|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 19, 2020 21:15:54 GMT 5
elosha11 That comparison above is slightly misleading - AT EQUAL MASSES, Giganotosaurus has much bigger/longer skull and jaws - see AMNH 5027 and MUCPv-Ch1 for instance (they are both about the same, ignore what I said about AMNH being 6.5 tonnes. That's old methodology). Not just that, but Giganotosaurus seems to have a good deal of size advantage here - Tyrannosaurus adults range from specimens such as USNM 6183 (99 cm femur) to Sue and Scotty, who are 7.3 to 8.4+ tonnes, depending on density used. The average Tyrannosaurus femur is 119 cm, giving an animal about 6 tonnes. Meanwhile, we have 7.1 tonnes for MUCPv-Ch1, and an estimated 8.6 tonnes for MUCPv-95, giving us an average of ~7.85 tonnes for the 2 known specimens - this is substantially larger than the 6 tonnes for Tyrannosaurus. Heck, even if we disregard MUCPv-95, we have an animal with 1.1 tonnes of size advantage. And lower sizes is just a mismatch - it's USNM 6183 vs MUCPv-Ch1.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 19, 2020 22:43:58 GMT 5
As of now, I slightly favor T-Rex in this contest. It seems the evidence currently indicates that T-Rex was a bit more massive at comparative lengths and had similar, perhaps even slightly greater agility. Both had deadly bites, but it seems that irrespective of bite force or slicing v crushing bites, T-Rex still had the more voluminous bite, as it's jaws seem to be somewhat wider than Gigantosaurus while just as long. So I would think with T-Rex could probably remove more flesh per bite on average. jdangerousdinosaur , really appreciate the comparison above. Do any of the more knowledgeable posters here have any critique (good or bad) of his size comparisons above? dinosauria101 , I saw you've stated Gigantasaurus has a larger head and wider/bigger bite, but the diagrams above seem opposite of that conclusion. Are you basing that on MUCPv-95? From the comments above, I assume this specimen is too fragmentary, or has other issues, with reliability. GigaNOTOsaurus, Elosha. |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jan 19, 2020 23:40:16 GMT 5
^Whoops thanks for the above. I've been misspelling this for quite some time over the years, for some reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 19, 2020 23:51:32 GMT 5
Who do you now favor with Giganotosaurus' size advantage in mind, elosha?
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 20, 2020 3:42:45 GMT 5
Who do you now favor with Giganotosaurus' size advantage in mind, elosha? Assuming you're correct, that is. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 20, 2020 4:25:11 GMT 5
Who do you now favor with Giganotosaurus' size advantage in mind, elosha? Assuming you're correct, that is. It's from the Theropod Database - a very reliable source, created by Mickey Mortimer. I think it can be considered fairly reliable |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 20, 2020 5:25:26 GMT 5
Assuming you're correct, that is. It's from the Theropod Database - a very reliable source, created by Mickey Mortimer. I think it can be considered fairly reliable Sue is listed as 5.64 tons vs MUCPv-ch1's 5 tons. MUCPv-95 is listed as 13.2M and 6.2 tons, however this is based on the (unfounded) idea it is not a morphological difference within the species. The site has not been updated in around 3 years as it does not mention Scotty or more recent discoveries. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 20, 2020 5:28:52 GMT 5
It's from the Theropod Database - a very reliable source, created by Mickey Mortimer. I think it can be considered fairly reliable Sue is listed as 5.64 tons vs MUCPv-ch1's 5 tons. MUCPv-95 is listed as 13.2M and 6.2 tons, however this is based on the (unfounded) idea it is not a morphological difference within the species. The site has not been updated in around 3 years as it does not mention Scotty or more recent discoveries. They still seem to have gotten femur length correct however - it's the same number you get when averaging all specimens with femurs and extrapolating femur lengths for others. Not to mention, theropod got about the same result here - scaling Tyrannosaurus to 10.9 to 11.3 meters gets about 6 tonnes. |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jan 20, 2020 17:07:35 GMT 5
Who do you now favor with Giganotosaurus' size advantage in mind, elosha? What I'm going to have to do is my own independent review if/when I can have the time, utilizing both the helpful info on WoA and other reputable outside sources. Size is obviously important but there are other factors, and neither animal has an overwhelming size advantage. Is it true that T-Rex had better binocular vision than other older theropods such as Giganotosaurus? Seems I read that somewhere (and apologies in advance if I'm wrong on this), although I'm fully aware that smell was likely these dinosaurs' best sense, not vision. Still in a face to face confrontation, I wonder if whether having better binocular oriented vision would be an advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 20, 2020 17:21:38 GMT 5
Who do you now favor with Giganotosaurus' size advantage in mind, elosha? What I'm going to have to do is my own independent review if/when I can have the time, utilizing both the helpful info on WoA and other reputable outside sources. Size is obviously important but there are other factors, and neither animal has an overwhelming size advantage. Is it true that T-Rex had better binocular vision than other older theropods such as Giganotosaurus? Seems I read that somewhere (and apologies in advance if I'm wrong on this), although I'm fully aware that smell was likely these dinosaurs' best sense, not vision. Still in a face to face confrontation, I wonder if whether having better binocular oriented vision would be an advantage. Well, the average of the 2 Giganotosaurus specimens is actually about 30% more massive than the average of Tyrannosaurus adults - a fairly considerable size advantage. MUCPv-95 is likely either similar sized or around 17% larger than Sue or Scotty depending on density, and MUCPv-Ch1 is over twice the size of USNM 6183. As for the vision, yes, that is true. However, it's not really a relevant factor here; both animals are going to have an extremely easy time seeing the other one and the difference is miniscule; it's like getting into a fistfight with someone who wears glasses but you don't. I think the different types of vision are most useful for each animal in regards to the prey they hunt; it's not really relevant in a fight. |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jan 20, 2020 17:28:22 GMT 5
