|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 21, 2020 3:53:06 GMT 5
1: 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. 2: 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. 3: If a density of 0.8 is correct. 1: Nope - 8.4 vs 8.6 tonnes. A few hundred kg is pretty much irrelevant in animals of this size anyway; not gonna have any significant impact. And by that logic, we can also compare the smallest adult Tyrannosaurus (USNM 6183, 99 cm femur) to what may be the smallest Giganotosaurus. All sides of the story ought to be taken into account; while we're on that note, I should mention that using 0.8 density, Sue and MUCPv-Ch1 are about the same weight at 7.1 and 7.3 tonnes. 2: It isn't necessarily 100% guaranteed, you are correct. However, Tyrannosaurus is a very well known animal, and we do know due to its classification it is likely to have had these features, so a density of 0.8 is a plausible figure unless new fossils show Tyrannosaurus was less pneumatic than we thought. 3: It most likely is for the above reasons; however, here, I can go over a range of mass possibilities (scaling from specimens that differ in build). As previously stated, scaling to a 119 cm femur from 0.915 Sue and Scotty gets ~6 tonnes average. Scaling to a 119 cm femur from 0.8 Sue and Scotty gets ~5.36 tonnes average. Scaling to a 119 cm femur from 0.915 AMNH 5027, assuming the same femur length as the similar size CM 9380, gets ~5.7 tonnes average Scaling to a 119 cm femur from 0.8 AMNH 5027 gets just under 5 tonnes average (looks like WWD may not have been completely wrong about the weights!) Overall, this would give ~5-5.36 tonnes average for 0.8, and 5.7-6 tonnes average for 0.915, when accounting for individual variation in terms of build. Edit: Oh, and also here are some publications that go into how pneumatic Rex was even for a megatheropod; I don't think they give an exact figure, but 0.8 seems likely indeed: Janensch, 1947; Brochu, 2003; Bates et al., 2009 & Hutchinson et al., 2011 |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 21, 2020 4:32:59 GMT 5
 8.2 tons vs 8.4 tons in Sue's favor. You brought up using MUCPv-95, not me. It is plausible but not the only option that should be used. And what of T.rex specimens with differently proportioned femurs? Edit: Oh, and also here are some publications that go into how pneumatic Rex was even for a megatheropod; I don't think they give an exact figure, but 0.8 seems likely indeed: Janensch, 1947; Brochu, 2003; Bates et al., 2009 & Hutchinson et al., 2011 |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 21, 2020 4:47:11 GMT 5
1: 8.2 tons vs 8.4 tons in Sue's favor. 2: You brought up using MUCPv-95, not me. 3: It is plausible but not the only option that should be used. 4: And what of T.rex specimens with differently proportioned femurs? Edit: Oh, and also here are some publications that go into how pneumatic Rex was even for a megatheropod; I don't think they give an exact figure, but 0.8 seems likely indeed: Janensch, 1947; Brochu, 2003; Bates et al., 2009 & Hutchinson et al., 2011 1: Yes, that is what you get while using Hartman's skeletal. However, it seems to be a bit conservative on soft tissue and with somewhat of a sucked in chest when compared to the GDI I hyperlinked in the OP (SpinoInWonderland seems to agree with that as he states Hartman's Giganotosaurus has a sucked in belly here, and comparing Hartman's and GetAwayTrike's Giga skeletals, I can definitely see what he means) Scaling this (GAT's) animal up gets 8.6 tonnes. Not 8.2. 2: Perhaps now might be a good time to reiterate my point; MUCPv-95 wasn't really it. The point was that the comparison wasn't really showing all sides of the story; it would come closer to this by including a Tyrannosaurus scaled to 119 cm femur and USNM 6183 as well as Sue, for instance. 3: And that's why I don't 100% discount 0.915; you'll notice in all my posts that I was still factoring it albeit with caveats. However, 0.8 is likely the most plausible option, and I will be using it as the most likely base for all the above reasons. 4: Sue actually has quite short legs for a Tyrannosaurus as Larramendi 2016 noted. So if anything, scaling from Sue is more on the generous side of things. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 21, 2020 6:12:53 GMT 5
