|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 22, 2020 2:47:26 GMT 5
Anyhow.... Holotype of Ruyangosaurus (31 meters TL, 60 tonnes, subadult) vs paratype of Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum (35 meters TL, 75 tonnes). Skeletals are by Paleo King and Greg Paul.  |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 22, 2020 4:08:01 GMT 5
Purussaurus vs Giganotosaurus, max vs max (UFAC 1403 vs MUCPv-95). Purussaurus is 10.3 meters TL and 6.2 tonnes, while Giganotosaurus is 13.3 meters standing length and 9 tonnes. Skeletals by randomdinos and GetAwayTrike.  |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 22, 2020 4:11:39 GMT 5
"not off the table" and "supported by science" are not the same thing. They cannot all be considered reasonable/realistic. They're all possible/plausible/within the realms of possibility, is what I mean. Since there are so few bones, a few ways to restore them based on relatives exist, and the varying ways are what get the varying sizes. I'd think sizes not likely to be supported by remains would be 5-6 tonnes or lower, as well as double digit tonnage. But ~6-7 to ~9 tonnes is all within the realm of possibility. Larger weights like -9 tonnes are possible but unsupported. Thus it is not a good practice to use them in place of more solid weights. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 22, 2020 4:26:21 GMT 5
They're all possible/plausible/within the realms of possibility, is what I mean. Since there are so few bones, a few ways to restore them based on relatives exist, and the varying ways are what get the varying sizes. I'd think sizes not likely to be supported by remains would be 5-6 tonnes or lower, as well as double digit tonnage. But ~6-7 to ~9 tonnes is all within the realm of possibility. Larger weights like -9 tonnes are possible but unsupported. Thus it is not a good practice to use them in place of more solid weights. Unsupported? Each of these estimates is its own thing, and I do think 9 tonnes has decent support given that SIW's is based on close relatives and similar proportions to them. I'd agree with you that his old 11-13 tonne Carcharodontosaurus recon lacks support, but the 9 tonnes is based on close cousins and ended up a lot like them so I'd say it has support. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 22, 2020 6:43:10 GMT 5
Larger weights like -9 tonnes are possible but unsupported. Thus it is not a good practice to use them in place of more solid weights. Unsupported? Each of these estimates is its own thing, and I do think 9 tonnes has decent support given that SIW's is based on close relatives and similar proportions to them. I'd agree with you that his old 11-13 tonne Carcharodontosaurus recon lacks support, but the 9 tonnes is based on close cousins and ended up a lot like them so I'd say it has support. Seeing as the animal itself is much more gracile than T.rex and is barely longer, 9 tonnes is quite doubtful.
SIW's skeletal (which is not very accurate) gets 9 tonnes. No other skeletal does. If the only support for a publication is the publication itself, that is not good support.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 22, 2020 7:07:16 GMT 5
Again, how can you say this for sure? Carcharodontosaurus is a very poorly known taxon, we do not know its length and weight for sure and can only speculate what they may be based on relatives, until we find more bones. SpinoInWonderland's result is not set in stone at all (just like Franoys' and Larramendi's), but is very much plausible and on the table as it is based on close relatives and the animal ends up reconstructed very similarly to its relatives. You seem to be taking Franoys' recon as very definitive here - not a good idea when dealing with fragmentary taxa where multiple possible ways to interpret the data exist.Why is it not very accurate? It is based on close relatives and ends up restored very similarly to them; moreover, the result is very much within the realm of possibility.
Have you any proof that SGM-DIN 1 absolutely did not exceed 12 meters and 6.4 tonnes? That is a plausible mass for it, but so is SIW's. We just can't mark one as wrong until we have more bones, and in this case both estimates are very usable as they're both based on close cousins, end up similar to them, and the masses ens up plausible as well. As previously stated, I strongly recommend against just branding a skeletal for a fragmentary taxon as inaccurate just because it disagrees with another possibility, when it's based on close relatives, the mass is very much on the table, and we cannot know for sure if it is wrong due to lack of remains.
Due to varying data interpretations - not every person is going to get the exact same result, and that is perfectly normal. Franoys gets 6.4 tonnes, Larramendi and Spinodontosaur4 both get 8 tonnes, and SIW gets 9 - all are possible as they are based on close relatives and are within the known size range for theropod dinosaurs. The reason they are different is due to multiple possible ways to interpret data - there is no definitive answer at this point, and these are possibilities. Educated guesses. But not set in stone. That no other does is due to varying ways to interpret the given data, which, again, is perfectly OK.
I am aware of that, however in this case we have varying results from varying authors and all of them are very much on the table.