dinosauria101, I guess you would disagree with the below diagram, (I think from Franoys) which seems to indicate T-Rex with a significantly more bulky body than Giganotosaurus and other theropods at large (not necessarily max) adult sizes?  All this said, it seems to be an open debate over which animal was truly larger, and I'm going to reserve my personal judgment for now until I review more closely. I appreciate your reference to Theropod database, as well as kekistani's caveats about it. I'll have to review and judge more myself -- when I have time.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 20, 2020 17:36:58 GMT 5
Errr....yeah, that chart's sort of misleading; it's comparing the largest Tyrannosaurus with the smallest Giganotosaurus and on top of that using a density for the Tyrannosaurus that is almost certainly too high. Not just that, but there are size estimates for all those other carnosaurs that would have THEM reaching around 9 tonnes (but that's a topic for another thread). As for the Theropod Database, while it does certainly need to be updated, I believe they are still correct or reasonably close to correct on the femur average of 119 cm. Scaling Sue (it has a 131 cm femur) to the mean/average of 10.9 to 11.3 meters that theropod got gives a mass of ~6 tonnes and a femur TL of 118.25 cm. EDIT: elosha11, regarding skull size, this may be helpful. When scaled to 119 cm femur length, the average Tyrannosaurus would have a skull anywhere from 127 to 138 cm, depending on if it's scaled from big or small headed specimens. The average skull size of the 2 Giganotosaurus specimens, however, is just over 160 cm. Now the carnosaur's skull is slightly more slender at length parity, but not THAT much, and its greater length would likely make up for it at weight parity. Same here; on average, Giganotosaurus would have a lot more bite area as well as a much larger gape. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 21, 2020 1:24:16 GMT 5
Mainly because those 2 are the best specimens we have of each species. We only have 2 specimens of Giganotosaurus,the potential largest (MUCPv-95) is not generally used due to its fragmentary nature which may mean it is either larger or simply more robust. The chart is fine. According to whom outside this forum? The size listed in the stats for the main battle ranges from 10 to 12.3 meters (sue) which would agree with this chart. All that being said, according to Wikipedia Persons et al stated that while scotty and sue outweighed Giganotosaurus Giganotosaurus probably outweighed other Tyrannosaurus specimens |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 21, 2020 1:43:48 GMT 5
1: Mainly because those 2 are the best specimens we have of each species. We only have 2 specimens of Giganotosaurus,the potential largest (MUCPv-95) is not generally used due to its fragmentary nature which may mean it is either larger or simply more robust. The chart is fine. 2: According to whom outside this forum? 3: The size listed in the stats for the main battle ranges from 10 to 12.3 meters (sue) which would agree with this chart. All that being said, according to Wikipedia Persons et al stated that while scotty and sue outweighed Giganotosaurus Giganotosaurus probably outweighed other Tyrannosaurus specimens 1: The reason MUCPv-95 is so often factored in is due to sample size. As I said earlier, it could be anywhere from literally the exact same size as the holotype, to more than 8 percent larger than the holotype but with a proportionately smaller jaw. Scott Hartman's best fit is certainly a reasonable way to go about it, as he is a qualified researcher and it can help us get more perspective on the size. But heck, even if we were to discard MUCPv-95, the holotype still has 1.1 tonnes on the average T rex, perhaps more when you account for a) density issues*, which will be fully addressed in the next point, b) Not every Tyrannosaurus is built like Sue and Scotty, and c) Sue has proportionately shorter legs than some other specimens, so it would get a higher result for a ~119 cm femur than other specimens due to that. 2: Well.....other tyrannosaurs, as well as phylogenetic bracketing. It's logical to assume a density of ~0.8 due to that, and just because qualified researchers aren't under an assumption does not mean it's unreliable - for example, in this article, a STUDENT discovered that what researchers think they know about saurischians and ornithischians may be all wrong. The same very likely applies to the density of Tyrannosaurus. 3: Yes, but that chart is misleading as it doesn't show all sides of the story, as well as the previously stated density issue. *This ~6 tonnes for a Sue with a 119 cm femur was scaled down from a density of 0.915. Using 0.8, it would be even less. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 21, 2020 3:15:43 GMT 5
All that being said, according to Wikipedia Persons et al stated that while scotty and sue outweighed Giganotosaurus Giganotosaurus probably outweighed other Tyrannosaurus specimens Hartman's "Best fit" results in an animal a couple hundred KG lighter than Sue that weighs less than . If we use the potential largest Giganotosaurus specimen (potentially, mind you) we should use the largest rex. Phylogenetic bracketing is not always the best option for deciding traits. Tyrannosaurus is a very heavily built animal, having a weight advantage over Giganotosaurus is not surprising. If a density of 0.8 is correct. |
|
