|
|
Post by Runic on Sept 19, 2013 7:58:55 GMT 5
I don't think this fight is worth debating over fine points. While not a mismatch, Giganotosaurus boasts nearly no advantage over Tyrannosaurus. There's bite gape and that's about it. If either had half a ton or so on the other, it likely wouldn't even matter as bulk and bodily strength are mostly irrelevant in these fights. welcome to the world of giant Theropod debates, 100% which was bigger than which lol |
|
wiffle
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 41
|
Post by wiffle on Sept 19, 2013 9:24:23 GMT 5
It's a trivial matter, really. You may as well be arguing about which boxer is a centimeter taller than the other. In a giant theropod matchup, height does carry quite some significance but weight is nearly meaningless. It's fine for a general paleontological discussion but more or less useless in a fight.
The recent 6 ton bite force estimates seem to be rather on the conservative side. I suspect this may be because 1) the study might not have accounted for the skull structure and application of the bite's strength and 2) the test specimen was Stan, who, while of a healthy size, is not really the biggest one out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 19, 2013 16:22:56 GMT 5
wiffle: You can say just the same about the tyrannosaur even more easily, can´t you?
But there are some differences that are important to consider, which are the probability of one species being larger, the evidence for one species being taller and longer, having more usable arms, longer jaws and a wider gape, and the other having more voluminous, massive cranium and a bulkier body.
Besides, I wasn´t discussing the fight, just the weight, in that general palaeontological context you mention. I´m trying to keep out of hypothetical who-wins-scenarios, but saying there isn´t anything that would make a difference is a bit simplistic.
Coherentsheaf had once mentioned the bite force may be underestimated, tough for a different reason. At the same time, one of the authors told me it was rather overestimated...
You're right in that Bates & Falkingham's estimate was for BHI 3033, however stan supposedly has pretty much the same skull-lenght as sue even tugh it's a smaller specimen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 19, 2013 17:42:21 GMT 5
Regarding size, the point of mine still stands from Hartman words in at it is impossible to say if undiscovered Gigas are bigger than undiscovered Rex, that's a bad and oversimplified interpretation of fragillimus and theropod.
Only the irrational wishes of Gigas lovers (which I love too), and Rex dismissers. But I won't discuss at length with fanatics thinking they are performant scientists about the demography statistics of Giga.
Yes theropod, Giga was bigger, had sharper teeth, just as robust as Rex teeth, a bite force perhaps equivalent. Yeah, that's pretty much what you try to establish since years...keep trying. Reading that Giganotosaurus had fragile teeth just upsets you to an epic point, that does not enter your expectations... But keep trying.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 19, 2013 19:36:54 GMT 5
WHAT?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 19, 2013 19:49:43 GMT 5
An absolutely reasonable assumption to date, look at the thread and at least try to consider the arguments pointing towards this instead of brushing them aside.
A fact I already named sources for on several occasions (that you would know had you ever read my posts), eg. Abler, 1992/2001 and Barret & Rayfield, 2006.
Nowhere has this been stated in rigorous works, your source for that was some old documentary. Such sources have claimed C. saharicus had teeth built for bone-crushing behaviour, those of Spinosaurus were like steakknifes and the holotype of Giganotosaurus was 25% heavier than T. rex.
And in your opinion I'm a biased fanboy who denies things he doesn't like just because I pointed you towards better evidence, such as scientists' published interpretations of tooth morphology and fossil bite marks. The one who was terribly upset certainly wasn't me.
Reading this from you, a guy who asserts a claim on being totally mature and objective to the point of accosting people you believe aren't, claimed with a fair deal of certainty and based on the crappy data you used did indeed upset me, I readily admit it. It would be pretty strange if it hadn't.
That is an incredibly inpertinent bunch of rotten bullshit you just made up, seeing your arguments didn't meet much agreement.
You have already openly admitted you didn't read or consider my posts. You just demonstrated that you haven't done so since at least half a year!
