|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 24, 2019 2:18:59 GMT 5
The largest confirmed T rex specimens are at 8 tons approximately. And even then, a T rex over 9 tons is not possible. That's beyond the biped weight limit. So this is 6 ton croc vs 5-8 ton dinosaur Where did you get the idea that T-rex is capped at 8 tonnes? Can you provide your citations for that claim? The last time i checked, modern mass estimates for large adult T-rex are in 8+ tonnes range. For instance, the modern mass estimates of Sue are: 8.3 t (GDI by Larramendi); 8.4 t (GDI Hartman, Hartman has updated his skeletal in 2019 so i'm not sure if the mass will still be valid); 8.8 t (GDI Franoys); 9.5 t (Volumetric Hutchinson et al). Estimates for Scotty: 8.7 t (GDI Randondinos); 8.9 t (regression Persons et al) IIRC, Sampson and Trix also appear to be quite complete and similar in size to the two above. Though i haven't double checked them so don't quote me on that. Also, where did the 5 tonnes figure for adult T-rex even come from? The last time i heard the 5 t estimates for adult T-rex was in Walking with Dinosaurs... Modern estimates, even for younger, smaller adult T-rex (such as Stan) are in the ~7 tonnes range so suggesting 5 t for adult T-rex is kinda bizarre I'm not saying that what you're suggesting is unreasonable. However, it's not a matter of my opinion or yours. If you have citations for your figures, please post here. What gives you the impression that Stan was a small T. rex? Things like Bucky, B-rex, BHI 6233 or Black Beauty would probably be 5 tons or less. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 24, 2019 2:23:08 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 24, 2019 2:24:08 GMT 5
The largest confirmed T rex specimens are at 8 tons approximately. And even then, a T rex over 9 tons is not possible. That's beyond the biped weight limit. So this is 6 ton croc vs 5-8 ton dinosaur 1: Where did you get the idea that T-rex is capped at 8 tonnes? Can you provide your citations for that claim? The last time i checked, modern mass estimates for large adult T-rex are in 8+ tonnes range. For instance, the modern mass estimates of Sue are: 8.3 t (GDI by Larramendi); 8.4 t (GDI Hartman, Hartman has updated his skeletal in 2019 so i'm not sure if the mass will still be valid); 8.8 t (GDI Franoys); 2:9.5 t (Volumetric Hutchinson et al). Estimates for Scotty: 8.7 t (GDI Randondinos); 8.9 t (regression Persons et al) IIRC, Sampson and Trix also appear to be quite complete and similar in size to the two above. Though i haven't double checked them so don't quote me on that. 3: Also, where did the 5 tonnes figure for adult T-rex even come from? The last time i heard the 5 t estimates for adult T-rex was in Walking with Dinosaurs... Modern estimates, even for younger, smaller adult T-rex (such as Stan) are in the ~7 tonnes range so suggesting 5 t for adult T-rex is kinda bizarre I'm not saying that what you're suggesting is unreasonable. However, it's not a matter of my opinion or yours. If you have citations for your figures, please post here. 1: I said APPROXIMATELY 8 tons. The figures you mentioned very much fit that size range. 2: Interesting, never heard of those. Will have to check them out. 3: That seems to be a very commonly stated MINIMUM adult T rex figure. I looked into further sources, and found this: ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010JZoo..281..263G/abstractEdit; Thank you, theropod |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 24, 2019 2:25:25 GMT 5
Alright everyone, so I've been ninja'd multiple times in this thread. I will reply to everything, but it may take a moment
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 24, 2019 2:26:46 GMT 5
Yes, I believe that works. This figure doesn't pop out of thin air |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 24, 2019 2:32:47 GMT 5
Yes, I believe that works. This figure doesn't pop out of thin air Well, then where in the source does it say that the body mass limit for bipeds (or even just theropods) is 9t? I used the search box function on my laptop and typed both '9' and 'ton'. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 24, 2019 2:35:09 GMT 5
Yes, I believe that works. This figure doesn't pop out of thin air Well, then where in the source does it say that the body mass limit for bipeds (or even just theropods) is 9t? I used the search box function on my laptop and typed both '9' and 'ton'. I think what you may want to look for is 10 tons. What it states IIRC is >10 tons, which, if I recall, also means max 9 tons |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 24, 2019 2:39:49 GMT 5
