|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 22, 2020 19:27:16 GMT 5
Montreuil Palaeoloxodon antiquus (4.2 meters SH, 15 tonnes) vs HMN XV2 Giraffatitan (26.45 meters TL, 50 tonnes). Both skeletals by Asier Larramendi.  |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 22, 2020 23:17:37 GMT 5
Holotype of Eotriceratops (RTMP 2002.57.5, 9 meters standing length, subadult, probably ~13-14 tonnes?) vs holotype of Dreadnoughtus (MPM-PV 1156, 26 meters TL, 48.45 tonnes, still a juvenile). Skeletals are by GetAwayTrike and the Dreadnoughtus discovery paper.  |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 22, 2020 23:43:13 GMT 5
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.If it was plausible then it wouldn't weigh as much or more than a similarly-lengthed theropod that is much more robust than it. Oh, you know, attaching a feature to it that is only known from 1 carcharodontosaurid. That and the fact it weighs as much as sue despite being more gracile. No, it doesn't. I've explained multiple times why. Spino also decided to stick in Acrocanthosaurus for no good reason as well. Given the fact that both Tyrannotitan and Giganotosaurus weighed less than T.rex, it makes no sense that an animal with similar proportions would weigh more. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 23, 2020 0:16:56 GMT 5
1: Again, there you are taking estimations as definitive. We do not know the exact length of the specimen in question, since it is only a skull. It could have been as Franoys restored it, it could be as Larramendi restored it, or it could be as SIW restores it. Multiple plausible ways to restore the animal's postcrania exist, and based on its close relatives it is very much possible to get a 9 tonne animal.
2: What is this feature, may I ask? I am not aware of any features SIW's possesses that the others do not.
It is also somewhat longer than Sue, decently robust, and scaling several GDI's to its size gets around 9 tonnes. I don't see why SIW's mass wouldn't hold.
3: You do know Franoys used Acrocanthosaurus as part of their recon as well? Both of them used it not for proportions, but for the postcrania since it's far more similar to other Carchaorodontosaurs in terms of postcrania than proportions.
And that last statement isn't necessarily true - Tyrannotitan is likely up to 8.9 tonnes, and Giganotosaurus 9. The former especially would support my case - Franoys' Tyrannotitan GDI (not the highest plausible estimate for the animal, mind you) gets something very close to 9 tonnes when scaled to SIW's Carcha length, and the bulk on the 2 is very similar.
As for the proportions, I've explained several times - it has similar proportions to its relatives but is restored larger due to larger fossils, so it makes sense that the recon would mass more.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 23, 2020 0:48:09 GMT 5
The length and build suggested by close relatives suggests a barely-longer length advantage for rex and an inferior weight. Dorsal spine Sue is also more robust than it. Franoys didn't get a mutated abomination for his skeletal when he did it, and he himself gave a weight of far less than 9 tonnes for Giganotosaurus AND tyrannotitan (around 6400 KG for it). Adding a meter isn't going to boost the weight up to 8.9 tonnes. Seeing as Giganotosaurus is barely longer than sue as well (12.52 M for MUCPV-95 using accurate scaling based on the actual fossils, not what ifs -coughcough8.8%coughcough- ) and is far less robust, it is nowhere near 9 tonnes. Your "likely" supposition does not hold water. There is no reason to believe that these large carnosaurs got to 8.9-9 tonnes when they are less robust and of similar length to a carnivore that did. If by "mass more" you mean "not 9 tonnes" then yeah. |
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Feb 23, 2020 1:14:00 GMT 5
The length and build suggested by close relatives suggests a barely-longer length advantage for rex and an inferior weight. Dorsal spine Sue is also more robust than it. Franoys didn't get a mutated abomination for his skeletal when he did it, and he himself gave a weight of far less than 9 tonnes for Giganotosaurus AND tyrannotitan (around 6400 KG for it). Adding a meter isn't going to boost the weight up to 8.9 tonnes. Seeing as Giganotosaurus is barely longer than sue as well (12.52 M for MUCPV-95 using accurate scaling based on the actual fossils, not what ifs -coughcough8.8%coughcough- ) and is far less robust, it is nowhere near 9 tonnes. Your "likely" supposition does not hold water. There is no reason to believe that these large carnosaurs got to 8.9-9 tonnes when they are less robust and of similar length to a carnivore that did. If by "mass more" you mean "not 9 tonnes" then yeah. Every single thing you have said here has sadly been pointed out to him on multiple different occasions either by me or by people who know far better on the discord or the countless users on Reddit that are tired of his shit. He pure and simply refuses to listen lad he just wants oversized animals he over sizes Triceratops and its been corrected multiple times in the discord he has ignored it. He over sizes Carnosaurs he oversizes Sauropods he does not care about the actual science behind these animals and their sizes he just wants to oversize his favourites. He has pretty much ruined this forum and turned into his own personal oversizing dinosaur diary. The latest and most current science gets mostly buried by his own biased views that he displays with his size comparisons. Ignorance is his thing and so be it that's his problem. Nothing will be done here to stop him he has carried on after months and months of being told. The best thing to do is just warn others about what he's doing and hope they do not fall for it. Hopefully one day he will grow out of it or something will be done here. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Feb 23, 2020 1:46:45 GMT 5
