|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 28, 2013 22:38:17 GMT 5
Comprehend the bolded word for me ok? The max size of T.rex is and most likely will always be unknown. I could easily counter by stating that the maximum size of Giganotosaurus is and most likely will always be unknown. In fact, it could be used for virtually every extinct taxon. Read the bolded part in my last post and this one. Put 2 and 2 together. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 22:50:53 GMT 5
I could easily counter by stating that the maximum size of Giganotosaurus is and most likely will always be unknown. In fact, it could be used for virtually every extinct taxon. Read the bolded part in my last post and this one. Put 2 and 2 together. I clearly read your post, it seems like you think that "FMNH PR2081 vs MUCPv-95" as a representative of "Tyrannosaurus vs Giganotosaurus" is justified due to MUCPv-95 being the largest known specimen and an unproven possibility of "larger-than-Sue" specimens, despite the sample size differences. Statistically, it is far more likely that there are greater chances of finding a "larger-than-MUCPv-95" Giganotosaurus, than finding a "larger-than-Sue" Tyrannosaurus. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 29, 2013 1:37:31 GMT 5
Read the bolded part in my last post and this one. Put 2 and 2 together. I clearly read your post, it seems like you think that "FMNH PR2081 vs MUCPv-95" as a representative of "Tyrannosaurus vs Giganotosaurus" is justified due to MUCPv-95 being the largest known specimen and an unproven possibility of "larger-than-Sue" specimens, despite the sample size differences. Statistically, it is far more likely that there are greater chances of finding a "larger-than-MUCPv-95" Giganotosaurus, than finding a "larger-than-Sue" Tyrannosaurus. FAIL. I was referring to your constant "Don't use the biggest T.rex statement or i'll use the smaller t.rex vs the largest giga" statement. Do I REALLY need to break down the point of that post to you? Because you really seem to have trouble understanding it yourself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 5:47:12 GMT 5
I clearly read your post, it seems like you think that "FMNH PR2081 vs MUCPv-95" as a representative of "Tyrannosaurus vs Giganotosaurus" is justified due to MUCPv-95 being the largest known specimen and an unproven possibility of "larger-than-Sue" specimens, despite the sample size differences. Statistically, it is far more likely that there are greater chances of finding a "larger-than-MUCPv-95" Giganotosaurus, than finding a "larger-than-Sue" Tyrannosaurus. FAIL. I was referring to your constant "Don't use the biggest T.rex statement or i'll use the smaller t.rex vs the largest giga" statement. Do I REALLY need to break down the point of that post to you? Because you really seem to have trouble understanding it yourself. I don't recall MUCPv-Ch1 being the largest Giganotosaurus. |
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193 
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Aug 30, 2013 17:49:51 GMT 5
I guess you want to say that, i'm not surprised.
So what that there are found 2 or 3 (including teeth) Giganotosaurus specimens, while there are 30+ T. rex specimens. It doesn't mean "there greater chances of finding a "larger-than-MUCPv-95"".
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Aug 30, 2013 20:33:20 GMT 5
There are chances to found larger individuals in both species, that's why that does not count. This argument is now very boring to read each time...
