|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 22, 2020 3:17:38 GMT 5
1: 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. 2: 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. 3: 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. 4: 0.915 is generally more commonly used and well accepted, which is why I err to it. 5: 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. 6: 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. 1: Referenced, my bad. I did explicitly say or imply they did not specify 0.8, but 0.8 or similar densities is used for other relatively pneumatic dinosaurs (most avian dinosaurs are 0.8 and sauropods are 0.85), so I presume that's what theropod based 0.8 off of. 2: While it does work to show the best known specimens for each compared to the other, it again does not show all perspectives when it comes to a fight. Sue, while not a freak, is by no means an average Tyrannosaurus, and there are also many far smaller specimens. If you chose to use that chart as representative of the whole fight, that's practically discarding both the average of known Tyrannosaurus specimens and much smaller adults, in addition to the very real possibility that MUCPv-95. just as it could be literally the same as the holotype, could be larger. 3: There is - take Siats, for example. It is a megaraptoran tyrannosauroid, and its ilium is a minimum of 30% larger than its relative Aerosteon, which is IIRC 8-9 meters. And the Siats holotype is immature due to lack of vertebral fusion, so assuming similar proportions to relatives you have an 11 meter animal that is still growing! 4: Again, just because it's the most widely accepted does not necessarily mean it is true. Take the saurischian and ornithischian thing I linked earlier - the same very likely applies here. 5: Both weights are indeed useable, but you've gotta look at the big picture and take into account some more specimens that are not Sue. Tyrannosaurus is indeed more robust, but with the density issue the difference is almost negligible - at length parity, a 0.8 Sue and the holotype would weigh roughly the same, and then there are more gracile specimens which would weigh LESS at length parity. In addition, while Tyrannosaurus is more cursorial, theropod makes a good point that the difference cannot have been much at similar masses, and at these weights it's tough to be fast anyway. 6: I see, my bad. As for Giganotosaurus being the smaller of the 2, that's only really the case if it's a large Tyrannosaurus with 0.915 against MUCPv-Ch1. Even if we used 0.915 for Tyrannosaurus and assumed MUCPv-95 was the exact same size as the holotype with a big jaw (or in other words, were as generous to Tyrannosaurus as possible), Giganotosaurus would still hold 1 to 1.4 tonnes of mass advantage when using the averages of known specimens for both, and would be over 60-70% larger at lower sizes |
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Jan 22, 2020 3:18:23 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.  I just showed this masterpiece to the discord ....and yes the vast majority say its bad....really bad Flying Animals ForbiddenToday at 22:13 I can but I'd rather just not see that thing again it is straight retardation I've never said that about choc before but it is true in this case PaleosirToday at 22:14 giant giga outsizes small tyrannosaurus surprising JdangerousdinosaurToday at 22:14 my brain hurts Flying Animals ForbiddenToday at 22:15 scotty with a 119 cm femur when the real femur is at least 133 cm ''average'' Giganotosaurus represented by an oversized MUCPv-95 What are you doing lad ? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 22, 2020 3:24:26 GMT 5
Err.....they missed the point.
That Giganotosaurus is scaled to halfway masses between MUCPv-Ch1 and MUCPv-95, not meant to represent MUCPv-95. The 2 Tyrannosaurus specimens, meanwhile, are not meant to represent Scotty and AMNH 5027 as they are, but rather the mean/average femur length of 119 cm with 2 different specimens used as bases to account for variation in build.