And Spinoinwonderland uses 0.915 for both Giga and T.rex. Scaled to SH's 6.5% perfect fit this animal is 8.4 tons. The creator of said scale chose the best, largest individuals of the species shown. Sue and MUCPv-ch1 just happen to be the best large specimens of their species. Which is why 0.8 should not be used as the gold standard as you have been using it. Scotty has longer femur than sue (albeit barely) but is larger. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 21, 2020 6:24:57 GMT 5
1: And Spinoinwonderland uses 0.915 for both Giga and T.rex. Scaled to SH's 6.5% perfect fit this animal is 8.4 tons. 2: The creator of said scale chose the best, largest individuals of the species shown. Sue and MUCPv-ch1 just happen to be the best large specimens of their species. 3: Which is why 0.8 should not be used as the gold standard as you have been using it. 4: Scotty has longer femur than sue (albeit barely) but is larger. 1: Well, that is correct that 0.915 was used for both. However as I previously mentioned, just because it's likely too high for Tyrannosaurus doesn't mean it's not often used. 2: And while they may be the most complete specimens for both, it doesn't show the full facts. Just pointing that out. 3: It's by no means a 'gold standard'. Just that I find it more plausible than other more common densities due to the morphology and taxonomy of Tyrannosaurus, so while I am by no means using it as a guarantee, gold standard, or anything like that, it will be my first and foremost go-to with other options and their caveats mentioned as well. 4: Scotty also gives something in the ~6 tonne range - about 6.1. Still, very similar to Sue. This also doesn't factor in that several Tyrannosaurus specimens are not as robust as Scotty and Sue. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 21, 2020 9:49:58 GMT 5
Likely according to you-for all we know T.rex is suitable for 0.915. It shows enough facts to come to a conclusion. Just because it doesn't show multiple T.rex (or other theropod) specimens ranging in size doesn't mean it "doesn't show the full facts." The chart shows the largest well known specimens for each species. MUCPv-95 may not even be larger, so it's best to stick with the holotype. Sue just happens to be the most complete AND 2nd largest (what are the odds?!?) T.rex specimen found. You do you. Just don't expect everyone to agree with your conclusions or choices. 6.1 tonnes if we only use 0.8. I see no reason to stick to that specific amount, and we have far larger (and lower) estimates using different values. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 21, 2020 16:55:46 GMT 5
1: Likely according to you-for all we know T.rex is suitable for 0.915. 2: It shows enough facts to come to a conclusion. Just because it doesn't show multiple T.rex (or other theropod) specimens ranging in size doesn't mean it "doesn't show the full facts." The chart shows the largest well known specimens for each species. MUCPv-95 may not even be larger, so it's best to stick with the holotype. Sue just happens to be the most complete AND 2nd largest (what are the odds?!?) T.rex specimen found. 3: You do you. Just don't expect everyone to agree with your conclusions or choices. 4: 6.1 tonnes if we only use 0.8. I see no reason to stick to that specific amount, and we have far larger (and lower) estimates using different values. 1: It could very well be, I never denied that and that's why I was giving 0.915 results as well. However, 0.8 is significantly MORE LIKELY for Tyrannosaurus. 2: You are correct that the jaw could literally be the same as the holotype. However, it's probably not the best idea to just take the largest of a given species and not the average, then compare it to the best specimen that's not necessarily the largest. Akin to doing this would be to use Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum against Triceratops to represent the species, in the Mamenchisaurus vs Triceratops thread. Problem is, Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum is 75 tonnes, while Triceratops only maxes out at 14-15 tonnes or so and probably averages only 9-11. This would be very unrepresentative of the thread because you would think it's a bad mismatch all around, but there are other unmentioned species such as Mamenchisaurus youngi (7 tonnes) that would give Triceratops a win, and thus not make the thread unworthy of discussion. While Sue vs the holotype isn't a mismatch (definitely not, if we use the more likely density for the former), only showing cherrypicked specimens isn't going to show the full sides of everything. 3: Again, there's a reason I'm using both. I use 0.8 primarily, and 0.915 with its caveats. 4: Actually, no. That figure was obtained from Randomdinos' Scotty which used 0.915; using a 0.8 Scotty gets about 5.36 tonnes, the same as 0.8 Sue. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 21, 2020 20:41:30 GMT 5
