it actually gives surprisingly reasonable results, even if a bit on the low side: scaling up Lolong (6.17 m, 1.075 t) to 10.3 m gives almost exactly 5 t.
2: The ratio in the photograph actually seems to be about 8.5, not 6.7. For a 1.4 m skull, that would give us 11.9 m (certainly this would be a lot better than Aureliano et al.’s size estimate, although it’s still not great. That’s pretty meaningless considering there’s definitely some perpectivical distortion in there that we cannot account for (not to mention we probably have the same difference in snout length with M. niger), but how did you get 6.7? 1: It wasn't out of the blue that I guessed. It was increasing bulk factor. Edited it into the post. Anyhow, wouldn't using a caiman differ from crocodile scaling? Caimans are much bulkier 2: As was discussed in Purussaurus vs T rex, I scaled using 175 cm skull. And maybe I made an error or 2. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 17, 2019 19:24:17 GMT 5
1:Why on earth would you guess instead of scale?
If a 10.3 m croc is 6.2 t, then an 11.7 m one is over 9 t. However 6.2 t might be too much at 10.3 m.
I’ve already explained how the estimate using Aureliano et al.’s body mass regression at that total length would be less than 5 t. While it seems this equation actually suffers from the same problem I just explained on another thread (using mean mass and mean total length) it seems that by chance it actually gives surprisingly reasonable results, even if a bit on the low side: scaling up Lolong (6.17 m, 1.075 t) to 10.3 m gives almost exactly 5 t.
2: The ratio in the photograph actually seems to be about 8.5, not 6.7. For a 1.4 m skull, that would give us 11.9 m (certainly this would be a lot better than Aureliano et al.’s size estimate, although it’s still not great. That’s pretty meaningless considering there’s definitely some perpectivical distortion in there that we cannot account for (not to mention we probably have the same difference in snout length with M. niger), but how did you get 6.7? 1: It wasn't out of the blue that I guessed. It was increasing bulk factor. Edited it into the post. Anyhow, wouldn't using a caiman differ from crocodile scaling? Caimans are much bulkier 2: As was discussed in Purussaurus vs T rex, I scaled using 175 cm skull. And maybe I made an error or 2. 1: But you didn’t increase bulk, you massively decreased it. Are they? It depends. That caiman you used doesn’t look bulkier than Lolong. If you assume a proportionately shorter tail (that might be what randomdinos did, I’m not sure), you might end up with a proportionately heavier animal. I was just ballparking. Either way, you would need to find some actual numbers to back that up.
2: There is no 175 cm Purussaurus skull, I thought we’d already discussed that? The largest actual skull of P. brasiliensis, UFAC 1403, also used in the study you cited, is 122 cm if we follow blaze., though there are bigger specimens. There is reportedly a 175 cm mandible, but corresponding DCL would be far shorter. The DCL of UFAC 1403 being ~122 cm, and the associated (according to Aureliano et al.) mandible UFAC 118 being 159.5 cm (Aguilera et al. 2006) would suggest the 175 cm mandible DGM 527-R would have come from a skull with DCL of 134 cm (max. skull length around 154 cm). In P. mirandai, a specimen with max. skull length of 126 cm has a 145 cm mandible (Aguilera et al. 2006), so this fits together quite well. 3: Using these skull length figures, we get TLs of 10.6 m for UFAC 1403 and 11.7 m for DGM 527-R for based on C. latirostris (the analogue you originally suggested). However note that this still doesn’t eliminate the problem with the huge size discrepancy or the different rostral proportions. The former is just a major error source (there’s no major allometry in the sample, the exponent for TL is 1.01), but the latter probably tends to lead to overestimates. 50% prediction intervals 9.5-11.9 m (UFAC) and 10.4-13.2 m (DGM). 95% Confidence intervals 7.6-14.8 and 8.3-16.4 m respectively.
Aguilera, O.A., Riff, D. and Bocquentin-Villanueva, J. 2006. A new giant Purussaurus (crocodyliformes, alligatoridae) from the upper Miocene Urumaco formation, Venezuela. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 4 (3): 221–232.