1: Where did you get the idea that T-rex is capped at 8 tonnes? Can you provide your citations for that claim? The last time i checked, modern mass estimates for large adult T-rex are in 8+ tonnes range. For instance, the modern mass estimates of Sue are: 8.3 t (GDI by Larramendi); 8.4 t (GDI Hartman, Hartman has updated his skeletal in 2019 so i'm not sure if the mass will still be valid); 8.8 t (GDI Franoys); 2:9.5 t (Volumetric Hutchinson et al). Estimates for Scotty: 8.7 t (GDI Randondinos); 8.9 t (regression Persons et al) IIRC, Sampson and Trix also appear to be quite complete and similar in size to the two above. Though i haven't double checked them so don't quote me on that. 3: Also, where did the 5 tonnes figure for adult T-rex even come from? The last time i heard the 5 t estimates for adult T-rex was in Walking with Dinosaurs... Modern estimates, even for younger, smaller adult T-rex (such as Stan) are in the ~7 tonnes range so suggesting 5 t for adult T-rex is kinda bizarre I'm not saying that what you're suggesting is unreasonable. However, it's not a matter of my opinion or yours. If you have citations for your figures, please post here. 1: I said APPROXIMATELY 8 tons. The figures you mentioned very much fit that size range. 2: Interesting, never heard of those. Will have to check them out. 3: That seems to be a very commonly stated MINIMUM adult T rex figure. I looked into further sources, and found this: ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010JZoo..281..263G/abstractEdit; Thank you, theropod Predicting the unpredictable; evidence of pre-seismic anticipatory behaviour in the common toad ? WHAT??? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 24, 2019 2:45:03 GMT 5
1: I said APPROXIMATELY 8 tons. The figures you mentioned very much fit that size range. 2: Interesting, never heard of those. Will have to check them out. 3: That seems to be a very commonly stated MINIMUM adult T rex figure. I looked into further sources, and found this: ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010JZoo..281..263G/abstractEdit; Thank you, theropod Predicting the unpredictable; evidence of pre-seismic anticipatory behaviour in the common toad ? WHAT???  ?? On a more serious note, there were a few citations. Here is everything I found Bakker, R. T. (1986). The Dinosaur Heresies. New York: Kensington Publishing. p. 241. ISBN 978-0-688-04287-5. OCLC 13699558. Anderson, J. F.; Hall-Martin, A. J.; Russell, D. (1985). "Long bone circumference and weight in mammals, birds and dinosaurs". Journal of Zoology. 207 (1): 53–61. Bibcode:2010JZoo..281..263G. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1985.tb04915.x. I think the toad one was an error on the part of some Wiki editor |
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Sept 24, 2019 2:47:12 GMT 5
To say no Tyrannosaurus can mass 9 tons is a bizarre thing to say both Sue and Scotty have been estimated to mass over 9 tons with the latest estimates and Trix is probably pretty close to that size to I'd love to see this biped weight limit study never heard of it. 9 tons? What would be the source for that? From what I can tell Hartman and Franoys favor a weight around 8 tons And this blog makes a valid point about Scotty's size; it might not be quite as big as one would think. (About the study, however, I am locked out of my email AND discord, for some reason, but it does exist!) creature386 , if possible, would you be able to get it (on troop panthera, if you can, just search for biped as the keyword)? Thanks in advance All that said, I agree on 2 points made here -Even if that study is invalid, I doubt a T rex would get over 8-9 tons, at least not usually, for the reasons already stated and adding that a land carnivore over 9 tons is going to have a very hard time getting enough to eat -T rex still very much wins on land. It has everything it needs Im going from short tons so that is where im probably getting conflicted i apologize for that just me being dumb. Franoys has Sue at 8.8 tons (9.7 short tons) Hartman has Sue at 8.4 tons (9.2 short tons) then Therrien & Henderson et al got 9.1 tons (10 short tons) for Sue and all we know regarding Scotty is its legs and hips seem to be more robust than Sues and its skull seems to be slightly larger so its safe to say its very close to Sues size or slightly larger weather its longer or not is still up in the air. Read more: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/2721/purussaurus-brasiliensis-tyrannosaurus-rex?page=4#ixzz60O2y0a2l |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 24, 2019 2:48:12 GMT 5
Well, then where in the source does it say that the body mass limit for bipeds (or even just theropods) is 9t? I used the search box function on my laptop and typed both '9' and 'ton'. I think what you may want to look for is 10 tons. What it states IIRC is >10 tons, which, if I recall, also means max 9 tons This confused me until I concluded you were probably talking about 10 U.S. tons, which is indeed 9 ton nes. And it doesn't say that either. At most it says that the dinosaurs in the study's sample weighed less than the order of magnitude >10 tonnes, which is a different thing from "Bipeds are biomechanically unable to weigh over 10t". In fact, this is primarily a body mass estimation study, not a paper trying to find out the theoretical limits of biped body mass. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 24, 2019 2:50:08 GMT 5
I think what you may want to look for is 10 tons. What it states IIRC is >10 tons, which, if I recall, also means max 9 tons This confused me until I concluded you were probably talking about 10 U.S. tons, which is indeed 9 ton nes. And it doesn't say that either. At most it says that the dinosaurs in the study's sample weighed less than the order of magnitude >10 tonnes, which is a different thing from "Bipeds are biomechanically unable to weigh over 10t". In fact, this is primarily a body mass estimation study, not a paper trying to find out the theoretical limits of biped body mass. Okay then, may not be the right study. Maybe it would be a better idea to wait until I can access my discord again so I can pull up what I really found |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 24, 2019 2:53:33 GMT 5
