Sivatherium giganteum vs. Concavenator corcovatus

[theropod]

I wrote that they prioritize quantity. They certainly do not prioritize quality, and if they did, it would not be measured by how flashy their images are. In fact that’s something that really bothers me, they seem to care more about the look of the thumbnails designed to get people to click on them as opposed to the accuracy of the reconstructions or information presented on the actual pages. But most of all, they seem to care more about having a page for every taxon imaginable than for the aforementioned accuracy.

Yeah, 500kg is realistic too, I got my 400kg by scaling from Allosaurus. Although I would personally give it a slightly more slender body shape than Franoys, considering Concavenator, which isn’t that robust itself, was likely larger, I’ve got no problem at all with 500kg.
My point was just that comparing Concavenator to Shaochilong is comparing apples and oranges, so when arguments about the two of them get mixed like that so they are treated like the same animal, it becomes problematic. If there are better estimates than my rather old and quick one (e.g. comparing franoys’ and randomdinos’ respective restorations, the difference doesn’t look big as I estimated, randomdinos’ reconstruction of C. cocorvatus is smaller than Sinkkonen’s, and I’d be inclined to trust him more on that since 70cm for the skull also seems like quite a stretch based on the recent descriptions of the skeleton) that’s totally fine, they should merely please be based on more than a weight figure guessed from a size comparison found somewhere on the internet.

I wouldn’t be confident in saying whether an animal was 400 or 500kg based on just a size comparison, even if I were sure it was accurate, even being a trained morphologist. That’s why we use volumetric mass estimates and other methods in the first place, otherwise studies like this one→ would consist of a bunch of silhouettes with weight guesstimates and people would call it a day.

[dinosauria101]

My mistake, I thought you said quality. Hard to read things on a mobile. (And yeah, I agree they want to have a page on everything without paying much attention to quality)
Anyhow, I know size comparisons aren't the best possible way to figure out something's size, but since Shaochilong's very fragmentary I was working with the available materials I could find.
And finally, as I said earlier, the comparison between the 2 sprung up on the basis that Shaochilong was used on the Carnivora thread, where the OP said 500 kg. At parity, the differences between Shaochilong and Concavenator are rather irrelevant in a fight like this (how would a few enlarged neural spines, or lack thereof, help a Shaochilong or Concavenator in a fight against Sivatherium?) Moreover, I find the arguments for Shaochilong made on the Carnivora thread were more convincing than arguments for its foe.
Hope this helps to clarify errors.

[dinosauria101]

Apr 21, 2019 22:58:26 GMT 5 theropod said:

I wrote that they prioritize quantity. They certainly do not prioritize quality, and if they did, it would not be measured by how flashy their images are. In fact that’s something that really bothers me, they seem to care more about the look of the thumbnails designed to get people to click on them as opposed to the accuracy of the reconstructions or information presented on the actual pages. But most of all, they seem to care more about having a page for every taxon imaginable than for the aforementioned accuracy.

Slightly diverging from the main topic, but going by that, do you think this thread: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/1785 isn't the mismatch arethousleepy made it out to be? The OP says both Agriotherium and Bistahieversor are both around 1 ton, but Prehistoric Wildlife's images seem to suggest otherwise.

[rock]

Concavenator wins here , who ever voted Sivatherium giganteum ftw , will hopefully have a good enough reason to back it

[dinosauria101]

I'm also curious. They'd better back it up!