More likely according to whom besides you? No, it really isn't. There are no other species of T.rex or G.Carolinii, as there are Triceratops and Mamenchisaurus in the proposed situation. MUCPv-ch1 is the largest good specimen (and indeed may be the largest due to 95's unreliability). The chart is fine. Then don't push 0.8 so much. If 0.8 is accurate, which it may not be. Randomdinos himself got 8700KG for scotty. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 21, 2020 21:13:06 GMT 5
1: More likely according to whom besides you? 2: No, it really isn't. There are no other species of T.rex or G.Carolinii, as there are Triceratops and Mamenchisaurus in the proposed situation. MUCPv-ch1 is the largest good specimen (and indeed may be the largest due to 95's unreliability). The chart is fine. 3: Then don't push 0.8 so much. 4: If 0.8 is accurate, which it may not be. Randomdinos himself got 8700KG for scotty. 1: Theropod, in addition to the publications I linked earlier on. 2: Just because they're the most reliable specimens doesn't necessarily mean they're representative of the entire matchup. If we're going to do Sue vs MUCPv-Ch1, we can aslo do USNM 6183 vs MUCPv-Ch1 or 95. But that is not what the chart shows. 3: 'Push'? Do you mean primarily use because it's seemingly more plausible? 4: Oh - yes, it is. I scaled from 8600 kg originally, which is what they seem to have gotten earlier. Both seem likely. Scotty's femur is 133 cm, and the average would be ~119 cm. 133 divided by 119 is 1.11764705882 8700 divided by 1.11764705882 divided by 1.11764705882 divided by 1.11764705882 is ~6.2 tonnes. So ~6.1-6.2 tonnes for the average based on Scotty, and this is generously assuming a build bulkier than several specimens as well as proportionately shorter legs and a likely too high density. |
|
|
|
Post by 6f5e4d on Jan 21, 2020 21:41:51 GMT 5
This fight is a big one, Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are around similar sizes but with Tyrannosaurus having a more powerful bite it can win.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 21, 2020 22:03:27 GMT 5
Well, not really - Giganotosaurus still has about a tonne of mass advantage even with the most conservative size for it and most liberal for Tyrannosaurus, and the serrations on its teeth make up for low bite force.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 22, 2020 0:59:30 GMT 5
You have linked no publications that I can see that relate to the subject. I will continue to use 0.915 as it is safer. They are though-Sue is a large, (almost?) fully grown Tyrannosaurus, and MUCPv-CH1 is an adult (likely) fully or nearly fully grown Giganotosaurus. . Yes, because 0,8 is just as plausible as 0.915 or different estimates. Soooo why are we dividing this 3 times? Even so, the likely weights for both also include the liberal and conservative weights. T.rex has the size advantage in this specific fight. I see no reason to place a thinner bodied and more gracile theropod as the larger of the 2 at maximum weight. At parity (and assuming MUCPv-95 is larger, which it may not be) T.rex is still large enough to beat the other dinosaur. I've voted for 50/50. You're not going to change my mind on the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 22, 2020 1:32:56 GMT 5
1: You have linked no publications that I can see that relate to the subject. I will continue to use 0.915 as it is safer. 2: They are though-Sue is a large, (almost?) fully grown Tyrannosaurus, and MUCPv-CH1 is an adult (likely) fully or nearly fully grown Giganotosaurus. . 3: Yes, because 0,8 is just as plausible as 0.915 or different estimates. 4: Soooo why are we dividing this 3 times? Even so, the likely weights for both also include the liberal and conservative weights. T.rex has the size advantage in this specific fight. I see no reason to place a thinner bodied and more gracile theropod as the larger of the 2 at maximum weight. At parity (and assuming MUCPv-95 is larger, which it may not be) T.rex is still large enough to beat the other dinosaur. I've voted for 50/50. You're not going to change my mind on the subject. 1: I have. Here you go once more: Janensch, 1947; Brochu, 2003; Bates et al., 2009 & Hutchinson et al., 2011. These do not give 0.8 specifically, but they do go into how Tyrannosaurus was considerably pneumatic even by theropod standards. 