|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 3, 2020 17:18:02 GMT 5
For elosha, regarding MUCPv-95, it's just a jaw bone. It could belong to just another 12.4 meter and 7.1 tonne Giganotosaurus with just a big jaw, to a Giganotosaurus that is MORE than 8% larger than MUCPv-Ch1 with a proportionately smaller head and jaw. Hartman's best fit can help us get an idea. Eh, don’t think so. Theropod size chart made by Franoys. May help you even more. Are you referring to MUCPv-Ch1's size? 6.8 tonnes seems a little on the conservative side as skeletals which get that result seem a bit thin (Franoys' top view may be a bit too thin in the head/neck area and the belly of Hartman's is sucked in). I prefer GetAwayTrike's Giganotosaurus; it's not skinny and gets about 7.1 tonnes for the holotype. Linked it in the OP. |
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Feb 3, 2020 20:18:36 GMT 5
Eh, don’t think so. Theropod size chart made by Franoys. May help you even more. Are you referring to MUCPv-Ch1's size? 6.8 tonnes seems a little on the conservative side as skeletals which get that result seem a bit thin (Franoys' top view may be a bit too thin in the head/neck area and the belly of Hartman's is sucked in). I prefer GetAwayTrike's Giganotosaurus; it's not skinny and gets about 7.1 tonnes for the holotype. Linked it in the OP. Carnosaurs weren’t as robust as Tyrannosaurs, here’s another chart:  |
|
|
|
Post by maxilla on Feb 3, 2020 21:07:51 GMT 5
For elosha, regarding MUCPv-95, it's just a jaw bone. It could belong to just another 12.4 meter and 7.1 tonne Giganotosaurus with just a big jaw, to a Giganotosaurus that is MORE than 8% larger than MUCPv-Ch1 with a proportionately smaller head and jaw. Hartman's best fit can help us get an idea. Which is, objectively, oversized unless you assume negative skull allometry, which is not only without basis but directly opposed to the general trends. The +8% size is based on the length of the dentary specimen, but it preserves more alveoli so that's a useless metric. Numerous people have said this to you. Almost word for word. I am quite literally looking at three instances of this being mentioned to you on Discord as I type this. I'll quote Franoys: |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 3, 2020 21:18:36 GMT 5
For elosha, regarding MUCPv-95, it's just a jaw bone. It could belong to just another 12.4 meter and 7.1 tonne Giganotosaurus with just a big jaw, to a Giganotosaurus that is MORE than 8% larger than MUCPv-Ch1 with a proportionately smaller head and jaw. Hartman's best fit can help us get an idea. Eh, don’t think so. Theropod size chart made by Franoys. May help you even more. Wrong Giganotosaurus specimen on the chart, but even with MuCPv-95 Giganotosaurus at most only weighs as much as sue (and is probably less). |
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Feb 3, 2020 21:28:15 GMT 5
Eh, don’t think so. Theropod size chart made by Franoys. May help you even more. Wrong Giganotosaurus specimen on the chart, but even with MuCPv-95 Giganotosaurus at most only weighs as much as sue (and is probably less). Not according to Franoys.  |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 3, 2020 21:36:26 GMT 5
1: Which is, objectively, oversized unless you assume negative skull allometry, which is not only without basis but directly opposed to the general trends. 2: The +8% size is based on the length of the dentary specimen, but it preserves more alveoli so that's a useless metric. 3: Numerous people have said this to you. Almost word for word. I am quite literally looking at three instances of this being mentioned to you on Discord as I type this. I'll quote Franoys: 1: Negative skull allometry is not baseless. For instance, Stan the Tyrannosaurus (140 cm skull, 6.69 tonnes when scaling to Hartman's skeletal) has a significantly larger head than CM 9380, which is at least 7 tonnes; I see no reason why negative skull allometry couldn't occur between the 2 Giganotosaurus specimens. Not to mention, the left dentary of Tyrannotitan MPEF-PV 1156 is 95 mm deep, and the right one 110 mm deep. Just as many have used this and similar examples to show MUCPv-95 could be the same size as the holotype, it works the other way too. MUCPv-95 could also well be the smaller, shallower part of the dentary of its owner, and the rest of the animal could easily scale up 8 plus percent with similar proportions to the holotype. Heck, it could even be plain old sexual dimorphism; MUCPv-Ch1 could be either a male or a female, and MUCPv-95 could be the other gender which happens to have a proportionately smaller head and jaw. It is impossible to tell if this is the case, but it's very much on the table. 2: I am aware of that; that's why I was factoring in possible negative allometry when I mentioned it. 3: What they said was that there was no way to figure out exactly how much bigger MUCPv-95 would be if it exhibited negative skull allometry. I even remember Luigi Gaskell stating that MUCPv-95 being 8 plus percent larger than the holotype with a smaller jaw was not impossible given population dynamics, but that it was impossible to tell if this was the case. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 3, 2020 21:38:37 GMT 5
Are you referring to MUCPv-Ch1's size? 6.8 tonnes seems a little on the conservative side as skeletals which get that result seem a bit thin (Franoys' top view may be a bit too thin in the head/neck area and the belly of Hartman's is sucked in). I prefer GetAwayTrike's Giganotosaurus; it's not skinny and gets about 7.1 tonnes for the holotype. Linked it in the OP. Carnosaurs weren’t as robust as Tyrannosaurs, here’s another chart: Yes, but the belly of the 6.8 tonne Giganotosaurus was sort of sucked in. GAT's 7.1 tonnes is not all that far off from 6.8 tonnes, but I do think it's more likely given the belly isn't sucked in. |
