|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 22, 2020 16:03:36 GMT 5
1: That does not necessarily mean T.rex follows other relatively pneumatic dinosaurs in density. 2: We don't need to see the average of the fight because maximum sizes based off of good specimens are included. 3: 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. 4: Likely according to what source aside from this forum? 5: Again, assuming the density is 0.8. 6: 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. 1: They're just used as a rough guide AFAIK; the density could be higher or lower. 2: If you don't want to use the averages of known specimens, why don't we discuss from a neutral point of view what specimens of T rex the Giganotosaurus specimens would beat or lose to? 3: Well, Horner and Paidan (2004) disagree with you there; they state Tyrannosaurus to be virtually full grown between 15 and 18 and this is consistent with some specimens such as B-rex. And I didn't say juvenile, but it's entirely possible that both specimens for Giga may still have some growing. 4: The publications I mentioned earlier, as well as the physiology and taxonomy of Tyrannosaurus 5: Which is plausible 6: If you like then, we can drop all averages and simply discuss which Tyrannosaurus specimens the 2 Giganotosaurus specimens would beat and lose to. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 22, 2020 16:08:00 GMT 5
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.
Again, they kinda missed the point. The comparison is not what they thought it was and that's why they're saying those things. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 22, 2020 16:12:28 GMT 5
Alright, regarding usage of my images, I would not really mind if it was posted elsewhere on the net with no negative implications for me.
However, what I do take issue with is the kind of thing that happened in this thread; seemingly posting it somewhere to get something along the lines of a reaction like that after which was posted all hell broke loose.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 22, 2020 21:03:25 GMT 5
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.
Again, they kinda missed the point. The comparison is not what they thought it was and that's why they're saying those things. It's just not a good comparison |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 22, 2020 21:10:06 GMT 5
Again, they kinda missed the point. The comparison is not what they thought it was and that's why they're saying those things. It's just not a good comparison Alright, I'll remake it with a couple of different specimens to compare to. That way, we don't have to use an average so much as deciding which specimens beat which specimens. I will make a comp with AMNH 5027, MUCPv-Ch1, and MUCPv-95 for sure, but not sure on what other specimens to use. Any suggestions? |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 22, 2020 21:12:22 GMT 5
1: They're just used as a rough guide AFAIK; the density could be higher or lower.Exactly, which is why you should stop pushing 0.8 like it's the truly correct density. Well, it's pretty obvious which specimens would win or lose to the Giganotosaurus specimens (MUCPv-ch1, not using 95 because it's too fragmentary). THe maximum weights of both extracted from well-known specimens are used here, and that is totally applicable. And yet Sue, Trix, and Scotty are all larger than specimens in the 'teens. It is entirely possible that T.rex may still have some growing to do as well. Which doesn't necessarily prove that 0.8 is the best density to go with. But may be wrong. The *1 Giganotosaurus specimen would beat and lose to. I'm ignoring MUCPv-95 on the basis of how fragmentary it is. I don't want or need to discuss which specimens of T.rex Giganotosaurus would win or lose to. I already know. The main reason i'm posting is your zealous fervor to prove Giganotosaurus is the larger carnivore (which it is probably not). |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 22, 2020 21:13:24 GMT 5
It's just not a good comparison Alright, I'll remake it with a couple of different specimens to compare to. That way, we don't have to use an average so much as deciding which specimens beat which specimens. I will make a comp with AMNH 5027, MUCPv-Ch1, and MUCPv-95 for sure, but not sure on what other specimens to use. Any suggestions? Scotty Stan Sue Trix MOR 1126 against MUCPv-95 (6.5%)
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 22, 2020 21:21:35 GMT 5