We've been going on about this needlessly for several days now and I'm getting a little tired of it. Use Franoys if you prefer and I'll use SIW's. Both are plausible, so that should be fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 22, 2020 7:16:29 GMT 5
Exactly, and the current date suggests the animal was barely longer than any large T.rex specimen if at all and was also more gracile. We must use what Science supports, not "what ifs". See above Never said it was set in stone-it's just that all the others are more accurate and follow what is supported by comparisons to related taxa. all of them are very much on the table. If by "all you mean all besides SIW's, then sure. Because SIW's is almost peak implausibility. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 22, 2020 8:43:00 GMT 5
1: Exactly, and the current date suggests the animal was barely longer than any large T.rex specimen if at all and was also more gracile. We must use what Science supports, not "what ifs". 2: Never said it was set in stone-it's just that all the others are more accurate and follow what is supported by comparisons to related taxa. 3: all of them are very much on the table. If by "all you mean all besides SIW's, then sure. Because SIW's is almost peak implausibility. 1: You're going off of literally ONE skeletal. What science supports here varies quite a lot; there are a TON of different ways to restore different parts of the animal based on its relatives, as well as a lot of ways to fit the size disrespancy between the holo and neotype. What science supports ranges from Franoys to SIW's and everything in between, due to the fragmentary nature of the bones. The current data does not necessarily suggest an animal as you said; what it does suggest is a very large theropod which can be restored in several possible manners due to everything I just went over above. 2: What makes you say that? SIW uses closely related taxa like Tyrannotitan and Giganotosaurus and the end result is very similar in proportions to them.- it would also appear to follow what is supported by comparisons to related taxa as the skull-postcrania ratios are about the same and the mass is coherent with what you'd get scaling them to its dimensions. The only thing it differs from Larramendi's and Franoys' in is mass, which can be explained with there being several different ways to interpret the data and restore the missing pieces - very typical of a fragmentary species. 3: Again, why is SIW's almost peak implausibility? It's based on close relatives, the proportions are very similar to said relatives, and the different mass can be accounted for with varying interpretations of fragmentary taxa. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 22, 2020 9:03:00 GMT 5
It suggests an animal significantly lighter than T.rex, i.e. not SIW. I've explained this over and over. So have others. . |
|
|
|
Post by roninwolf1981 on Feb 22, 2020 9:27:12 GMT 5
Wow, some of those renditions are awful. I'd say the Velociraptor might look the best, judging from what I can make out of its shape. As an artist myself, those hurt my eyes. The size comparisons aren't too bad; the line art, however, is the artist's equivalent to nails on a chalkboard. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Feb 22, 2020 9:33:09 GMT 5
He's not taking it any more literally than you take brolys. This kind of rhetoric is useless and unhelpful at best.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 22, 2020 10:05:12 GMT 5
1: It suggests an animal significantly lighter than T.rex, i.e. not SIW. 2: I've explained this over and over. So have others. . 1: Just Franoys' does; the others suggest a larger animal. Again, this is where varying interpretations of data come into play - perfectly normal for several of those to exist when the data is limited, and they can all be considered plausible as they are based on close relatives. 2: And again, VARYING INTERPRETATION. Franoys' scaling is by no means the only possible way there is to find the size disrespancy between the 2 specimens, which parts are restored from which animals, etc. Interpretation does vary a lot with little data, and that is the case here. All of it's on the table unless we find more bones that suggest otherwise. 3: Again, that's just Franoys' recons - with Larramendi's and SIW's, which are perfectly plausible and fit the modern science for the reasons I explained, you have a longer animal that is more massive. Remember, there are varying ways to interpret given data when it is fragmentary and that is perfectly normal. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 22, 2020 10:14:21 GMT 5
No, they really cannot be- a 9 tonne carcharodontosaurus needs to be significantly longer or just as robust as T.rex, and going off of relatives this is not the case. I'm not going to repeat myself again. Just because you keep evading the point does not make your argument infallible. SIW's is just not plausible. SIW's does not fit the modern science. If you really want to make a point, there's no need to repeat it 3 times in the same post. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 22, 2020 17:39:13 GMT 5
1: No, they really cannot be- a 9 tonne carcharodontosaurus needs to be significantly longer or just as robust as T.rex, and going off of relatives this is not the case. 2: I'm not going to repeat myself again. Just because you keep evading the point does not make your argument infallible. SIW's is just not plausible. 3: SIW's does not fit the modern science. If you really want to make a point, there's no need to repeat it 3 times in the same post. 1: It is plausible based off of relatives. Based on them, the skull-total length ratio (157.4 cm and 12.95 meters) is approximately 8.22. This is very similar to, say, Giganotosaurus, who has a ratio of about 8.16 (12.33 meters TL, 151 cm skull). Unsurprising, since SIW's Carcharodontosaurus was based somewhat on the closely related Giganotosaurus. 2: Just because it's not plausible based on 1 reconstruction does not mean it's not plausible at all. Aside from it being larger than Franoys' or Larramendi's, why is it not plausible? The size difference can easily be explained by there being multiple possible ways to restore the bones based on relatives (which DOES fit modern science, which is restoring the animal based on close relatives and that's what SIW did), so what would make it not plausible then? 3: It does fit. The modern science would be to restore Carcharodontosaurus after close cousins. That is what Spino did - he used Tyrannotitan, Giganotosaurus, etc, and got an animal that had similar proportions to them. And as previously stated, the reason why it was larger is due to multiple possible interpretations being plausible for such a fragmentary animal. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 22, 2020 18:42:20 GMT 5
Jane the Tyrannosaurus rex (6.35 meters TL, 660 kg) vs SGM-DIN 1 Carcharodontosaurus (12.95 meters standing length, 9 tonnes). Skeletals by Scott Hartman and SpinoInWonderland.  |
|