Aureliano, T., Ghilardi, A.M., Guilherme, E., Souza-Filho, J.P., Cavalcanti, M. and Riff, D. 2015. Morphometry, Bite-Force, and Paleobiology of the Late Miocene Caiman Purussaurus brasiliensis. PLOS ONE 10 (2): e0117944.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 17, 2019 20:32:48 GMT 5
Based on the regressions for male and female A. missisipiensis¹, which I agree with blaze is likely the better proxy (based on body size, skull shape and sample size), we’d get 9.2-9.6 m for 134 cm DCL (presumed size of largest P. brasiliensis skull based on the 175 cm mandible). 9.9-10.4 m based on a hypothetical 145 cm dcl skull (usually cited, probably too large to be dcl). 8.4-8.8 for 122 cm (largest actually preserved skull). I would suggest that by all accounts, those are the estimates you should use if you also use the 9-10 m estimate for Sarcosuchus based on Terminonaris. 95% CI for the 134 cm skull would be 8.6-9.9 m based on males, 9.0-10.5 m based on females. Yes, both might have been bigger, but at least this would be consistent. It is also possible both were 11-12 m. But I’m actually leaning more towards Sarcosuchus being the bigger of the two, mostly because of the composite skeletal in Sereno et al., which seems to be at least indicative of Sarcosuchus having a proportionately shorter skull than Terminonaris. But that might be wrong (I know the quality of skeletal reconstruction and proportions in papers isn’t always spot-on), in which case the data seem to indicate fairly similar sizes for both, perhaps Sarcosuchus being slightly longer and Purussaurus slightly bulkier. But pretty clearly nothing along the lines of one being 8 t while the other is 3 t. ¹https://www.jstor.org/stable/1564733 |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 17, 2019 20:44:36 GMT 5
1: It wasn't out of the blue that I guessed. It was increasing bulk factor. Edited it into the post. Anyhow, wouldn't using a caiman differ from crocodile scaling? Caimans are much bulkier 2: As was discussed in Purussaurus vs T rex, I scaled using 175 cm skull. And maybe I made an error or 2. 1: But you didn’t increase bulk, you massively decreased it. Are they? It depends. That caiman you used doesn’t look bulkier than Lolong. If you assume a proportionately shorter tail (that might be what randomdinos did, I’m not sure), you might end up with a proportionately heavier animal. I was just ballparking. Either way, you would need to find some actual numbers to back that up.
2: There is no 175 cm Purussaurus skull, I thought we’d already discussed that? The largest actual skull of P. brasiliensis, UFAC 1403, also used in the study you cited, is 122 cm if we follow blaze., though there are bigger specimens. There is reportedly a 175 cm mandible, but corresponding DCL would be far shorter. The DCL of UFAC 1403 being ~122 cm, and the associated (according to Aureliano et al.) mandible UFAC 118 being 159.5 cm (Aguilera et al. 2006) would suggest the 175 cm mandible DGM 527-R would have come from a skull with DCL of 134 cm (max. skull length around 154 cm). In P. mirandai, a specimen with max. skull length of 126 cm has a 145 cm mandible (Aguilera et al. 2006), so this fits together quite well.
3: Using these skull length figures, we get TLs of 10.6 m for UFAC 1403 and 11.7 m for DGM 527-R for based on C. latirostris (the analogue you originally suggested). However note that this still doesn’t eliminate the problem with the huge size discrepancy or the different rostral proportions. The former is just a major error source (there’s no major allometry in the sample, the exponent for TL is 1.01), but the latter probably tends to lead to overestimates. 50% prediction intervals 9.5-11.9 m (UFAC) and 10.4-13.2 m (DGM).
Aguilera, O.A., Riff, D. and Bocquentin-Villanueva, J. 2006. A new giant Purussaurus (crocodyliformes, alligatoridae) from the upper Miocene Urumaco formation, Venezuela. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 4 (3): 221–232.
Aureliano, T., Ghilardi, A.M., Guilherme, E., Souza-Filho, J.P., Cavalcanti, M. and Riff, D. 2015. Morphometry, Bite-Force, and Paleobiology of the Late Miocene Caiman Purussaurus brasiliensis. PLOS ONE 10 (2): e0117944.
