|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 24, 2019 4:30:32 GMT 5
1: Well, maybe not even checking where a link you posted as a source for your claim leads was an error on yours. I don’t think you should blame the wikipedia editors when it’s been made clear time and time again that we need to critically examine information presented on wikipedia, and that it’s not a replacement for looking at the sources ourselves.
2: We have discussed this a lot in the past on this forum. May I suggest those are the kinds of old discussions you might benefit more from reading, rather than old complaints about taipan? Note that I am by no means suggesting you are required to know everything ever posted on this forum, merely that it’s weird you seem to have read every post I have ever made whining about taipan, many of those more than half a decade ago, yet have not read any of the posts I have made in that whole on far more relevant matters, such as this or scaling, or crocodylian bite force.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 24, 2019 4:44:29 GMT 5
1: I think I didn't just because I may not have been 100 percent on the ball while making so many replies to different people in such a short time.
2: Yes, I'll take that cance to brush up on scaling and wherever my knowledge is patchy
|
|
|
|
Post by Verdugo on Sept 24, 2019 7:22:02 GMT 5
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. I did not actually said Stan was small. I said it was smaller (than the big ones like Sue or Scotty). Anyway, i don't recall Stan being of exceptional size either. Somewhat in between, not as big as some but as small as some, not too old, not too young i suppose. Also, i specifically stated 'adult' T rex. Are all of the specimens you mentioned considered full grown adults? How old they are (if there are studies on their ages of course)? Are there any T-rex specimens >20 years old that can be reasonably estimated to weigh ~ 5 tonnes? Regardless, i don't think it makes much sense to compare small (possibly young) adult T-rex to the largest Purussaurus specimens there is just so you can have a weight overlap (regarding Dinosauria's post on which i made my comments). It's like comparing smaller Lions to the record Pantanal Jaguar and then argues that because there is a weight overlap, a match up between Jaguar and Lion is a close one... 1: I said APPROXIMATELY 8 tons. The figures you mentioned very much fit that size range. I see, it seems like your definition of approximation is a bit different from mine. I personally wouldn't consider something that can be estimated up to 8.5+ tonnes to be just approximately 8 tonnes. I normally would round up the decimals if the decimal is > or = 0.5 but i figure you probably prefer rounding down all decimals. It's just a little misunderstanding i suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 24, 2019 14:15:35 GMT 5
Verdugo: sorry, yes, you did write "smaller", I thought you meant to imply Stan was among the smallest adult individuals because you continue by saying 5 t was "bizarre" due to that. Stan is actually pretty big, especially if we follow Paul, Franoys or Hutchinson et al., not Hartman (who restores it considerably smaller, but still massive). Stan has a 1.4 m skull and a 1.3 m femur, very large even by T. rex standards. Yes these specimens are adults. Exact age estimates are always imprecise and there is a margin of error of a few years in either direction, but Erickson et al. estimated Black Beauty and Wy-rex at 18 years, the same age as Stan, B-rex at 19, and Bucky at 16. LL 12823, BHI 6232, 6242 and 6233 have no age estimates as of my knowledge, but their femora are within adult size range, and I see no reason to assume they aren’t adults (we don’t automatically assume every other giant theropod to not be an adult either just because there’s no histological study available, after all). USNM 6183 has a 99 cm femur and is estimated at an age of 17 years. Horner & Padian suggests that T. rex would have been "virtually fully grown" between 15 and 18 years of age, and on their 18±2 years estimate for B-rex they note the specimen had "effectively stopped growing" at 16±2, although from their description of the histology this looks more like a significant slowing of growth, as is consistent with sexual maturity (when resources are diverted from fast somatic growth into reproduction). In the case of B-rex, it is absolutely undisputable that it is an adult, seeing as it is the only T. rex with medullary bone tissue (Schweitzer et al. 2008). Adult and "fully grown" is not the same thing, if we restrict this selection to fully grown specimens (as in, have an EFS), we probably only have two for T. rex, none for most other theropods, and none for Purussaurus either. I don’t much care for comparing T. rex to Purussaurus, but I think from what I wrote on "largest crocodilians" it should be readily apparent I do not think Purussaurus was as big as, or bigger than T. rex. Nor do I suggest comparing the largest Purussaurus to a small or average T. rex. But large Purussaurus specimens did reach the adult T. rex size range. And there’s nothing bizarre about a 5 t adult T.rex, people just have to realize there are way more adult T. rex specimens out there than the five we always hear about. Erickson, G.M., Currie, P.J., Inouye, B.D. and Winn, A.A. 2006. Tyrannosaur life tables: an example of nonavian dinosaur population biology. Science 313 (5784): 213–217.
