|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 29, 2014 23:55:58 GMT 5
Grey: This is what you wrote about them on cf: From the Oxford Clay and in London (But on exhibit? How could I not see something like that, and how would it be so poorly known?). So anyway, Richard Forrest is supposed to have information on them, weren’t you in contact with him?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2014 1:38:49 GMT 5
The mention was on Forrest website but I cannot found it anymore, strangely. That was David Martill who alluded me to very large teeth in a 3 years old email : "If you are ever in London, you should check out some of the material from the OXfrod Clay collected by Alfred Leeds.. There are some extremely large teeth there. These were mentioned by Andrews in his monographs of 1910 and 1913." Note that he does not specify their size but I'm quite convinced these teeth do exist. In fact I heavily suspect that these teeth are the one we search : 3.bp.blogspot.com/-y2LZK5FWtms/Ucl7doAbMDI/AAAAAAAABQA/upvgC1CS5Y0/s1600/DSC_plio20037.jpgA guess about the size for such a possessor ? Compared to P. kevani teeth ? I do agree though it is strange McHenry did not report that in the thesis. |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jun 30, 2014 3:49:22 GMT 5
The mention was on Forrest website but I cannot found it anymore, strangely. That was David Martill who alluded me to very large teeth in a 3 years old email : "If you are ever in London, you should check out some of the material from the OXfrod Clay collected by Alfred Leeds.. There are some extremely large teeth there. These were mentioned by Andrews in his monographs of 1910 and 1913." Note that he does not specify their size but I'm quite convinced these teeth do exist. In fact I heavily suspect that these teeth are the one we search : 3.bp.blogspot.com/-y2LZK5FWtms/Ucl7doAbMDI/AAAAAAAABQA/upvgC1CS5Y0/s1600/DSC_plio20037.jpgA guess about the size for such a possessor ? Compared to P. kevani teeth ? I do agree though it is strange McHenry did not report that in the thesis. Here s andrews monograph. I cannot find the description. The specimens refered to "Pliosaurus ferox" do not contain giatn isolated teeth, unless I somehow missed it. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2014 15:37:36 GMT 5
Note that there is a difference between huge teeth (the teeth of Pliosaurus "grandis" for example would easily qualify) and 45cm teeth. But if Forrest really did mention this figure, I’d give some attention to it.
Unfortunately his complete website now seems to be offline.
Based on my subjective impression and the other objects in the image, the teeth in that photograph look large, but not anywhere near that humungous.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jun 30, 2014 19:10:29 GMT 5
Note that there is a difference between huge teeth (the teeth of Pliosaurus "grandis" for example would easily qualify) and 45cm teeth. But if Forrest really did mention this figure, I’d give some attention to it. Unfortunately his complete website now seems to be offline. Based on my subjective impression and the other objects in the image, the teeth in that photograph look large, but not anywhere near that humungous. tbh, it s very hard to tell. The longest crown loks very long. s it 10 cm? Or 15? In the latter case the complete tooth would have been very massive - belonging to a 15m or so pliosaur. |
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Jul 1, 2014 19:21:15 GMT 5
How old is this? Because the images all look very old fashioned and the theropods lack feathers. Theropod already said what has to be said about T. rex stance. Not saying this is bad, I like such depictions, they remind of good old dino-book times (and also some animal books where for example the style of the whale depictions was similar). It looks pretty damn old. Not sure how exactly, but one look at the t-rex in that comparison and I knew it was outdated (like you said, old-school kangaroo-like postures as opposed to the more realistic parallel posture). Especially consider the fact that in reality kronosaurus was not THAT much larger than tyrannosaurus, let alone a sperm whale |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 1, 2014 21:31:34 GMT 5
How old is this? Because the images all look very old fashioned and the theropods lack feathers. Theropod already said what has to be said about T. rex stance. Not saying this is bad, I like such depictions, they remind of good old dino-book times (and also some animal books where for example the style of the whale depictions was similar). It looks pretty damn old. Not sure how exactly, but one look at the t-rex in that comparison and I knew it was outdated (like you said, old-school kangaroo-like postures as opposed to the more realistic parallel posture). Especially consider the fact that in reality kronosaurus was not THAT much larger than tyrannosaurus, let alone a sperm whale That chart is supposed to portray the adult Monster of Aramberri, they've just used a Kronosaurus original model for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 1, 2014 23:08:48 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Jul 2, 2014 1:11:26 GMT 5
Oh I didn't know that. Thank you for telling me!