1: Scaling's not quite my strong suit. Anyway, about the bulk, I did find this, which states a 6 meter caiman is 1.1 tons, bulkier than the 6.3 meter, 1073 (I think) Lolong and the 6.45 meter, 1.09 ton Nile croc And this: www.kwata.net/medias/images/upload/PUBLI_de%20Thoisy_2003_CSG.pdfIt states black caiman is 300-400 kg at 3.5-4 meters. This is bulkier than salties; at 4-4.5 meters, they are 240-350 kg: Webb, G., & Manolis, S. C. (1989). Crocodiles of Australia. Reed Books. 2: Oops. Yes, it's the mandible. Got that mixed up 3: Maybe we could scale with the black caiman |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 17, 2019 21:01:02 GMT 5
1: Based on the regressions for male and female A. missisipiensis¹, which I agree with blaze is likely the better proxy (based on body size, skull shape and sample size), we’d get 9.2-9.6 m for 134 cm DCL (presumed size of largest P. brasiliensis skull based on the 175 cm mandible). 9.9-10.4 m based on a hypothetical 145 cm dcl skull (usually cited, probably too large to be dcl). 8.4-8.8 for 122 cm (largest actually preserved skull). I would suggest that by all accounts, those are the estimates you should use if you also use the 9-10 m estimate for Sarcosuchus based on Terminonaris. 2: Yes, both might have been bigger, but at least this would be consistent. It is also possible both were 11-12 m. But I’m actually leaning more towards Sarcosuchus being the bigger of the two, mostly because of the composite skeletal in Sereno et al., which seems to be at least indicative of Sarcosuchus having a proportionately shorter skull than Terminonaris. But that might be wrong (I know the quality of skeletal reconstruction and proportions in papers isn’t always spot-on), in which case the data seem to indicate fairly similar sizes for both, perhaps Sarcosuchus being slightly longer and Purussaurus slightly bulkier. ¹https://www.jstor.org/stable/15647331: Well is Purussaurus a close alligator cousin? Or do its cousins have similar proportions? If that's the case, I suppose it makes more sense 2: Yes I agree on length vs bulk |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 17, 2019 22:11:41 GMT 5
1: Well, that’s no problem, just ask, or tell someone to scale it ourselves, just don’t substitute a guess. Besides, I posted the formulae on "Basics", and it’s not like you aren’t allowed to use a calculator here.
The first figure is from where exactly? Did you want to post a link there?
The second thing seems to rough to be of much use (I assume you are referring to " 3.5 to 4 m black caiman (approximately 300 kg)"? Well, that sounds like a guess).
3: I’d be absolutely happy to give that a try. You wouldn’t happen to have any reliable skull length and total length measurements of black caimans lying around, would you?
1: Well both. Caimans aren’t just "close alligator cousins", they are alligators (Alligatoridae). And a sample of hundreds of 1 to 4 m alligators is probably much more reliable for predicting Purussaurus’ size than a sample of 29 0.4 to 0.9 m caimans, even if the latter is a bit closer phyletically. At least when we consider that Purussaurus actually seems more similar to the Alligator in terms of skull proportions. Close phylogenetic relationship is not always the best argument. Morphologically, Alligator could be a better analogue for Purussaurus than Caiman, even though the latter two share a more recent common ancestor.
2: Well, that was only the most tangentially relevant point in the entire paragraph. The bottom line I’m trying to make you take away from this is that there’s no way it’s factual that Purussaurus is over twice as massive Sarcosuchus, actually the opposite seems more likely if anything (hence no, we can not all agree with you regarding those matchups you were talking about). Around 9-10 m for the largest specimens of both would be perfectly reasonable, although I think one might be able to make a case for larger sizes for both, and presumably (if only based on individual variation and small sample size) their actual maximum size would definitely have been higher than that.
3: The implication for this thread is that Deinosuchus riograndensis might in fact be top dog, if there’s really a specimen that's 153 cm in DCL (correct me if that was debunked somewhere), then based on A. mississipiensis it might have been 10.5-11 m long (95%CI 10.3-12.0 m based on females, 9.7-11.2m based on males).