I want to make clear one thing: I won't continue being patient the way I usually am. If you attack me in such a way, and I will no longer bother with a civilised tone, I really don't have to tolerate this kind of behaviour from you. You'd better think twice before you continue like that.
Right now I'm still containing myself as regards the things I could say about you, but that's becoming more and more difficult when once you have got some problem with my posts instead of arguing politely why I could be wrong (which as to my point about size is not up to debate, it's just that I'm more likely right than wrong) or keeping your fingers of the keyboard you post disrespectful and on top of that defamatory piles of ****, arrogating yourself the right to do so for some unintelligeble reason!
As usual, if you delete your post, I will do so with mine, and we can go on. If you don't use that chance, your problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 19, 2013 20:24:01 GMT 5
When I want to learn about these animals, I read and discuss with Holtz, Hartman and others, not you and your fanboys assumptions. I've discussed with Hartman, his response terribly disturbs you, that's not my problem. Period.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Sept 19, 2013 21:43:27 GMT 5
When I want to learn about these animals, I read and discuss with Holtz, Hartman and others, not you and your fanboys assumptions. I've discussed with Hartman, his response terribly disturbs you, that's not my problem. Period. Don't gotta be such a dick about it though. If you don't want opinionated debates and etc why join the forum? You sound like Taipan. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 19, 2013 21:48:24 GMT 5
He just has got one of his bad moods, it has already occurred that a bit later he brought forth something vaguely resembling an apology...
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 19, 2013 21:53:30 GMT 5
I know I'm rude but only with that particular member and I assume it, think about that. I accept criticism about the datas I bring and support unless this is not systematic and bad faith. But my goal is not to make the situation uncontrollable, I ignore most of theropod posts (that's why I'm less active these times) but need time to time to post a virulent critic about his oriented methods. Hopefully, everybody on this board is not like him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Sept 19, 2013 21:55:24 GMT 5
I know I'm rude but only with that particular member and I assume it, think about that. I accept criticism about the datas I bring and support unless this is not systematic and bad faith. But my goal is not to make the situation uncontrollable, I ignore most of theropod posts (that's why I'm less active these times) but need time to time to post a virulent critic about his oriented methods. Hopefully, everybody on this board is not like him. That's that battle hardened army veteran talking in you lol don't take no shit! |
|
|
|
Post by Life on Sept 19, 2013 23:36:55 GMT 5
Fellow members,
Try to keep debates free from mud-slinging statements and insults. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 20, 2013 1:21:50 GMT 5
It's not as if I started this, check the timeline of this series of posts... Grey: You'll have to reconsider your feelings about me at some point, it's only a question of time, so why not do it now? Trying not to do so and going on like that won't help. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 20, 2013 3:18:15 GMT 5
No reconsideration of my feelings as long as I'll read things such as oversimplification, overenthusiastic speculations, challenging of any authority statement which does not enter the tastes of some guys and oriented methods. Whatever I can live with that but I'll assume to express virulent criticism in some occasion. In the meantime I'll sti share my perssonnal infos and research with members really interested, objective and HUMBLE, in short the majority of the board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 20, 2013 6:33:41 GMT 5
There is another point that I will not defend but that could be kept in mind.
Some here speculates that there are more chances to find that Giga was larger than Rex was larger.
On a rational approach it is wise to recall at the same time the several fragmentary or very fragmentary rexes specimens that could be potentially larger or equal in size to Sue in the exact same way that there is NO CERTAINTY that the isolated dentary corresponds to a Giga bigger than the holotype.
These points were all recalled by Hartman as well (and ignored by the Giga fans/Rex dislikers) and even complicates this speculative statement that the fewer corresponds to the bigger. That's simply not a honest interpretation.
Hence Hartman I'm totally agreed with.
Giga and Rex were about approx. the potential same size as far as we know and we know nothing else to now. Period.
|
|