9 tons? What would be the source for that? From what I can tell Hartman and Franoys favor a weight around 8 tons And this blog makes a valid point about Scotty's size; it might not be quite as big as one would think. (About the study, however, I am locked out of my email AND discord, for some reason, but it does exist!) creature386 , if possible, would you be able to get it (on troop panthera, if you can, just search for biped as the keyword)? Thanks in advance All that said, I agree on 2 points made here -Even if that study is invalid, I doubt a T rex would get over 8-9 tons, at least not usually, for the reasons already stated and adding that a land carnivore over 9 tons is going to have a very hard time getting enough to eat -T rex still very much wins on land. It has everything it needs Im going from short tons so that is where im probably getting conflicted i apologize for that just me being dumb. Franoys has Sue at 8.8 tons (9.7 short tons) Hartman has Sue at 8.4 tons (9.2 short tons) then Therrien & Henderson et al got 9.1 tons (10 short tons) for Sue and all we know regarding Scotty is its legs and hips seem to be more robust than Sues and its skull seems to be slightly larger so its safe to say its very close to Sues size or slightly larger weather its longer or not is still up in the air. Read more: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/2721/purussaurus-brasiliensis-tyrannosaurus-rex?page=4#ixzz60O2y0a2lOh, SHORT tons. Yes, that makes some more sense. Scotty is most definitely in Sue size range, I agree with you on that. But exact weights probably should be taken with a grain of salt seeing as we only have 60% of the skeleton. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 24, 2019 3:58:29 GMT 5
Predicting the unpredictable; evidence of pre-seismic anticipatory behaviour in the common toad ? WHAT??? ?? On a more serious note, there were a few citations. Here is everything I found Bakker, R. T. (1986). The Dinosaur Heresies. New York: Kensington Publishing. p. 241. ISBN 978-0-688-04287-5. OCLC 13699558. Anderson, J. F.; Hall-Martin, A. J.; Russell, D. (1985). "Long bone circumference and weight in mammals, birds and dinosaurs". Journal of Zoology. 207 (1): 53–61. Bibcode:2010JZoo..281..263G. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1985.tb04915.x. I think the toad one was an error on the part of some Wiki editor It was? Well, you were the one posted the link to is: ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010JZoo..281..263G/abstractAnderson’s old formulae are hopelessly flawed for application to non-avian bipeds, you cannot just use a femur circumference of a bipedal animal and treat it like the summed femur and humerus circumference of a quadrupedal animal. For the same total circumference, a single circle has twice the area of two circles, which those estimates simply don’t account for, and instead treat the sum of humerus and femur circumferences of a quadruped as interchangeable with the femur circumference of a biped. Unfortunately a whole generation of papers used them and based their work on chronically underestimated body masses. Campione et al. 2014 provided a mathematical correction to this issue. You can look at the estimates for T. rex body mass in that paper and will find no 5 t specimen among them. The reason for this is a different one: Small T. rex specimens are chronically underrepresented in studies on size, which always tend to focus on the same handful of specimens, all of them fairly large. But if we use Black Beauty’s femur circumference (470 mm) with Campione et al.’s cQE (phylocor, correction factor for ECC 1.6, same as Sue’s), we get 4748 kg, (25% prediction interval 3559-5936 kg). There are some other adult T. rex specimens with femur circumferences predicting body masses below or very close to 5 t, and the same goes for femur length (B-rex’ is just 86% that of sue). Thing is, what study about estimating body mass for T. rex specimens includes the likes of B-rex or Black Beauty? None, because the most famous specimens happen to all be fairly large, and are in fact partly so famous because they are so large. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 24, 2019 4:00:37 GMT 5
?? On a more serious note, there were a few citations. Here is everything I found Bakker, R. T. (1986). The Dinosaur Heresies. New York: Kensington Publishing. p. 241. ISBN 978-0-688-04287-5. OCLC 13699558. Anderson, J. F.; Hall-Martin, A. J.; Russell, D. (1985). "Long bone circumference and weight in mammals, birds and dinosaurs". Journal of Zoology. 207 (1): 53–61. Bibcode:2010JZoo..281..263G. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1985.tb04915.x. I think the toad one was an error on the part of some Wiki editor 1: It was? Well, you were the one posted the link to is: ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010JZoo..281..263G/abstract2: Anderson’s old formulae are hopelessly flawed for application, you cannot just use a femur circumference of a bipedal animal and treat it like the summed femur and humerus circumference of a quadrupedal animal. 1: I meant the existence of a citation about a toad on an article about T rex was the error, on the editor's part. Maybe they were simultaneously editing a toad article. 2: Oh, I did not know that. |
|
??