2: They are NOT representative of the entire matchup. The smallest adult Tyrannosaurus (that I know of) is USNM 6183 with a 99 cm femur, and the average is 119 cm. But as I've said, neither of those are included in the size chart, nor are (possible) sizes for MUCPv-95. On another note, (to my knowledge, I could very well be incorrect), there have been no studies on the maturity of either Giganotosaurus specimens. For all we know, they could still be subadults - we have been assuming a priori that they are adults. 3: 0.915 and 0.8 do not have equal probability, even though they are both possible, 0.8 is more likely due to the physiology and taxonomy of Tyrannosaurus. That's why I use it but acknowledge 0.915 as well. 4: That's how scaling works; maybe I should put it like this. Mass of smaller animal times dimensional increase times dimensional increase times dimensional increase is the mass of the larger animal. For example, let's say we have a 6 meter long, 900 kg Nanuqsaurus and we choose to scale it to 12 meters, or twice its dimensions. 900 times 2 times 2 times 2 equals 7200 kg. The same applies when scaling down, just start with the mass of the larger animal and divide it by the dimensional decrease 3 times. An example of this is the scaling above. Regarding size advantage, that does depend on 2 things, however: The estimates used for MUCPv-95, and the density. Even if we were to disregard MUCPv-95 entirely and use 0.915 for Tyrannosaurus, however, MUCPv-Ch1 would still have 1 to 1.4 tonnes of weight advantage over the average Tyrannosaurus. Sue and Scotty might be larger if we were just using MUCPv-Ch1, but then again, there are a plethora of smaller adults such as B-rex, Bucky, Wy-rex, USNM 6183, and Black Beauty that the Giganotosaurus holotype is SIGNIFICANTLY larger than. So yes, Tyrannosaurus might be larger at maximum if we were to use 0.915 and disregard MUCPv-95 entirely, but that's not the entire picture. And what is it, may I ask, about Giganotosaurus that makes it so inferior to Tyrannosaurus that it would need this size advantage for it to be 50/50? |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 22, 2020 2:54:19 GMT 5
Those are not linked, and they do not specify 0.8 like you implied. There is no reason for Tyrannosaurus not to have a higher density while also being very pneumatic. The chart is fine for what it is intended to do. It shows ONE SPECIMEN for each species as opposed to multiple. Each is the largest best-known specomen for each species. It works. There is no reason to assume they are subadults, as other large carnivorous dinosaurs of the same family and similar structure all have adult sizes of similar length. 0.915 is generally more commonly used and well accepted, which is why I err to it. AH. OK. That's the thing-the scenario DOES include maximum weights for the two most well known large specimens. Thus both weights are completely useable. We don't need to see the entire picture.Tyrannosaurus rex is more agile and cursorial than Giganotosaurus as per the statements made by Infinity Blade, and being more robust has a better chance of surviving/dominating the fight. I also voted for 50/50 BEFORE you started spouting out stuff about Giganotosaurus being larger than T.rex in general, when I considered (and still consider, mind you) Giganotosaurus the smaller of the 2. I never said anything about Giganotosaurus needing the proposed (but very possibly inaccurate) vast size advantage you have seen fit to bestow upon it to put it at 50/50. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 22, 2020 2:59:09 GMT 5
Here's also a size comp I put together. On top is average vs average using Scotty as a base, on the bottom is with AMNH 5027. Both Giganotosaurus are scaled to ~12.82 meters (the length that gets 7.85 tonnes), while the Scotty base is scaled to 119 cm femur and is ~5.7-6.2 tonnes, depending on density. The AMNH 5027 base was scaled assuming an equal femur length to CM 9380 (127 cm), then dividing the total length by the femur length and multiplying that by 119. So, just over 11.05 meters along the curves of the back, and just under 5 to ~5.7 tonnes, depending on the density. The size comparisons are not to scale with one another. Both Giganotosaurus side views are by GetAwayTrike, and both top views are by Hartman. AMNH 5027 is also by Hartman, and Scotty is by Randomdinos. Tyrannosaurus top view is modified from Hutchinson 2011, especially above where I widened it to account for Scotty's proportions.  |
|