1: They're just used as a rough guide AFAIK; the density could be higher or lower.1: Exactly, which is why you should stop pushing 0.8 like it's the truly correct density. 2: Well, it's pretty obvious which specimens would win or lose to the Giganotosaurus specimens (MUCPv-ch1, not using 95 because it's too fragmentary). THe maximum weights of both extracted from well-known specimens are used here, and that is totally applicable. 3: And yet Sue, Trix, and Scotty are all larger than specimens in the 'teens. It is entirely possible that T.rex may still have some growing to do as well. 4: Which doesn't necessarily prove that 0.8 is the best density to go with. 5: But may be wrong. 6: The *1 Giganotosaurus specimen would beat and lose to. I'm ignoring MUCPv-95 on the basis of how fragmentary it is. I don't want or need to discuss which specimens of T.rex Giganotosaurus would win or lose to. I already know. The main reason i'm posting is your zealous fervor to prove Giganotosaurus is the larger carnivore (which it is probably not). 1: I'm not (trying to) push it like it is correct. It is the MOST PLAUSIBLE; 0.915 could be the correct density as well and I never denied that. 2: You can disregard it if you so choose. 3: What do you mean by that? Different Tyrannosaurus had different growth rates; take Stan, for instance. It's somewhat larger than B-rex, yet the same age. 4: It doesn't PROVE it, but it does lean towards it. 5: It could very well be, but 0.8 is MOST LIKELY. Not guaranteed, just most likely. 6: We have no way of knowing which was the larger theropod due to sample sizes. However, MUCPv-Ch1 seems to be larger than a good bit of adult Tyrannosaurus specimens and that's why I thought it was bigger. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 22, 2020 21:25:53 GMT 5
Alright, I'll remake it with a couple of different specimens to compare to. That way, we don't have to use an average so much as deciding which specimens beat which specimens. I will make a comp with AMNH 5027, MUCPv-Ch1, and MUCPv-95 for sure, but not sure on what other specimens to use. Any suggestions? 1: Scotty 2: Stan 3: Sue 4: Trix 5: MOR 1126 against MUCPv-95 (6.5%)
1: Yep 2: Yep 3: Yep 4: Yep, BUT there is no skeletal of it. Paleosir (from Deviantart, SIW seems to agree with this) tells me the vertebral spacing of the mount is too great and that the real animal is likely around Stan's size. I'll use a skeletal of Sue as a stand in and scale it to Stan's size for Trix. 5: Not really an option - the concept of MOR 1126 being 10% larger than Sue was a wild field guess by Jack Horner, and the specimen is undescribed. There are no usable measurements of it until - if at all - it gets a proper description. For this reason, while it could well be in Sue's size range, it's also entirely possible it was a lot smaller. I also think I'll make some comps with Bucky, B-rex, USNM 6183, and Black Beauty with MUCPv-Ch1 and MUCPv-95 as well. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 22, 2020 22:02:34 GMT 5
Yet no publication specifically mentions 0.8 as the most plausible density. Well, it's the responsible thing to do in this debate. Exactly. According to...? See 4 and 1. Well, it isn't. Sue and Scotty are most definitely larger. If you're so critical of sample size now, then why did you extrapolate an average from 2 specimens (one of which is a dentary) and then compare it to a species known from various specimens ranging from young adult (just out of sub-adult) to older specimens? It's not a good comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 22, 2020 22:03:54 GMT 5
1: Scotty 2: Stan 3: Sue 4: Trix 5: MOR 1126 against MUCPv-95 (6.5%)
1: Yep 2: Yep 3: Yep IIRC Trix is bulky like sue but actually smaller So it's a perfect match for the holy dentary. I also think I'll make some comps with Bucky, B-rex, USNM 6183, and Black Beauty with MUCPv-Ch1 and MUCPv-95 as well. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 22, 2020 22:20:04 GMT 5
1: Yet no publication specifically mentions 0.8 as the most plausible density. 2: Well, it's the responsible thing to do in this debate. 3: Exactly. 4: According to...? 5: Well, it isn't. Sue and Scotty are most definitely larger. If you're so critical of sample size now, then why did you extrapolate an average from 2 specimens (one of which is a dentary) and then compare it to a species known from various specimens ranging from young adult (just out of sub-adult) to older specimens? It's not a good comparison. 1: They don't go specifically into it; it's just extrapolated from pneumaticity in related dinosaurs 2: It's not IRRESPONSIBLE to not disregard MUCPv-95, but I wouldn't hold it against you if you were to do so; to each their own I guess 3: This does not refute the possibility that either one of the Giganotosaurus specimens could still have had growing to do. 4: Extrapolated from related dinos, as I said, and theropod seems to trust it. He's also studying for this thing, so I think he can be considered a reasonably reliable source. 