|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 3, 2020 23:07:16 GMT 5
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. That's true. However, Allosaurus is probably a good reference since it is related. Just not as much as Tyrannotitan. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 3, 2020 23:21:18 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. Wrong Giganotosaurus again. Both specimens in the charts you've posted are MuCPV-ch1, the holotype, which is around a ton-ton and a half less than Sue. We are discussing MuCPV-95, which is a dentary that is 2.2%-6.5% larger than the holotype. Nothing you've posted contradicts my (most likely correct) statement that MuCPv-95 was at most as heavy as sue and probably was a fair deal lighter. |
|
|
|
Post by maxilla on Feb 4, 2020 2:16:42 GMT 5
The blatant bias, favoritism, and anti-intellectualism being demonstrated is disappointing but not unexpected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Feb 4, 2020 3:30:47 GMT 5
Why would you even use allosaurus....just
Wat
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 4, 2020 3:43:03 GMT 5
It's not the primary basis at all; it's just to get an idea. Could well be different in Giganotosaurus than Allosaurus fragilis.
TBH we don't really have a good basis for this from most big carnosaurs due to lacking remains.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Feb 4, 2020 9:39:28 GMT 5
I....i just...what
Why you're even remotely thinking about Allosaurus to "get an idea" is already baffling in the first place.
Uh yeah that's not right at all. We have a good idea of what the large carnosaurs looked like because there's alot of material on more than one species. Do you even know what you are saying?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 4, 2020 17:19:24 GMT 5
1: I....i just...what Why you're even remotely thinking about Allosaurus to "get an idea" is already baffling in the first place. 2: Uh yeah that's not right at all. We have a good idea of what the large carnosaurs looked like because there's alot of material on more than one species. Do you even know what you are saying? 1: I meant A. fragilis could help us flesh out a basic picture of carnosaur individual variation since it is so well known. 2: We do have a good idea of what they looked like but not individual variation. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Feb 4, 2020 20:39:06 GMT 5
I think it was already explained to you that using such a distantly related animal to get a "basic idea of individual variation" is a bad idea.
You don't really need that.
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Feb 4, 2020 20:42:16 GMT 5
Not according to Franoys. Wrong Giganotosaurus again. Both specimens in the charts you've posted are MuCPV-ch1, the holotype, which is around a ton-ton and a half less than Sue. We are discussing MuCPV-95, which is a dentary that is 2.2%-6.5% larger than the holotype. Nothing you've posted contradicts my (most likely correct) statement that MuCPv-95 was at most as heavy as sue and probably was a fair deal lighter. I think I found it:  |
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Feb 4, 2020 20:46:16 GMT 5
1: I....i just...what Why you're even remotely thinking about Allosaurus to "get an idea" is already baffling in the first place. 2: Uh yeah that's not right at all. We have a good idea of what the large carnosaurs looked like because there's alot of material on more than one species. Do you even know what you are saying? 1: I meant A. fragilis could help us flesh out a basic picture of carnosaur individual variation since it is so well known. 2: We do have a good idea of what they looked like but not individual variation. Dude the Carnosaur family is one huge family tree, there’s different sub groups. One of them are Carcharodontosaurs (Which includes Giganotosaurus), another Megalosaurs (Yeah new study says their Carnosaurs, I doubt it but moving on), Neoventoridae, and Allosaurs. Technically, yes they are related but Neoventoridaes are more closely related to Giganotosaurus than Allosaurus. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 4, 2020 21:01:00 GMT 5
^Yes, that's true. The carnosaur family tree is huge, but only a select few are well-known. (And you are correct megalosaurs could be carnosaurs).
Unfortunately, neovenatorines are not that well known.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 4, 2020 21:15:18 GMT 5
1: I meant A. fragilis could help us flesh out a basic picture of carnosaur individual variation since it is so well known. 2: We do have a good idea of what they looked like but not individual variation. but Neoventoridaes are more closely related to Giganotosaurus than Allosaurus. Isn't there some debate as to whether some Neoventorids are actually megaraptorans or something? |
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Feb 4, 2020 21:16:48 GMT 5
but Neoventoridaes are more closely related to Giganotosaurus than Allosaurus. Isn't there some debate as to whether some Neoventorids are actually megaraptorans or something? I think it’s the other way around. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 4, 2020 21:26:10 GMT 5
Megaraptorans are most likely tyrannosauroids AFAIK, or at least coelurosaurs. From what I can tell, them being allosauroids is doubtful nowadays.
|
|
|
|
Post by sirjacob on Jan 28, 2021 0:44:38 GMT 5
The surface area of the skull may be a factor, anyone have any numbers on that.
|
|