Erickson, G.M., Makovicky, P.J., Currie, P.J., Norell, M.A., Yerby, S.A. and Brochu, C.A. 2004. Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs. Nature 430 (7001): 772.
Horner, J.R. and Padian, K. 2004. Age and growth dynamics of Tyrannosaurus rex. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 271 (1551): 1875–1880.
Schweitzer, Mary H.; Wittmeyer, Jennifer L.; Horner and John R. 2008. One pretty amazing T. rex. In: Larson, Peter; Carpenter, Kenneth: Tyrannosaurus rex the Tyrant King. Bloomington, 92—100.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 24, 2019 16:07:00 GMT 5
1: I said APPROXIMATELY 8 tons. The figures you mentioned very much fit that size range. I see, it seems like your definition of approximation is a bit different from mine. I personally wouldn't consider something that can be estimated up to 8.5+ tonnes to be just approximately 8 tonnes. I normally would round up the decimals if the decimal is > or = 0.5 but i figure you probably prefer rounding down all decimals. It's just a little misunderstanding i suppose. Ah, that makes sense. Yes, often I round when figures can be approximated and/or vary. Next time, I'll clarify that. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 24, 2019 19:46:32 GMT 5
Well, while I think closer to 8 t is a perfectly reasonable estimate for sue, there are simple rules for rounding, as I’m sure everyone here knows, so there’s no point in debating about that.
If rounding would mislead people (such as rounding up one estimate of 8.5 t to 9 t and rounding down another of 8.4 t to 8 t) such as in this case, you might want to consider giving the figure with a higher precision.
|
|
all
Junior Member
Posts: 238
|
Post by all on Sept 24, 2019 19:57:34 GMT 5
dinosauria 101.
Rosary crocodile is type of crocodile which lives in India. Until now I thought that rosary crocodile was completely different crocodile than saltwater crocodile . But it turns out saltwater crocodile is actually sub-type of rosary crocodile. There are however different types of rosary crocodile. the one I was referring to was one in India . (Although I might be completely off base here it is quite likely that rosary crocodile and saltwater crocodile are exactly the same thing. The reason is that word saltwater crocodile would be used in Australia. while in India it would be called what ever words in Hindu translate into rosary crocodile in English. when the Hindu word was translated to my language it came out as krokodyl różańcowy which means same thing as rosary crocodile in my language as well. It was always referred to as that. You would not find this crocodile ( Crocodylus porosus) being referred to as saltwater crock where I come from it would be referred to as krokodyl różańcowy which means rosary crocodile. you would most likely also hear (Crocodylus porosus) referred to as rosary crocodile in India. When I translated word krokodyl różańcowy which is crocodile i knew about into English it came out as rosary crocodile. When you look up rosary crocodile on wikipedia you will come up with large crocodile that has similar features and range as saltwater crocodile. so i looked up latin name of saltwater crock and it turns out it is the same as rosary crock (Crocodylus porosus) there fore unfortunately they are the same thing)
In India rosary crocodile reaches 6.3 meters with one skull in museum belonging to crocodile estimated at 7 meters. there is however a crocodile in Bhitarkanika National Park there was confirmed crocodile (That might still be alive but i'm not sure ) having length of 7.1 meters and 2000 kg weight. Bhitarkanika National Park is in Odisha India. If you wish to see the site of wikipedia talking about rosary crocodile you would not be able to do so if you simply put rosary crocodile or you will have to look for long time. What I did was to put words Krokodyl różańcowy in search and came out with the needed information. When you translate the page into English the name of the crocodile will be translated to rosary crocodile. And the page will be in English.