I'd also appreciate it if you didn't go posting my work all willy-nilly, if possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Jan 22, 2020 3:46:52 GMT 5
Err.....they missed the point. That Giganotosaurus is scaled to halfway masses between MUCPv-Ch1 and MUCPv-95, not meant to represent MUCPv-95. The 2 Tyrannosaurus specimens, meanwhile, are not meant to represent Scotty and AMNH 5027 as they are, but rather the mean/average femur length of 119 cm with 2 different specimens used as bases to account for variation in build. I'd also appreciate it if you didn't go posting my work all willy-nilly, if possible. Then maybe not post your work on a public forum lad. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 22, 2020 3:50:58 GMT 5
Err.....they missed the point. That Giganotosaurus is scaled to halfway masses between MUCPv-Ch1 and MUCPv-95, not meant to represent MUCPv-95. The 2 Tyrannosaurus specimens, meanwhile, are not meant to represent Scotty and AMNH 5027 as they are, but rather the mean/average femur length of 119 cm with 2 different specimens used as bases to account for variation in build. I'd also appreciate it if you didn't go posting my work all willy-nilly, if possible. Then maybe not post your work on a public forum lad. Just ask me for permission first and you should be good to go. |
|
|
|
Post by Verdugo on Jan 22, 2020 6:45:19 GMT 5
I'd also appreciate it if you didn't go posting my work all willy-nilly, if possible. It isn't really 'your work' tbh. The original skeletals are from Scott Hartman and GetAwayTrike, you merely resized the skeletals and put them together. If you don't want people to download and re-post it, then don't post it on a public forum where anyone can see, download and do whatever they want with it. Considering how it's not even 100% 'your work', i don't see what the fuss is about here. Or if you're concerned with the way people butchered 'your work', then perhaps you should try putting more research and integrity into it while taking your personal and clearly skewed biases out of it. This post from Scott Hartman is applicable to you, perhaps you should consider reading it, just food for thought:  Anyway, i know you don't give a crap about the rule of good science and good methodology. At this point, you are just either deliberately and knowingly posting misinformation or you are just having some serious comprehension issues. If it is the former then it is unfortunate that the forum is not well-moderated which allows the quantity of information to take over quality ones. I don't really mind if someone posted misinformation simply because they genuinely don't know well about that subject. That is perfectly fine, no one really knows everything. But when someone deliberately keep posting misinformation and even desperately keep digging up even more misinformation in order to confirm one's biases despite having been told countless times that those information is not appropriate, that's when it really gets on my nerve. Anyway, i had my fair share dealing with people like you since the early days of Carnivora and i have other concerns now so i could not be bothered with petty things like this. Considering this my last post to you on subjects like this. I found you to be quite reasonable on subjects that you do not have strong interests in, but unfortunately for subjects that you're interested in, you seems to be unable to control your biases and discuss matters with any shreds of reasonableness. If it is the latter, have you tried seeking professional helps? It might help you out, like really! |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 22, 2020 7:19:11 GMT 5
Since I am a moderator, I feel the need to step in and say something regarding this.
Make no mistake, I'm all for quality over quantity and I do remain skeptical over the accuracy over a lot of the size comparisons dinosauria101 posts on here. The reason why I don't really do a whole lot in the way of having a response to them is that, in spite of my skepticism, I am admittedly not very well-versed in the specifics of extinct animal specimen size, the creation of scientific reconstructions, and the creation of size comparisons, so I can't really bring forth any arguments against them if I find something fishy. I'm the kind of guy who, if I don't have a real argument to something I find off about and don't know enough to construct an argument, I'm going to keep my mouth shut lest I needlessly make a fool of myself. This is something I let people like theropod or jdangerousdinosaur to discuss, since they know more about these than I do.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 22, 2020 8:00:46 GMT 5
I'd also appreciate it if you didn't go posting my work all willy-nilly, if possible. 1: It isn't really 'your work' tbh. The original skeletals are from Scott Hartman and GetAwayTrike, you merely resized the skeletals and put them together. If you don't want people to download and re-post it, then don't post it on a public forum where anyone can see, download and do whatever they want with it. Considering how it's not even 100% 'your work', i don't see what the fuss is about here. Or if you're concerned with the way people butchered 'your work', then perhaps you should try putting more research and integrity into it while taking your personal and clearly skewed biases out of it. 2: This post from Scott Hartman is applicable to you, perhaps you should consider reading it, just food for thought: Anyway, i know you don't give a crap about the rule of good science and good methodology. At this point, you are just either deliberately and knowingly posting misinformation or you are just having some serious comprehension issues. 3: deliberately keep posting misinformation and even desperately keep digging up even more misinformation in order to confirm one's biases despite having been told countless times that those information is not appropriate 1: I know the SKELETALS are not mine - that's why I credited the authors. The size comparison however is. 2: I am fully aware we don't really have a statistically valid sample size for either animal here - that is why I did say the averages of known specimens, though I may have forgotten to mention it at times. Nor am I trying to deliberately post misinformation; there is, as previously discussed, a basis for why what was posted was posted. I think, just some WORDING errors have happened at this point. To get this out of the way, we do not have a statistically valid sample for either and likely never will. What I am using is the NEXT BEST THING, the average of known specimens. And to top that off, this whole thing was based on a misunderstanding of what the size comparison was. They were under the impression that it was Scotty and AMNH 5027 unmodified compared to a random Giganotosaurus, when it actually is, as previously stated, Scotty and AMNH 5027 used as a base for the mean size of the known specimens and a Giganotosaurus scaled to the mean estimated mass of the 2 known specimens. I don't see how that's bad science or methodology. 3: No, this isn't just random stuff I made up. I used the mean femur length for Tyrannosaurus in theropod's post on this thread as well as the Theropod Database, and simply used the mean of the 2 Giganotosaurus specimens. I don't think this is either of the things you suggested as opposed to just a miscommunication error. Maybe I could state more often what these assumptions and scaling are based on as well as state the average of known specimens instead of the average? |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 22, 2020 8:08:18 GMT 5
Okay, but I may be able to say this.
