The most powerful and fearsome predatory reptile of all time

[Grey]

Oh not again your average thingy mess...

Bad science, not for me.

[theropod]

Average is 23kg, maximum 81kg. Yes, you read it right. Cope with it, if you cannot, stop discussing with me! I am really all the time trying to sustain a civilised debate with you, but it doesn't work, because there are always responses like the above, lacking logical points and instead relying on prematurely rebutting and misconstructing everything. Bad science is for sure not what I am doing here...

[Grey]

But you're always speculating over and over again man ! That's boring ! In paleontology we do with what we have. You should use "Enthusiast Speculator" as username

[theropod]

I am not speculating, I am just not that limited in my thinking as to assume nothing we lack concrete substantial evidence for.
If even in the fragmentary fossil record, which always gives only a small sample and is problematic for maximum sizes and limits, some species can be realistically suspected to have exceeded the 20t mark (in the case of pliosaurs, NHM Symphysis, Peterborough vertebra, 45cm tooth which may be in the 20-30t range), that's enough evidence.

You are a knowledgeable poster and very resourceful when it comes to sources and your communications, but you will have to stop taking them as factual because of the authors authority. Be a bit more tolerant and analytic towards opinions you think contradict yours and most importantly drop your prejudices against me, which originated in a time when I was a 14 year old.

[Grey]

I have nothing against to develop would be statements based on scientific works or educated opinions. I'm totally hostile to challenge any author at any occasion like you seem to do.

McHenry's statements are valid for now. Period.

[theropod]

I don't get the meaning of the first sentence

That you are hostile to other opinions is obvious, that is what I think you should try to work on, or just stop replying if you cannot accept my opinion.

If you relativise them, these statements are valid. But not in the sense of "never but on one occasion has a species of apex predator exceeded 20t"

[Grey]

I don't get the meaning of the first sentence

Edited :

I have nothing against to develop would be statements based on scientific works or educated opinions. But I'm totally hostile to challenge any author at any occasion like you seem to do.

McHenry's statements are valid for now. Period.

That you are hostile to other opinions is obvious, that is what I think you should try to work on, or just stop replying if you cannot accept my opinion.

I don't accept your overenthusiast optimistic speculations. I reply because I think that everyone needs a chance and can improve himself, recognizing his errors, including me.

If you relativise them, these statements are valid. But not in the sense of "never but on one occasion has a species of apex predator exceeded 20t"

That's what I'm doing since the beginning.

[theropod]

I never got the impression you did. That is what I did too. When I do it, you call it "overenthusiast optimistic speculations", perhaps just because you don't get what this is about.
Thanks, when I am wrong, I can see that myself, and I certainly won't "improve myself" because of continously being told "your opinion is wrong, overenthusiastic, irrelevant...". I certainly will not improve things about myself just because YOU tell me to, when I don't think those need improval. I suggest you to mind your own statements first.

What I displayed here both bases on scientific works and educated opinions. But for my opinion, unlike yours, it does not matter what others have said (by means of expressing opinions) on the same issue. I get a conclusion and I state it, regarding the points and giving arguments for or against them, and whether you approve of it or not. You don't, you consider this "overenthusiast optimistic speculations".

The simple point here is, that if even in a fossil sample there are several animals that plausibly exceed the mark assumed to be the benchmark for predator size, it is not plausible it is the absolute limit at which predators from various time periods all did top out, only two from one period exceeding it and this being the absolute exception. This is no debate about any precise size figure for any of the animals in question, it is a far more general thing.
It is merely plausible that the 10-20t range is a range MOST large predators fall into, but MOST means there probably were always some specimens or species from exceeding it.

[Grey]

I've repeated your last statement several times in the last thread. No wonder, you overlooked it.

Your "educated opinion" is biased by the rule toward enthusiastic larger sizes in any animal known by a glimpse of shadow of material, and using this as counter-argument against massive professionnal works.

I don't like that but that's your own right. For sure, I don't take you seriously. If you want to envision 50-100 tons carnivores (and +200 tons sauropods) everywhere you can, only I will avoid to discuss with you. Too bad because yes you're educated, but you use it to make your assumptions as factuals datas. Not for my tastes.

[theropod]

And too bad you are making up too many statements from what I write, no wonder you think I'm biased

"If you want to envision 50-100 tons carnivores"

[theropod]

So regardless of how large various marine predators were at maximum, we can for now conclude this is a tie between giant ichthyosaurs, pliosaurs and perhaps mosasaurs.

Points we need to determine more closely:

1. Predatory apparatus of the Liassic Ichthyosaurs
2. Maximum size of the largest enigmatic Pliosaurs and their jaws
3. Built and size of large mosasaurs (with regard to bulk)
4. potency and function of their bites (special regards to Prognathodon, Mosasaurus and Hainosaurus)
...further ideas?

[creature386]

Jun 22, 2013 20:34:31 GMT 5 theropod said:

Average is 23kg, maximum 81kg.

This depends on the population. Auffenberg said they average 35-59 kg on the Komodo Island.

[Grey]

My viewpoint.

1.I don't think at now that these giants ichthyosaurs will rival the predatory apparatus of the largest pliosaurs and will greatly outclasse in weight something like P. macromerus. At this point they're probably a match but not so surely.

2.The maximum size of pliosaurs is around 13 m and 20 tons at now. I don't trust the Peterborough specimen as a pliosaur. But according the doubt, then 25-26 tons like proposed by McHenry sounds good.

3.Problematic. They are certainly more slender than pliosaurs at parity but apparently not as slender as typically proposed, with shark-like caudal lobe. But I've yet to see anything conclusive. Prognathodon is a good match but still probably lighter than Kronosaurus by comparison IMO. The 10 tons mark seems good for the largest mosasaurs, but given relative uncertainties about their maximum size and especially maximum length, I'm opened to possible weights up to 15 tons (see McHenry).

4.Prognathodon represents the oceanic tyrannosaur of the late Cretaceous. I'd like to know the volume and robustness of its skull compared with a similar-sized pliosaur. Others mosasaurs are possible match from an agression perspective (potency to attack and kill conspecifics). However their jaws and teeth lack the crushing and deep-puncturing potency of pliosaurs, even though it has been said that Mosasaurus was heavier-jawed (and bodied) than tylosaurines.


There are doubts, but I would still place pliosaurs as the ultimate predatory reptiles given their maximum size, bulk, crushing power and long time supremacy in the oceans.

[coherentsheaf]

Jun 22, 2013 20:34:31 GMT 5 theropod said:

Average is 23kg, maximum 81kg. Yes, you read it right. Cope with it, if you cannot, stop discussing with me! I am really all the time trying to sustain a civilised debate with you, but it doesn't work, because there are always responses like the above, lacking logical points and instead relying on prematurely rebutting and misconstructing everything. Bad science is for sure not what I am doing here...

NOte this probably due to a very special ecology. growing dragons can take over almost every predatory niche on komodo. It is therefore easy for small dragons t have a relative abundance of food at their disposal that they lose access to once they reach a certain size, and many consequently starve then. It is relatively clear that when large prey is i high density very large dragons are more frequent, and from published grwth curves it seems like every male dragon becoes very large once it reaches a certain age. The average size fr a grown komodo dragon therefore is mch clser to maximum size. However Lamnids are, unlike the dragon, K-strategists.

[theropod]

What about Pliosaurs or Ichthyosaurs in that regard? are they K or R?