I am not sure how big the whale and the tyrannosaurus were supposed to be though, because the upper boundary for tyrannosaurus' size seems only a little bit smaller than what the Monster of Aramberri would be (which in turn was roughly comparable to Predator X in terms of size)
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 2, 2014 1:34:03 GMT 5
Oh I didn't know that. Thank you for telling me! I am not sure how big the whale and the tyrannosaurus were supposed to be though, because the upper boundary for tyrannosaurus' size seems only a little bit smaller than what the Monster of Aramberri would be (which in turn was roughly comparable to Predator X in terms of size) Actually the Monster of Aramberri is most likely larger than "Predator X". The size of the later is estimated in its description at 10-13 m, and coherentsheaf remarked that the vertebral measurements most likely suggest something around 11 m. The Monster of Aramberri was estimated by McHenry and Frey/Stinnesbeck (probably using Aramberri measurements) to be 12-14 m long. The problem is about its life stage and the bite marks on it. Frey suggests it to be a subadult based on non fused bones whereas Buchy and McHenry suggest it to be pedomorphis, juvenile features observed in other adults pliosaurs. If it was a subadult does this mean that the adult was really 20 m plus ? Unlikely to me but the question remains valid. The bite marks on it are allegedly from a larger pliosaur. Frey and Stinnesbeck argues that the bite mark on its pterygoid bone suggests a crown length of about 30 cm, which would hint on a pliosaur of titanic size. But how their estimate for it is valid itself ? Without talking about the possible enlargement of the mark during the biting.... That's why the Aramberri guy is the last possible hint toward really gigantic megapliosaurs. But to get an agreement from pliosaurs specialists (Frey and his colleague aren't) would be appreciated. I know that Buchy said the bite marks does not necessarily suggest a pliosaur that much larger than the Monster itself. And I've not seen any comments from others. If one finds a pliosaur tooth in excess of 70 cm then we could talk... |
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Jul 2, 2014 1:37:26 GMT 5
I agree that it was likely larger than Predator X (note that I said "roughly", meaning that new size estimates can pop up in the future contradicting the current ones about 14 meters for the Monster.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jul 10, 2014 0:18:24 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 10, 2014 0:25:54 GMT 5
Judging by the paper they used the same problematic lenght/mandible-lenght ratio that yielded the earlier giant figures. The question should rather be "how accurate are the assumed proportions" than "when was it published".
In any case, that is undoubtedly one of the biggest mosasaur specimens in the world. I’m surprised by how many giant mosasaurs are turning up these times.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jul 10, 2014 0:32:31 GMT 5
Judging by the paper they used the same problematic lenght/mandible-lenght ratio that yielded the earlier giant figures. The question should rather be "how accurate are the assumed proportions" than "when was it published". In any case, that is undoubtedly one of the biggest mosasaur specimens in the world. I’m surprised by how many giant mosasaurs are turning up these times. Using more realistic modern ratios, ~8.7 the body length is about 14.5-15 meters. Pretty huge! |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 10, 2014 0:39:20 GMT 5
8.7 only applies to Hainosaurus. Other mosasaurs have lower ratios. Coherentsheaf once cited this: "The relationship between overall length and skull length in
reconstructions of mosasaurids is 7.1–7.7 for Tylosaurus, 7.5 for Plotosaurus,
7.7 for Platecarpus, 8.1 for Clidastes and around 8.7
for Hainosaurus (Russell, 1967; Nicholls, 1988)."Per Christiansen and Niels Bonde (2002). "A new species of giant Mosasaur from the late Cretaceous of Israel"www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1671/0272-4634(2002)022%5B0629%3AANSOGM%5D2.0.CO%3B2#previewUsing the whole range of 7.1 to 8.7, I would say 12 to 15 m is the ballpark. |
|