5: Couple things regarding that: -Sue and Scotty could well be larger than MUCPv-Ch1, but this depends on the density. Assuming a more likely (but not set in stone, 0.915 could well be the right density) density of 0.8, they're about the same size as MUCPv-Ch1. -I was using the average of KNOWN specimens, and there may have been a miscommunication. When I referenced sample size, I was referring to you saying Giganotosaurus was likely not larger than Tyrannosaurus, and I meant that we have no way to know which was larger because we will almost certainly never discover very large or record size individuals. I suppose this is open to interpretation, but to me, larger does not necessarily mean bigger at maximum; mean sizes of known specimens are an important factor too, and the Giganotosaurus holotype seems to be larger than quite a few adult Tyrannosaurus. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 22, 2020 22:21:23 GMT 5
1: Yep 2: Yep 3: Yep 1: IIRC Trix is bulky like sue but actually smaller 2: So it's a perfect match for the holy dentary. I also think I'll make some comps with Bucky, B-rex, USNM 6183, and Black Beauty with MUCPv-Ch1 and MUCPv-95 as well. 1: So just use a Sue skeletal scaled to Stan's dimensions as per my original suggestion? 2: Not really - MUCPv-95 is described and we know what its measurements are. This isn't the case for MOR 1126 |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 22, 2020 23:14:21 GMT 5
First off, here's USNM 6183 (17 years of age, 99 cm femur, based on LACM 23845) vs MUCPv-95 (13.2 meters axial length, 8.6 tonnes). Scalebar is 1 meter, skeletals by Franoys and GetAwayTrike.  |
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Jan 23, 2020 2:10:38 GMT 5
Do we really need any more of your size comparisons at this point though ? This whole site is full of them. Many of them with questionable accuracy and that has been brought to your attention plenty of times now. You can cherry pick the specimens all you want to and you can use older estimates all you want to but it does not change what everyone else seems to know and mostly accept apart from you. Right now with the most current and most reliable data Tyrannosaurus is the overall largest theropod currently known. This has been said to you what seems to be over 150 times. I have told you countless times others have told you on here others have told you this on other forums and the whole theropoda discord server a whole community that is very strict when it comes to accuracy has told this time and time and time again. You just do not want to accept this. You are letting your emotions and your bias get in the way of raw data and when it comes to these kinds of discussions that is just not the best way to go about this. (comparison created by Maxilla Diagrams from Franoys)  You have been told i dont know how many times that Frans work is the best stuff that we have right now by many people who know far better than you do. You say Frans work is to conservitive but im sure if he had Carnosaurs such as Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus out massing Tyrannosaurus you would be completely fine with his work. I have told you all of this before and yes at this point you are quite clearly just being ignorant. This is the biggest issue people have with you and why you have been banned from the Theropoda discord and then the GDI server. You keep bringing up averages all the time yet it has been pointed out to you so many times that with the little fossil evidence that we have there is no reliable averages for either of these animals. You want to convince others that Giganotosaurus is larger than Tyrannosaurus on average yet we have no way of knowing this and there is nothing concrete suggesting it right now. There is nothing wrong at all with comparing either Sue or Scotty with the Giganotosaurus holotype. Scotty is a well preserved specimen and is pretty much at the same level of completness to the Giga holotype while Sue is the best preserved Tyrannosaurus specimen. You just do not like them being compared to the Giganotosaurus holotype because they are larger than it is its just that simple. Scott Hartman compared Sue to the holotype no problem thats because there is no problem with it. Its a perfectly fair comparison to make and he has no bias for or against any animal invloved and if he does well he does not let it get in the way of his work. You realy should try doing that sometime. Yes it feels pointless at the point saying this for the 100th time but sadly more and more people are visiting this site to learn about these animals and to get the best and most accurate infomation. I cant stop them coming here but i can atleast pick apart your often biased views and thankfully its not just me anymore doing it. Its very possible in the future our views on this will change. We will follow what the data shows us thats just science. But right now Tyrannosaurus is the overal largest theropod going from sheer mass. |
|
