|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 4, 2013 1:32:58 GMT 5
12,2 m may be more far away from 12,4 m than 12,5 m, but it is still relatively close (20 cm difference).
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 4, 2013 1:42:58 GMT 5
All not so far from each other, but in the end when this starts to get used in scales or mass estimates, you would be surprised how significant the impact is (scale a recosntruction supposed to be 12,4m to 12,2m, or scale weight from a relative to 12,2 instead of 12,4m...). Since Hartman's reconstruction is not a liberal one (Paul's is much more so) I think we should use this approximate figure rather than the 12,2m.
|
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193 
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Jul 4, 2013 1:56:33 GMT 5
Broly made Giganotosaurus in size comparison like it would be between in size of holotype and MUCPv-95...
12.4 m + 13.2 m = 12.8 m
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jul 4, 2013 1:59:08 GMT 5
Broly made Giganotosaurus in size comparison like it would be between in size of holotype and MUCPv-95... 12.4 m + 13.2 m = 12.8 m I know, but he not made the same for Carcharodontosaurus. And this is unfair. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 4, 2013 2:55:40 GMT 5
Broly made Giganotosaurus in size comparison like it would be between in size of holotype and MUCPv-95... 12.4 m + 13.2 m = 12.8 m I know, but he not made the same for Carcharodontosaurus. And this is unfair. I agree. Comparing largest and largest is best here, since we have similarly few specimens and determining age is difficult too. |
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jul 4, 2013 3:14:22 GMT 5
 My comparision based on Acrocanthosaurus proportions. Soon i'll make the one with Giganotosaurus proportions. |
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jul 4, 2013 3:31:58 GMT 5
And here's the comparision with Giganotosaurus proportions.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2013 0:06:39 GMT 5
Broly made Giganotosaurus in size comparison like it would be between in size of holotype and MUCPv-95... 12.4 m + 13.2 m = 12.8 m I know, but he not made the same for Carcharodontosaurus. And this is unfair. I have a reason for that. Namely this: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/3892The holotype is really pathetically small compared to the neotype. ~36% smaller dimensions would result in the holotype being ~9.15 meters long, seems like a subadult to me. |
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jul 5, 2013 0:14:10 GMT 5
I know, but he not made the same for Carcharodontosaurus. And this is unfair. I have a reason for that. Namely this: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/3892The holotype is really pathetically small compared to the neotype. ~36% smaller dimensions would result in the holotype being ~9.15 meters long, seems like a subadult to me. If the holotype was a sub adult, the reason beacause Carcharodontosaurus have similar proportion to Acrocanthosaurus is destroyed. In fact, many people think this because the femur of the holotype is longer than it's skull. But if it was a sub adult, this isn't a strongly argument, because sub adult have different proprtions to an adult. And a Carcharodontosaurus based on a Giganotosaurus was MUPCv-95-sized. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 5, 2013 18:59:35 GMT 5
I don't think anyone considers a probable <10,25m animal (based on Acrocanthosaurus, why downscale from a neotype that itself has more or less no postcranium and whose size is hypotetised?) likely to be just as adult as the 13-14m specimen of the same species. But that doesn't mean its proportions would be that different, at least not the relevant ones. It is not just ontogeny that influences them, it is also a matter of overall size. And even this probable subadult is still a large theropod by any standart. We see greatly changed overall proportions in much smaller animals (eg. as observed in Nanotyrannus/Jane compared to adult T. rex), and yet the femur doesn't get considerably smaller compared to the cranium, it fact it is probably well within the boundaries of individual variation in adult animals (in the above example jane has a 72,4m skull, and a 72cm femur, a ratio of 1,0005. Sue's skull is probably 1,45m or more at max, sources are contradictory, but the corresponding measurement would likely be up to the quadratojugal, so it's ratio would be 1,06 but with a nice scope of variation depending on the skull and femur lenght. This is an absolutely miniscule difference, and that despite sue being a pretty big-skulled specimen as compared to the holotype or others. But if you want we can use the slope of those). 1,833 increase in femur lenght, 1,933 in skull lenght, meaning femur lenght is about 5% below that predicted by isometry (do it yourself please if you want more advanced calculations)
The femur lenght predicted from isometric scaling of the holotype would be 171cm (!), but if it decreased to the same degree as between a juvenile and big adult T. rex, it would be only 0,95 times that, sooo....162cm
If I'm not mistaken (which is possible since I'm on summer holiday and usually forget what I did during my maths lessons), this means femur lenght increases to the ~0,919th power of skull lenght, so it's (SLincrease)^0,919=(FLincrease), which for a SLincrease of 1,36 would mean a FLincrease of 1,32 and a predicted femur lenght of 167cm
and this all assumes the difference would be as based on that between sue and jane, a highly cautious approach to the lenght of the tigh bone; it might as well be the same proportionate lenghtSo we have no reason to presume the femur would have gotten much smaller, let alone shorter than the skull lenght or the lenght predicted by A. atokensis in this case, and it would have to do, significantly, if the animal was proportioned just like Giganotosaurus, even tough the holotype is likely immature based on its small size. In fact, using the corresponding ratio of Acrocanthosaurus already lowers the result you'd get from scaling the skull for a good deal and should be more than enough. It could also be a bit shorter than Acrocanthosaurus would likely suggest (~13,5-14m). |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 5, 2013 20:48:28 GMT 5
And a Carcharodontosaurus based on a Giganotosaurus was MUPCv-95-sized. That depends on the skull lengths you take. If you take the ones of Carrano (he claimed the MUPCv-ch1 and SGM Din-1 to have the same skull length) you can get it down to holotype size. |
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jul 5, 2013 20:51:10 GMT 5
And a Carcharodontosaurus based on a Giganotosaurus was MUPCv-95-sized. That depends on the skull lengths you take. If you take the ones of Carrano (he claimed the MUPCv-ch1 and SGM Din-1 to have the same skull length) you can get it down to holotype size. 12.2-12.5 meters for SMG din-1 sound a bit conservative I think. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 5, 2013 21:23:36 GMT 5
It is conservative, that's true, but not impossible. I personally prefer a length of 13 m and a mass of 8 t for both.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jul 6, 2013 7:46:30 GMT 5
50/50 unless one had some un-fossilized trait that gave it some sort of advantage. And I dare say the glorious beauty of that Carcharodontosaurs image might give it the edge!! ;D
|
|
Carcharodon
Junior Member
Allosauroidea Enthusiast
Posts: 211
|
Post by Carcharodon on Dec 17, 2013 3:22:35 GMT 5
Imo 50/50, both were practically the same size and strength.
|
|
