Carcharodontosaurus saharicus vs Giganotosaurus carolinii

[Dakotaraptor]

I remember the Giganotosaurus being stated at 14 m was from dinodata, but however it gave 13.5 m for MUCPv-95. This site also stated 13.5 m Carcharodontosaurus, but they gave very conservative 11 m for SGM-Din 1, although it would be closer as error.

[theropod]

@creature: Not specifically Carcharodontosaurus, carcharodontosaurs in general. an example would be Moreno et al., 2012 citing this as a size for several large theropods.

I recall reading this on other occasions too, however I fear I don't remember the name of the reference. Don't take this as factual but it is fully possible, and imo rather likely that they were closer to 14 than to 13m.

Moreno, K., De Valais, S., Blanco, N., Tomlinson, A.J., Jacay, J., and Calvo, J.O. 2012. Large theropod dinosaur footprint
associations in western Gondwana: Behavioural and palaeogeographic implications. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 57
(1): 73–83.

[creature386]

Cretaceous theropods include the largest (up to 14 m long) terrestrial predators of all time, such as Carcharodontosaurus (Stromer 1931), Spinosaurus (Stromer 1915, 1934; Sereno et al. 1996), Giganotosaurus (Coria and Salgado 1995; Calvo and Coria 1998), Mapusaurus (Coria and Currie 2006), and Tyrannotitan (Novas et al. 2005).

He only said cretaceous theropods, he did not say carcharodontosaurs. He for example listed Spinosaurus.

[theropod]

They listed four Carcharodontosaurs in the same list, together with one spinosaur, so I guess it probably referred to all of them.

[creature386]

He wrote "up to" 14 m long, so this doesn't mean he said all were 14 m long. Or do you believe Tyrannotitan was 14 m long?

[theropod]

Obviously not. But those would not have been listed if only one attained this lenght.

Here's another one: www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/viewFile/9199/5662

Also Hone and Siversson stated this, and Paul's skeleton points out to it.

I'll post if I find more notions of this. In Giganotosaurus, it depends on the reconstruction. Unfortunately we lack access to the material. In Carcharodontosaurus it depends on the scaling analogy one favours.

[gigadino96]

Jul 2, 2013 0:54:45 GMT 5 theropod said:

Obviously not. But those would not have been listed if only one attained this lenght.

Here's another one: www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/viewFile/9199/5662

Also Hone and Siversson stated this, and Paul's skeleton points out to it.

I'll post if I find more notions of this. In Giganotosaurus, it depends on the reconstruction. Unfortunately we lack access to the material. In Carcharodontosaurus it depends on the scaling analogy one favours.

Oh, ok. I'm not have a problem with a 14m Giganotosaurus.

[Grey]

Theropod, Siversson said "maybe up to 14 m", I don't think he intended to give a precise estimate here.

[theropod]

I'm just trying to say this is a figure commonly used. I know Siverssons estimates are usually rough, I remember he used the "maybe up to" in other talks as well (I'f I'm not mistaken on the Orca)

[theropod]

Both could very well be ~14m

[creature386]

Jul 2, 2013 0:54:45 GMT 5 theropod said:

Obviously not. But those would not have been listed if only one attained this lenght.

It could be that he just listed large theropods from the cretaceous and took the length figure of the largest one, to have somewhat of an "upper limit".

[Grey]

I doubt it was about the orca, more about an extinct taxon.

I woud recommand to use Hartman figures as they are the most recent/the most often updated. 14 m looks more like a potential range than something else.

[creature386]

And even if he didn't only mean Spinosaurus, we don't know which other theropods he meant, so this heavily depends on interpretation.

[Dakotaraptor]

Jul 2, 2013 0:54:45 GMT 5 theropod said:

Obviously not. But those would not have been listed if only one attained this lenght.

Here's another one: www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/viewFile/9199/5662

I don't know would paper be good source? However one thing may not convincing about it. 

---

Offtopic:
They also stated 7 m Carnotaurus in the same paper... While based on Hartman's reconstruction it would be over 8 m in axial length based on 103 cm femoral. However i found this reconstruction by other author and this one is ~7.2 m based on scale bar (from tip to tip) and probably ~7.5 m or more in axial length, even based on this that's closer to over 7 m rather than about 7 m.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Carnotaurus_DB.jpg

But the proportions look very funny, so funny. Short tail and extremaly long legs. 








[theropod]

Unfortunately Hartman has no figure for Carcharodontosaurus, and he told me he won´t do a skeletal of it because of insufficient documentation.

Anyway for this story it wouldn´t be further relevant, but imo 14m is probably closer than 13m(1,57*(11,5/1,29) or 12,4*1,08).