|
Post by Grey on Jun 20, 2013 22:34:37 GMT 5
In regard to the various Scott Hartman figures, Tyrannosaurus has to be placed in the same league than the largest carcharodontosaurs...
Anyway, the largest theropods are outclassed in size, biting power and agression by the larges pliosaurs and mosasaurs contenders.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 20, 2013 22:41:09 GMT 5
(if you scale a Saurophaganax of 6 tons). Do you mean a 13 m one? At that length, it may weigh more.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 20, 2013 22:50:56 GMT 5
Just scale up from Allosaurus, its size can be reliably estimated. The problem is, we can not say that for 19IGR or the other tracks, a precise figure for an ichnotaxon is barely possible. We can jsut give a rough figure (like the authors of the paper did too). Very large without a doubt, at least on par with the other giant theropods (with the exception of Spinosaurus), possibly bigger.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 20, 2013 22:57:28 GMT 5
Just scale up from Allosaurus, its size can be reliably estimated. Do you mean Saurophaganax? My problem is, I don't know what length figure they took in the study, which estimated the mass (1,5 t) of Big Al.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 20, 2013 23:15:35 GMT 5
I used 1,4t, which blaze suggested to me as adjusting for rib posture. I dunno his source, but he is usually very reliable. As a lenght, I took 7,5m, since that is halfway in between the suggested extremes (7-8m). The skeleton scanned by Bates et al., 2009 seems to be the mount also used here: www.nature.nps.gov/geology/paleontology/pub/fossil_conference_6/breithaupt.htmbut I think 8m is a rough figure. In any case, while the lenght of Big Al is a bit problematic, the weight of Saurophaganax also jsut bases on it.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 20, 2013 23:17:38 GMT 5
If the estimate is for an 8 m Big Al, 6 t seems to be likely for a 13 m Saurophaganax.
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jun 21, 2013 17:27:25 GMT 5
at topic:
What about giant raptorial ichthyosaurs? They seem to be the largest predatory reptiles.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 21, 2013 17:29:05 GMT 5
^Thanks for reminding me, I totally forgot about them. There's at least two that plausiblyreached 15m if I'm not msitaken, one is Himalayasaurus, one is that unnamed lower Jurassic species. would be interesting to know a bit more about their morphology.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 21, 2013 18:15:21 GMT 5
If we found the owners of these isolated teeth, I still doubt that the would be as massively bodied than the largest pliosaurs.
Nor that they would display similarly big and powerful jaws.
Also, pliosaurs as a group of top predators lasted much longer than these ichthyosaurs.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 21, 2013 18:18:54 GMT 5
Are you guys talking about animals like Shatasaurus? Because Grey wrote that they were quite slim and they don't have real teeth.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 21, 2013 18:20:37 GMT 5
Are you guys talking about animals like Shatasaurus? Because Grey wrote that they were quite slim and they don't have real teeth. No, coherenthseaf had posted a paper about isolated ichthyosaurs teeth. I'll try to found the paper again.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 21, 2013 18:31:50 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 21, 2013 19:36:37 GMT 5
A length of 15 m? That's quite a lot.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 21, 2013 19:37:37 GMT 5
^I whished we had a bit more than the abstract.
Seems like after all, the title may go back to ichthyosaurs.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 21, 2013 19:39:27 GMT 5
I still favor a shorter giant pliosaur against a 15 m predatory ichthyosaur in terms of power...
|
|