|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 2, 2013 13:29:40 GMT 5
When you take Hartman's figure for the Giganotosaurus holotype, you should also pick his figure for the second specimen.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 2, 2013 20:45:12 GMT 5
I can also pick the 12,5m if you want. Anyway, I pick these because 12,2m simply sounds too short based on what I have seen, and would somewhat to greatly underestimate the size based on the reconstructions we use. My best fit model for MUCPv-95 are 8%, but determining the dentary size is a bit difficult.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 2, 2013 21:17:22 GMT 5
12,5 m seems to be hardly used anymore (Holtz didn't mention it, although he mostly used maximum sizes in his Genus list). You also have to remember that 12,2 m estimate was stated by (almost) the same authors as the 12,5 m estimate, therefore it looks like it got revised.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 2, 2013 21:28:02 GMT 5
In any case it is strange, contradicting rigorous reconstructions and doesn't have a method backing it up. I don't have to use the figure because it is Hartman's, I can also simply use it because that is what makes sense to me. Maybe 12,2m is the measurement of the inaccurate mount, who knows. It doesn't fit either Hartmans or Paul's skeletal, I had noted and expressed that long before Hartman even gave a lenght estimate.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 2, 2013 21:46:37 GMT 5
I don't know a lot about skeletals, so you are probably right. But there still would be lower estimates than 13,2 m, assuming that the dentary was only 2% larger (although it may not fit best, but we are talking about a cautious estimate here).
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 2, 2013 21:56:55 GMT 5
I did not state there couldn't be more conservative figures, but that in my opinion it could be longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 2, 2013 22:51:21 GMT 5
But then 13,2 m wouldn't be cautious, than it would be a median figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 2, 2013 22:59:35 GMT 5
Let's call it cautious compared to the upper end. A median figure can probably also be referred to as cautious, don't you think so?
14m is imo a very cautious figure for Spinosaurus, but if you take the whole range, incorporating the 12,5m (which are conservative in a way that is not cautious any more but rather liberal in being conservative...) it would be median.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 23:01:15 GMT 5
It likely did not take MSNM v4047 into account.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 2, 2013 23:14:49 GMT 5
It maybe did, but when speaking about general ranges, scientists are usually very rough and cautious in unspecialized works (that's another reason why I believe 14 m wasn't referring to carnosaurs). For example there was a paper which said that Mapusaurus specimen grew up to 11 m in length.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 3, 2013 0:05:07 GMT 5
There was, again, something that hardly has any base at all, and may be rather meant in the sense of "any theropod of 11m or more is huge and Mapusaurus reached this size".
OK, maybe that one wasn't necessarily referring to the carnosaurs in question (still find it odd it cited 4 carnosaurs tough if the whole thing only applied to the sole spinosaur). 14m is not unsupported, that was all I wanted to say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 10:21:01 GMT 5
I read the thing and I found no citing of Dal Sasso (2005) in it. It was not taking MSNM v4047 into account. |
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226 
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jul 4, 2013 0:54:28 GMT 5
12,5 m seems to be hardly used anymore (Holtz didn't mention it, although he mostly used maximum sizes in his Genus list). You also have to remember that 12,2 m estimate was stated by (almost) the same authors as the 12,5 m estimate, therefore it looks like it got revised. 12,2m is without a metodology, so this is a unreliable figure. Anywhere, here's Broly's scale:  I'm not sure about this scale. He take the most liberal figure for Carcharodontosaurus, but the lower figure for Giganotosaurus. In this case, Carcharodontosaurus win, but I disagree with this estimates. I'll make a scale soon maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 4, 2013 1:03:05 GMT 5
12,5 m too was made without metodology. So, would you propose Hartman's estimates?
P.S. About the size scale, this are all his own estimates.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 4, 2013 1:18:51 GMT 5
12,5m fits the known skeletals relatively well at least, while 12,2m does not.
I too disagree with brolys scale, tough there is nothing wrong about his Carcharodontosaurus, since he based it on a skeletal. I rather think he underestimated Giganotosaurus, so for the comparison Giganotosaurus/carcharodontosaurus we shouldn't use it imo
|
|