If you look at wikipedia's page about salt water crock you will get similar info. And there will be mention about Bhitarkanika National Park. It will not however tell you about the 7.1 meter 2000 kg crock. This you will have to find on the first page I mentioned. The site on saltwater crock will give you lots of information as well but you probably all ready read it. So as you know largest size of the crocodiles that will be said there will be 6.1 meters. With a possibility of 6-7 meter crocodiles. It will say that on average crocodiles in Bhitarkanika National Park are larger than other places.
The page on rosary crocodile will give you size of largest rosary crocodiles at 6.3 meters it will talk about the skull of a crocodile ( page about saltwater crock might talk about this skull as well but I'm not sure) with the length of the crocodile based on the skull being 7 meters. It will also say about largest recently accepted crocodile to be in Bhitarkanika National Park with length of 7.1 meters and weight of 2000 kg. The reason for slight difference between maximum size of the crocodiles between those two pages, is because name saltwater crock refers to crocks found in Australia while rosary crock to ones in India.
In any case largest crocks are or at least were in India not Australia. The population in India is much larger than in Australia and they live in close proximity to ma compare to those in Australia. So large crocodile was more likely killed than the ones in Australia as a threat to humans. And poaching as well as legal hunting was much greater there simply because of easier access and larger overall population. And large crocodile would obviously be greater trophy or sell item than small one.
Now I agree we should be very careful in even entertaining the notion that there were 9-10 meter crocks in India however for reasons I said above. Plus recent pollution and global warming which makes more e difficult for crocodiles to breed means less crocks which means less chances for largest crocks to be around. Which means once there might have been larger crocks when there were less threats to survival of largest ones. Furthermore as you know crocks live for long time older the crock the larger the crock. So the ones who lived the longest and became the largest would do so because they avoided humans. Which means they would be harder to see and notice even if they were around. Books from nineteen eighties would state maximum length of rosary crocodile as 10 meters. And mistakes such as incorrect comparison between skull and maximum size were less likely than in the case of prehistoric animals because in case of rosary crocodile scientist had live specimens to compare skulls to. As well as measure life specimens themselves. Even now in India there are larger crocodiles than Australia despite the fact that largest examples of crocks in India were killed more indiscriminately than those in Australia. So there is a chance that the crocodiles in India were once significantly larger than those we find in Australia today. Not mentioning the fact that we don't really know how large were largest examples of crocodiles in Australia couple hundred of years ago ether. (At lest I don't maybe there are more accounts recorded that I know of).
So yes rosary crock is the same thing as saltwater crock. In some parts of the world (Crocodylus porosus) is referred to as saltwater crock while others Rosary crock.
If you really wish to see the site on rosary crock you might put words krokodyl rozancowy in the searcher will ask you if you mean Krokodyl różańcowy instead if you take that option you will find a page that can be easily translated to English because option to translate the page will show on the top of the screen. You can also translate words rosary crocodile to most other languages with google translate and put in resulting words into the search engine. It will take you to some kind of sight describing rosary crocodile that you can translate once again the option will show on top right of the screen. That is probably however too much bother and most sites will be lot like sites about saltwater crock. On the Wikipedia site about rosary crock I talked about earlier you will get basically the same information as the on the saltwater crock site. But site describing rosary crock will have a short (very short ) mention on the 7.1 meter 2000 kg crock.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 24, 2019 20:25:38 GMT 5
Oh, interesting. So, a rosary croc is a kind of saltwater croc.
|
|
all
Junior Member
Posts: 238
|
Post by all on Sept 25, 2019 19:32:24 GMT 5
It appears so yes
|
|
all
Junior Member
Posts: 238
|
Post by all on Sept 28, 2019 20:54:52 GMT 5
sorry that last post was meant to elaosha 11. The rosary crock is another name for saltwater crock.
as far as the largest crocodile in 1957 in Queensland Australia the captured 8.5 meter crock. the weight was 1700 kg. actually quite little for this length.
However if they would have obtained this information from a photo the weight would not be included in the description.
In another thread I heard that length of deinosuchus was up to 8 meters. I find it hard to believe that crocodile that has bite force between 4000 -23111 lbs per square inch is only up to 8 meters long. since 8 meters under those circumstances would put it at maximum of that bite force or close to it. 6.3 meter salt water crock is 7700 lbs. Less than 2 meters difference in length and more than 3 fold difference in bite force I find that unlikely.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 28, 2019 22:09:06 GMT 5
|
|
