|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 7, 2013 19:25:34 GMT 5
Keep in mind the skull of Prognathodon measured 1,4m, about the same as that of T. rex. The largest plisoaur-skulls are 2m+ I don't think concerning the formidable killing apparatus prognathodon can rival the largest pliosaurs. Also, the weight figure obviously bases on very high lenght estimates, as the only way an upscaled crocodile would approach 30t is by being 18m+ in lenght. I have tried to relocate the notes on Oceans of Kansas, but failed to find what I had previously read about mosasaurs exceeding 15m. Of course pliosaurs are far bulkier than theropods. However a 13m pliosaur even at the same proportions would be more than 18% heavier than T. rex. These guys are larger than theropods in every regard. Good point about Prognathodon but to be sure, I'd like to see a comparison at scale of its skull with a large pliosaur skull. Regarding the mosasaurs, note that McHenry more likely lists the largest at a more plausible 10-15 tons rather than 30 tons. At this size, they would match pliosaurs, except for the largest P. macromerus. You refer to the quotes by Everheart that I had posted from my discussions ? |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 7, 2013 20:10:11 GMT 5
Back then I think we had an agreement Mosasaurs were not that heavy, and Everard seemed to suggest that too (I even think he gave an extremely low figure that I would not agree with any more). He still mentioned them at 15m+ (that's what wrote for M. hoffmani, and he wrote Hainosaurus was 17m), but now he doesn't seem to do any more, for I cannot find the passages.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Jun 12, 2013 10:03:19 GMT 5
What about Hainisaurus?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 12, 2013 15:55:18 GMT 5
Hainosaurus is a huge tylosaurine, with a 1,6m skull and a total lenght somwhere between 12 and 18m. Whether it is real competition for the largest pliosaurs remains a matter of debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 13, 2013 12:03:32 GMT 5
Hainosaurus was reduced at 12 m if I remember right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Jun 13, 2013 22:31:13 GMT 5
They just shrink everything don't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Jun 13, 2013 23:23:09 GMT 5
They just shrink everything don't they? So true.  American Lion and Smilodon Populator aren't as big as initially thought either, no longer 1000 pounds. Everything keeps getting smaller.  |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 13, 2013 23:28:07 GMT 5
Smaller but still big, even huge, by any mean. But people are always over-sensational...
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 19, 2013 22:31:37 GMT 5
Sounds like, in terms of predatory epicness, Kronosaurus queenslandicus still outclasses the recent Jurassic giants from Svalbard and Dorset.
Among the named pliosaurs, only P. macromerus surely and clearly exceeds it (almost twice larger).
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 20, 2013 15:17:41 GMT 5
There are also Simolestes and Megalneusaurus which might have attained giant sizes. I recall McHenry stating if the bone of M. rex was a humerus, it would be the largest pliosaur. His upper figure for Simolestes was in excess of 15m, tough probably incorrect. It seems mostly the giant pliosaurs, including Kronosaurus, attained similar overall sizes.
Also, he states at parity Kronosaurus was less well-suited for macrophagy than a crocodile.
This doesn´t have to mean much, since it is not further specified and not stated to be weak either, but doesn´t necessarily apply to Pliosaurus; at least the Weymouth skull definitely seems more robust than McHenry´s Kronosaurus model. I wouldn´t say it outclasses them, they are mostly comparable.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jun 20, 2013 17:52:55 GMT 5
There are also Simolestes and Megalneusaurus which might have attained giant sizes. I recall McHenry stating if the bone of M. rex was a humerus, it would be the largest pliosaur. His upper figure for Simolestes was in excess of 15m, tough probably incorrect. It seems mostly the giant pliosaurs, including Kronosaurus, attained similar overall sizes. Also, he states at parity Kronosaurus was less well-suited for macrophagy than a crocodile. This doesn´t have to mean much, since it is not further specified and not stated to be weak either, but doesn´t necessarily apply to Pliosaurus; at least the Weymouth skull definitely seems more robust than McHenry´s Kronosaurus model. I wouldn´t say it outclasses them, they are mostly comparable. The bone of Megalneusaurus is comparable in size to the humerus of Pliosaurus funkei - I would not make any conclusions from that. The vertebral dimension are similar as well, with P. funkei probably being a little bigger. |
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226 
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jun 20, 2013 21:05:10 GMT 5
If you are including the dinosaurs, I would say Mapusaurus. If not, I would say Titanoboa, Deinosuchus or Sarcosuchus, or the largest Pliosauridae/Mosasauridae known.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 20, 2013 22:07:22 GMT 5
There are also Simolestes and Megalneusaurus which might have attained giant sizes. I recall McHenry stating if the bone of M. rex was a humerus, it would be the largest pliosaur. His upper figure for Simolestes was in excess of 15m, tough probably incorrect. It seems mostly the giant pliosaurs, including Kronosaurus, attained similar overall sizes. Also, he states at parity Kronosaurus was less well-suited for macrophagy than a crocodile. This doesn´t have to mean much, since it is not further specified and not stated to be weak either, but doesn´t necessarily apply to Pliosaurus; at least the Weymouth skull definitely seems more robust than McHenry´s Kronosaurus model. I wouldn´t say it outclasses them, they are mostly comparable. The bone of Megalneusaurus is comparable in size to the humerus of Pliosaurus funkei - I would not make any conclusions from that. The vertebral dimension are similar as well, with P. funkei probably being a little bigger. Then that probably just based on comparison with Kronosaurus, which has relatively short paddles... @gigadino: The largest Pliosaurs and perhaps mosasaurs seem to have clearly exceeded the largest Carcharodontosaurs, Tyrannosaurs, and perhaps even Spinosaurs in body mass (the largest Pliosaurs are at least 19t in mass), and literally dwarf them in terms of killing apparatus. Not heropod found so far seems to have a skull longer than 1,8m, while that is a lenght not uncommon for pliosaur crania, and some probably approached or reached 3m. On land, yes, I can agree with giant Allosaurs. They are commonly cited as the largest carnivorous dinosaurs (excluding piscivores obviously), and have fearsome weaponery, added to probable pack hunting behaviour. For now, the titles belong to Pliosaurus macromerus in water and imo G. carolinii/M. roseae/C. saharicus on land (all imo still equals). With some more fragmentary specimens in mind, we may have even bigger pliosaurs (NHMUK teeth, giant vertebra) and at least one carnosaur likely reaching and plausibly exceeding the size of the giant carcharodontosaurs. |
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jun 20, 2013 22:25:18 GMT 5
Mapusaurus is as large as G. carolinii and C. saharicus, but it is the only one of which we have evidence of hunting in packs. Oh, and among the possible contenders there is also the giant theropod known only by a 90 cm wide footprint, probably heavy 11 tons (if you scale a Saurophaganax of 6 tons).
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 20, 2013 22:30:10 GMT 5
I've posted both a hypothetical extrapolated skull size and general things about giant ichnotaxa on the giant theropods thread. It is certainly a truly gigantic animal, tough how large exactly is difficult to tell for now, and the footprints seem to be the largest theropod footprints on earth.
I even gave reference to it in my last post, but it is pretty enigmatic for now.
|
|