I think the "no statistically valid sample" point was meant to convey the fact that, while the average of known specimens may technically be the next best thing, it's so far away from the thing that's immediately better than it (an actual valid sample size, like we have with some modern species) that it's really not anything meaningful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 22, 2020 9:34:27 GMT 5
If you post something on the internet you are subject to criticism. It's really rather simple. He doesn't need your permission to get the opinion of others about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 22, 2020 9:36:24 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. I just showed this masterpiece to the discord ....and yes the vast majority say its bad....really bad Flying Animals ForbiddenToday at 22:13 I can but I'd rather just not see that thing again it is straight retardation I've never said that about choc before but it is true in this case PaleosirToday at 22:14 giant giga outsizes small tyrannosaurus surprising JdangerousdinosaurToday at 22:14 my brain hurts Flying Animals ForbiddenToday at 22:15 scotty with a 119 cm femur when the real femur is at least 133 cm ''average'' Giganotosaurus represented by an oversized MUCPv-95 What are you doing lad ? WHEEE
What a surprise, using an unreliable dentary to get a massive jawbone plus a tiny Tyrannosaurus adult means that the giga is bigger. Wheeeeeee.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 22, 2020 9:37:34 GMT 5
I'd also appreciate it if you didn't go posting my work all willy-nilly, if possible. So I assume you asked GAT and the other artist for permission to use their art for this skeletal? You haven't done anything aside from resized other artist's work. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 22, 2020 9:42:39 GMT 5
That does not necessarily mean T.rex follows other relatively pneumatic dinosaurs in density. We don't need to see the average of the fight because maximum sizes based off of good specimens are included. And? T.rex adults that are 11 meters are still not fully grown. Scotty is not much older than Sue but he outweighs and outlengths her. There's no reason to assume that Giganotosaurus specimens currently found are juvenile when we have relatives that are adults that are of a similar size to the holotype. Likely according to what source aside from this forum? Again, assuming the density is 0.8. Averages of a dinosaur with over 20 good specimens vs Average of a dinosaur with only 1 good specimen and a potential jawbone. The average is not necessarily being used here as indicated by the main page. |
|
|
|
Post by Verdugo on Jan 22, 2020 9:59:29 GMT 5
2: I am fully aware we don't really have a statistically valid sample size for either animal here - that is why I did say the averages of known specimens, though I may have forgotten to mention it at times. Nor am I trying to deliberately post misinformation; there is, as previously discussed, a basis for why what was posted was posted. I think, just some WORDING errors have happened at this point. To get this out of the way, we do not have a statistically valid sample for either and likely never will. What I am using is the NEXT BEST THING, the average of known specimens. And to top that off, this whole thing was based on a misunderstanding of what the size comparison was. They were under the impression that it was Scotty and AMNH 5027 unmodified compared to a random Giganotosaurus, when it actually is, as previously stated, Scotty and AMNH 5027 used as a base for the mean size of the known specimens and a Giganotosaurus scaled to the mean estimated mass of the 2 known specimens. I don't see how that's bad science or methodology. 3: No, this isn't just random stuff I made up. I used the mean femur length for Tyrannosaurus in theropod's post on this thread as well as the Theropod Database, and simply used the mean of the 2 Giganotosaurus specimens. I don't think this is either of the things you suggested as opposed to just a miscommunication error. Maybe I could state more often what these assumptions and scaling are based on as well as state the average of known specimens instead of the average? Sigh. If you genuinely think you're not deliberately posting misinformation then i think it's only fair if i am being blatant clear to you what the issues really are. What's the point you're trying to get at here? You're comparing 'average' T-rex from a sample of 16+ years old specimens of unknown sex and from unknown population (as Hartman pointed out, the T-rex specimens could very well be from slightly different periods in the span of ~2 million years) and you compared that to just ONE random Giganotosaurus specimens (i'll talk about MUCPv95 later) of unknown age, unknown sex, from an unknown population and you argue that somehow Giganotosaurus has size advantage and is larger than T-rex on 'average'. Don't you see any holes with your logic here? You're making a clearly