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 17, 2019 22:29:03 GMT 5
theropodI'm a bit busy at the moment, so it may take some time for me to reply. Bear that in mind if it seems the reply is late
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 17, 2019 23:07:29 GMT 5
There are regression equations for C. porosus body mass in here: Webb.G.J.W and Messel, H. 1978. Morphometric analysis of Crocodylus porosus from the north coast of Arnhem Land, Northern Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology 26 (1): 1–27. pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c6b1/6ee2982037f50cd060f61880a3994f36a704.pdfSpecifically Table 2, for body mass from TL for two different populations of saltie:Log body weight b 3.220 3.318 a -3.04 -3.33 and Appendix 2, eqn. 122 for body mass from SVL:Log body weight a -2.0894 b 3.2613 a intercept, b slope, lengths in cm, weight in g 10^(-2.0894)*SVL^3.2613 10^(-3.04)*TL^3.220 10^(-3.33)*TL^3.318 these predict 240-291 kg for the 4.22 m saltie. Additionally, TL=1.73+2.04*SVL, so conversely (TL-1.73)/2.04=SVL, so 10^(-2.0894)*((670-1.73)/2.04)^3.2613 Using these formula an 11 m crocodile would be 5.7-6.6 t. A 10 m one 4.2-4.8 t. A 9 m one 3-3.4 t. Just as a rough guide. We do need some more data on alligatoroids. However, there is a somewhat pronounced positive allometry in all of these formulae (exponents 3.22-3.32), which should already result in more robust animals than a regular saltie at these larger sizes. On the other hand, regression results for known large salties (617 cm Lolong was weighed at 1075kg but would be predicted to be a mere 848-992 kg. So the upper end is probably the more reliable of these equations. However I cannot exactly reproduce Erickson et al.’s figure of 1308 kg for a 6.7 m crocodile, that they claim they got using the regression from this paper (which one?). I’m getting 1114-1300 kg. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 17, 2019 23:40:32 GMT 5
1: Well, that’s no problem, just ask, or tell someone to scale it ourselves, just don’t substitute a guess. Besides, I posted the formulae on "Basics", and it’s not like you aren’t allowed to use a calculator here. Oh yes, I had better check that formula out The first figure is from where exactly? Did you want to post a link there? Yes, its there. I just misworded it; it's this: www.kwata.net/medias/images/upload/PUBLI_de%20Thoisy_2003_CSG.pdfThe second thing seems to rough to be of much use (I assume you are referring to " 3.5 to 4 m black caiman (approximately 300 kg)"? Well, that sounds like a guess). Apparently it was the mean of several caimans of that size. Maybe I'll look a bit into it if I get the chance. 3: I’d be absolutely happy to give that a try. You wouldn’t happen to have any reliable skull length and total length measurements of black caimans lying around, would you? Here: www.researchgate.net/figure/3-Unusual-sample-sources-trophy-skull-of-black-caiman-Melanosuchus-niger-from_fig13_316747839Says 57 cm for 4.7 meter animal 1: Well both. Caimans aren’t just "close alligator cousins", they are alligators (Alligatoridae). And a sample of hundreds of 1 to 4 m alligators is probably much more reliable for predicting Purussaurus’ size than a sample of 29 0.4 to 0.9 m caimans, even if the latter is a bit closer phyletically. At least when we consider that Purussaurus actually seems more similar to the Alligator in terms of skull proportions. Close phylogenetic relationship is not always the best argument. Morphologically, Alligator could be a better analogue for Purussaurus than Caiman, even though the latter two share a more recent common ancestor. Oh yes, I knew that. What I meant was the relations of Purussaurus itself to alligators and caimans. But if the material is closer to alligator than caiman and the sample is larger, then yes it makes more sense 2: Well, that was only the most tangentially relevant post in the paragraph. The bottom line I’m trying to make you take away from this is that there’s no way it’s factual that Purussaurus is over twice as massive Sarcosuchus, actually the opposite seems more likely if anything (hence no, we can not all agree with you regarding those matchups you were talking about). And that point renders itself moot seeing as they are both hypothetical Around 9-10 m for the largest specimens of both would be perfectly reasonable, although I think one might be able to make a case for larger sizes for both, and presumably (if only based on individual variation and small sample size) their actual maximum size would definitely have been higher than that. 3: The implication for this thread is that Deinosuchus riograndensis might in fact be top dog, if there’s really a specimen that's 153 cm in DCL (correct me if that was debunked somewhere), then based on A. mississipiensis it might have been 10.5-11 m long. |
|