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Feb 3, 2020 21:49:24 GMT 5
Wrong Giganotosaurus specimen on the chart, but even with MuCPv-95 Giganotosaurus at most only weighs as much as sue (and is probably less). Not according to Franoys. Thats the holotype specimen lad the best preserved giga specimen not MUCPV-95 thats just a single jaw fragment. |
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Feb 3, 2020 21:51:14 GMT 5
Carnosaurs weren’t as robust as Tyrannosaurs, here’s another chart: Yes, but the belly of the 6.8 tonne Giganotosaurus was sort of sucked in. GAT's 7.1 tonnes is not all that far off from 6.8 tonnes, but I do think it's more likely given the belly isn't sucked in. Ok, but Carnosaurs were way more lightweight. To be as heavy as Sue it would need to be like 14 meters long and we don’t have evidence of that. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 3, 2020 21:53:58 GMT 5
Yes, but the belly of the 6.8 tonne Giganotosaurus was sort of sucked in. GAT's 7.1 tonnes is not all that far off from 6.8 tonnes, but I do think it's more likely given the belly isn't sucked in. Ok, but Carnosaurs were way more lightweight. To be as heavy as Sue it would need to be like 14 meters long and we don’t have evidence of that. No, not necessarily. Scaling GAT's Giganotosaurus (it's 13.03 meters standing length like this) up 6.5% gets 8.6 tonnes, about 200 kg more than Sue. |
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Feb 3, 2020 22:01:35 GMT 5
Ok, but Carnosaurs were way more lightweight. To be as heavy as Sue it would need to be like 14 meters long and we don’t have evidence of that. No, not necessarily. Scaling GAT's Giganotosaurus (it's 13.03 meters standing length like this) up 6.5% gets 8.6 tonnes, about 200 kg more than Sue. Actually no. Sue weighed 8.8 tonnes. According to this chart. Scotty was a bit heavier  |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 3, 2020 22:02:43 GMT 5
No, not necessarily. Scaling GAT's Giganotosaurus (it's 13.03 meters standing length like this) up 6.5% gets 8.6 tonnes, about 200 kg more than Sue. Actually no. Sue weighed 8.8 tonnes. Depends on what metric you prefer to use for her - estimates range from 8.8 tonnes (Franoys) to 7.3 (Campione and Evans 2014). I personally feel Sue was closer to 8 than 9, but to each their own I suppose. EDIT: denis, regarding your edit, Scotty isn't necessarily bigger than Sue - about the same size as Sue. This article makes a very good point about it: blogs.scientificamerican.com/laelaps/is-scotty-the-biggest-t-rex-maybe-not/As does theropod, here (link) |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 3, 2020 22:42:07 GMT 5
1: Negative skull allometry is not baseless. For instance, Stan the Tyrannosaurus (140 cm skull, 7722 kg by Franoys) has a proportionately larger skull than Sue; when scaled to Sue's 152 cm skull, the animal would be over 9.8 tonnes, 1.4 tonnes more than Sue. Thus, Sue has a proportionately smaller head, and this is an example of negative allometry. The disparity is even greater if we trust Hartman's Stan; I see no reason why negative skull allometry couldn't occur between the 2 Giganotosaurus specimens. Is this seriously the sample size your are using? Two specimens (from an animal that isn't even a close relative)? How about (as a bare minimum) gathering enough data for a skull length:total length plot of various Tyrannosaurus specimens before drawing such conclusions? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 3, 2020 22:46:29 GMT 5
1: Negative skull allometry is not baseless. For instance, Stan the Tyrannosaurus (140 cm skull, 7722 kg by Franoys) has a proportionately larger skull than Sue; when scaled to Sue's 152 cm skull, the animal would be over 9.8 tonnes, 1.4 tonnes more than Sue. Thus, Sue has a proportionately smaller head, and this is an example of negative allometry. The disparity is even greater if we trust Hartman's Stan; I see no reason why negative skull allometry couldn't occur between the 2 Giganotosaurus specimens. Is this seriously the sample size your are using? Two specimens (from an animal that isn't even a close relative)? How about (as a bare minimum) gathering enough data for a skull length:total length plot of various Tyrannosaurus specimens before drawing such conclusions? It's just to show that dentary size can vary dramatically between animals; the Tyrannotitan example I gave may be helpful as well. I can try and dig up some data from, say, Allosaurus fragilis since it's pretty well known and is more closely related to Giga however. |
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Feb 3, 2020 23:06:10 GMT 5
Is this seriously the sample size your are using? Two specimens (from an animal that isn't even a close relative)? How about (as a bare minimum) gathering enough data for a skull length:total length plot of various Tyrannosaurus specimens before drawing such conclusions? It's just to show that dentary size can vary dramatically between animals; the Tyrannotitan example I gave may be helpful as well. I can try and dig up some data from, say, Allosaurus fragilis since it's pretty well known and is more closely related to Giga however. Uh no. Tyrannotitan was far more closely related Allosaurus was a Carnosaur and was a relative of Giganotosaurus but not as close as Tyrannotitan and Giganotosaurus. |
|