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 31, 2013 0:40:23 GMT 5
There are chances to found larger individuals in both species, that's why that does not count. This argument is now very boring to read each time... Apparently broly throws a fit whenever the theropod t.rex is mentioned. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2013 10:24:11 GMT 5
I have stated that they are roughly equals in size and formidability, don't even start with hater accusations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 31, 2013 22:17:42 GMT 5
I have stated that they are roughly equals in size and formidability, don't even start with hater accusations. I'm not calling you a hater. But seriously whenever T.rex is mentioned you basically start ranting about how you can't use sue in the fight, even when 9/10 sue was only being discussed in size. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 6, 2013 20:51:17 GMT 5
There are chances to found larger individuals in both species, that's why that does not count. This argument is now very boring to read each time... There are always chances, which depending on how many individuals are already known can obviously be bigger or smaller among different animals. @broly: Aren't they still roughly equals even when using Hartman's figures as representatives for the species? They are virtually the same weight, especially with the density issue (that may have considerable consequences) included. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 6, 2013 21:08:40 GMT 5
attacking the head and jaws of an animal with a superior gape is a terrible terrible idea. Tyrant from CF posted evidence that tyrannosaurus would regularly attack the face of eachother and even survive. This is also true for Allosaurs (Sinraptor), theropods are tough, that being said there is no reason to presume this was anything but limited to intraspecific confrontations. Both slashers and crushers have the potential of causing impressive injuries via facebiting (and in some cases those have proven fatal), but it's not a very good killing strategy as demonstrated by several good examples of massive traumatic injuries to the face (eg. "Labrosaurus", Sinraptor, Tyrannosaurus) being survived. Probably has something to do with the brain and other vital structures being such comparatively small targets in a large skull, so that impaling them is very unlikely. Damage to the bones in form of punctures (tyrannosaurs) or soft tissues in form of slashes (carnosaurs) will be done, but while single well placed bites to other areas (spinal chord and vertebral collumn, major blood vessels, muscles and nerves) could probably kill easily and near-instantaneously in most cases, the skull is a less effective target (which in turn is probably the reason for the use of face bites in intraspecific theropod fighting). www.academia.edu/2132861/Head-biting_behavior_in_theropod_dinosaurs_Paleopathological_evidenceAlso, I'd very much like to see evidence for the "significantly more powerful" claim for a Tyrannosaurus over a Giganotosaurus of equal body mass. While it's clearly the broader and thus bulkier animal (and still, some of that may just be...air), at equal body mass this would nowhere near make it "much stronger", if, then only insignificantly due to having its muscle mass a bit more concentrated. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 6, 2013 21:26:46 GMT 5
Probably has something to do with the brain and other vital structures being such comparatively small targets in a large skull, so that impaling them is very unlikely. Why is this needed for the kill? A broken skull would cause a massive shock. Also, further survival chances are extremely low (even if the animal survives the attack, it is hard to live with a broken jaw and in this case it's also very hard to fight). Also, it happens that sharks survive each others attacks, but that doesn't mean they're inefficient. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 6, 2013 21:50:18 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 6, 2013 21:53:38 GMT 5
Based on the whole populations that existed in both species, two specimens or around 30 specimens (including juveniles and immatures) are almost equally insignificant. As said Hartman, in both we can found bigger individuals, at which extend we simply don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 6, 2013 22:02:28 GMT 5
Remember what Hartman also said about the "comparison of specimens, not species" and how long it took to find sue?
These are both insignificant samples (compared to what we are used to from modern animals), but not equally insignificant.
Assuming there were total populations of ~1 million adults in both, we have a about the 30 000th part of it in T. rex (assuming a very conservative ~30 individuals, it seems there may be considerably more; and sue remains the largest up to this day despite some enthusiastic suggestions that have been made and debunked for other specimens), and the......500 000th part in Giganotosaurus. Those are very different percentages of the population indeed, even if you can call both small from the viewpoint of an extant-animal zoologist.
In fact, T. rex has a fairly large sample size for a nonavian dinosaurs (and by far the largest of any giant theropod with the exceptions of Allosaurus and Harpia), you could literally count the few ones known of bigger samples (Coelophysis, Allosaurus, Camarasaurus, Centrosaurus are those I'm sure about but there are some others) on your fingers (at best your fingers and toes), keeping in mind there are about 1000 species of nonavian dinosaur (most of which are monotypic or at best oligotypic, even compared to T. rex).
The sample of T. rex is at least an order of magnitude bigger than that of Giganotosaurus carolinii, so are the chances of finding proportionally big individuals.
As I recall you once stated 30 individuals (and probably T. rex significantly exceeds this number) was a number at which one could use population statistics. People have done so in this case, there are even growth curves!
|
|
