|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 31, 2013 1:48:50 GMT 5
The best indication in that case is probably to list a mass range, at 5-10 tonnes.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 31, 2013 1:51:24 GMT 5
Allosaurids, not Allosaurians, or at least other Allosaurians with Allosaurid proportions. 14m+ corresponds to lenght, exactly. Lenght is not the same as weight, and I had already clarified I was talking about weight (which nearly everybody talks about when talking about size). An allosaurid approximately the size or bigger than the biggest cretaceous tyrannosaurs and carcharodontosaurs corresponds to a 14m animal or more (~9t).
It certainly happened also for these other taxa, but we have no fossil evidence and I'm not taking it into account.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 31, 2013 1:52:05 GMT 5
The best indication in that case is probably to list a mass range, at 5-10 tonnes. Which would be in accordance with and demonstrate my point either way, even tough if you go with the authors themselves both the size of the range and the center are too low. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 31, 2013 3:06:28 GMT 5
Which authors ?
Anyway if you were talking about a body mass range for it, why keep insisting with the 14 m + assertion ?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 31, 2013 14:02:06 GMT 5
Those that described the footprints we are talking about. Because weight estimates are problematic to give, it is better and easier to give a lenght figure that would probably correspond to that relative size.
Read Cau for example.
Mass estimates are affected by many assumptions and variables.
Total, axial body lenght on the other hand is a pretty standardised (although not error-free) measurement. All you need is to figure out the corresponding lenght based on the most compatible figures available for the mass, or, better, just estimate it directly based on given lenght figures (which In this case I and you too have done/could do). No room for fantasizing here, just a bunch of very obvious stuff.
|
|