apple-to-orange comparison and drew a conclusion based on that. Your comparison is like if someone gathers a sample of Lions of 3+ years old, of unknown sex, from everywhere in Africa ,from the Pleistocene to modern days and compares that to a single, completely random Tiger (could be either Bengal, Siberian, or Sumatran tigers,...) from modern day and argues that Tiger is larger on average and has size advantage. Now to the elephant in the room, MUCPv95. It's a fragmentary piece of dentary from an animal that could be very well over 12 m in length. Fragmentary pieces of cranial materials don't scale isometrically with one another, it just don't. Any attempts to isometrically scale MUCPv95 based on the holotype is just bad science, period. Fragmentary cranial materials don't just scale well with body sizes at all. There is really not much you can do with MUCPv95 at all. You can't do a regression because outside of MUCPv95, you only have one Giganotosarus specimen to go on so you have no data to make a regression. I seriously can't think of any other ways to estimate the size of MUCPv95 that do not involve bad science. There is pretty much nothing to go on here. You also cannot treat the size estimates of MUCPv95 like as if it is on the same degree of validity as Sue and Scotty. Sue is basically complete, and it has been estimated rigorously multiple times, both in peer-reviewed literature and by professionals outside of peer-reviewed. There isn't really to discuss here regarding Sue size. While Scotty isn't quite as complete as Sue, it's still something like 60-70% complete AFAIK, it's actually comparable to Giganotosaurus's holotype in term of completeness mind you (who is still one of the most complete Carcharodontosaurid). And Scotty does have post cranial materials such as femur so that you can at least you can actually run some forms of regression (which is exactly what Persons 2019 did). On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing you can do with a piece of fragmentary dentary that does not involve bad science. Have you even looked at the original materials to see if MUCPv95 is really as big as you think it is? Calvo 1998 stated that MUCPv95 is 8% bigger than the holotype, but never really explain which metrics they used to come up with that 8% (8% bigger based on what? length? width?...). AFAIK, the only direct comparison with metrics in literature is in Coria 2006, this is where the 2% came from: The min depth of the holotype dentary is 135mm while MUCPv95 is 138 mm. Based on these measurements, here is the comparison:  Above is holotype, below is MUCPv95 The holotype is from Coria 1995. MUCPv95 is from Calvo 1998. Measurement is based on Coria 2006's reference to min dentary depth. Both are Left dentaries and the Lateral side (because that is the only figure available for the holotpe) Let be honest here, does it really look like it's 8% bigger here? MUCPv95 is longer, about 8-9% so, but this extra length is most likely due to the fact that MUCPv95 is more complete in its dentary preservation, as Franoys pointed out here.  I'm not entirely clear where Franoys got that information from but what he said sounds appropriate based on the comparison here. MUCPv95 is not larger than the holotype in any dimensions, its min dentary depth, mandibular symphysis depth are all very similar here. Really can't see any indications why MUCPv95 would be any bigger than the holotype. I can't see how Hartman came up with his 6.5% cause it does appear a bit too generous. Hartman himself did stress that 6.5% is about as 'upper-bound' as he can get, which is fair enough. Honestly, just the fact that someone actually used this as an argument for their Giganotozilla is nonsensical. Is it as clear as day for you now why the stuffs you posted made little senses? I hope there are not any misunderstandings here and i hope you actually did not try to deliberately post misinformation. I'm perfectly fine with honest/genuine mistakes so if that is the case, i think i did try to explain everything as clearly as i could here. As of now, i find it blatantly clear that the largest T-rex specimens such Sue and Scotty are more massive than the largest specimen of Giganotosaurus that we have, which is the holotype. There aren't any ways to argue around it here, regardless of whether you like it or not. Does that mean T-rex is larger as a species? No, it does not. We Just Don't Know and we have no data (statistic) to prove either way who is really bigger as a species. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 22, 2020 15:52:33 GMT 5
It wasn't even 8% I was using; just 6.5%. The only way MUCPv-95 could be larger is if it's an animal with a smaller jaw proportionately. And I did say it was possible for the holotype and MUCPv-95 to be the exact same size; the 6.5 was just used to get an idea
I agree that Sue and Scotty could for sure be more massive depending on the densities. However, if you use 0.8, they'd be pretty similar.
|
|