1: Again, there you are taking estimations as definitive. You can avoid my comments on the matter all you want, the fact of the matter is Kekistani is not taking anything more definitively or literally than you are, this is a rhetorical fallacy and i suggest you quit with it, as it gets to a point of ad nauseum, a common problem with your posts and responses. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 23, 2020 5:43:32 GMT 5
1: The length and build suggested by close relatives suggests a barely-longer length advantage for rex and an inferior weight. 2: Dorsal spine 3: Sue is also more robust than it. 4: Franoys didn't get a mutated abomination for his skeletal when he did it, and he himself gave a weight of far less than 9 tonnes for Giganotosaurus AND tyrannotitan (around 6400 KG for it). Adding a meter isn't going to boost the weight up to 8.9 tonnes. Seeing as Giganotosaurus is barely longer than sue as well (12.52 M for MUCPV-95 using accurate scaling based on the actual fossils, not what ifs -coughcough8.8%coughcough- ) and is far less robust, it is nowhere near 9 tonnes. Your "likely" supposition does not hold water. There is no reason to believe that these large carnosaurs got to 8.9-9 tonnes when they are less robust and of similar length to a carnivore that did. 5: If by "mass more" you mean "not 9 tonnes" then yeah. First of all, I get it, you're not taking this as definitive. 1: It depends on how it's restored. Some restorations suggest a similar length animal to Tyrannosaurus, while others suggest a longer animal and therefore a higher mass. There are multiple plausible ways to restore the animal from its relatives and each gets a different result. 2: Most, if not all carcharodontosaurids are known to possess these spines. Tyrannotitan, Mapusaurus, Giganotosaurus all have them, not just Acrocanthosaurus. The spines on SIW's seem very Tyrannotitan like. 3: The extra length appears to make up for that. 4: Okay, sorry, let me clear up some things: -I was referring to GAT's Giganotosaurus, not Franoys. It's about 7.5 tonnes, and gets 9 tonnes when scaled to 6.5% larger MUCPv-95. It was also the one we agreed had the proper amount of muscle: i.imgur.com/wK1ESRN.png. Recommended density 0.915 kg/liter. -For Tyrannotitan, I was referring to the 13 meter estimate - isometrically scaling Franoys' GDI to it gets 8.9 tonnes. Both of these animals can get to 8.9-9 tonnes going by these. Sorry if that was not clear enough before. 5: Whyever not? It might not be EXACTLY 9 tonnes, but scaling relatives to its dimensions gets masses in that region and it's a fairly bulky recon. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 23, 2020 6:24:20 GMT 5
Then stop acting like it. I also see you've ignored Cerato's 2nd comment in that post. The animal used is barely longer than sue by .6m. That is not going to boost its weiht to rival an animal .6m shorter but much more robust. I don't see any neural spines on any other giant carcharodontosaurids to the extent of the spines here or on acrocanthosaurus. The extra length of .6m makes an animal that should weigh 7.5 tonnes gain 1.5 tonnes in weight, and furthermore makes it just as heavy (if not heavier) than an animal that is barely shorter but is far more robust. I did not agree to that being the correct musculature. I simply stated (correctly) that the fallacious 8.8% MUCPV-95 silhouette you compared to bucky in a hilarious post on reddit was too thin to weigh 9 tonnes (and probably did not either way). A 13 meter estimate that is unsupported by evidence. You yourself used SIW's skeletal for the animal, which is markedly different. so by reconstructing an animal incorrectly we can get an incorrect weight for them. Cool surprise. The fact of the matter is that Carcharodontosaurus, based on close relatives, was nowhere near as bulky as T.rex and was barely longer. The 9 tonne estimate is unfounded. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 23, 2020 7:00:30 GMT 5
1: Then stop acting like it. I also see you've ignored Cerato's 2nd comment in that post. 2: The animal used is barely longer than sue by .6m. That is not going to boost its weiht to rival an animal .6m shorter but much more robust. 3: I don't see any neural spines on any other giant carcharodontosaurids to the extent of the spines here or on acrocanthosaurus. 4: The extra length of .6m makes an animal that should weigh 7.5 tonnes gain 1.5 tonnes in weight, and furthermore makes it just as heavy (if not heavier) than an animal that is barely shorter but is far more robust. 5: I did not agree to that being the correct musculature. I simply stated (correctly) that the fallacious 8.8% MUCPV-95 silhouette you compared to bucky in a hilarious post on reddit was too thin to weigh 9 tonnes (and probably did not either way). 6: A 13 meter estimate that is unsupported by evidence. You yourself used SIW's skeletal for the animal, which is markedly different. 7: so by reconstructing an animal incorrectly we can get an incorrect weight for them. Cool surprise. The fact of the matter is that Carcharodontosaurus, based on close relatives, was nowhere near as bulky as T.rex and was barely longer. The 9 tonne estimate is unfounded. 1: Sorry if I am, but now you know that is not what I mean. 2: Do you know how isometric scaling works? I'll use Franoys' GDI for Tyrannotitan (11.6 meters and 6.4 tonnes) here as a base because it and SIW's Carcharodontosaurus have very similar bulk. It's mass of smaller animal times percentage of dimensional increase times percentage of dimensional increase times percentage of dimensional increase. 12.95 divided by 11.6 is 1.11637931034 Now, for the scaling: 6400 times 1.11637931034 times 1.11637931034 times 1.11637931034 is approximately 8904 kg. This is very close to 9 tonnes that SIW estimates. As for it in relation to Sue? Isometrically scaling a 12.3 meter, 8400 kg Tyrannosaurus to 12.95 meters gets an animal of approximately 9803 kg. So yes, Tyrannosaurus is still the heavier animal at length parity by a decent margin. 3: SIW's Carcharodontosaurus and Franoys' Tyrannotitan have very similar neural spines. I'll make a size comparison to illustrate that. SIW on top, Franoys on the bottom. The recons are scaled to length parity, approx.  SIW also seems to have restored the vertebrae after Tyrannotitan, not Acrocanthosaurus: www.deviantart.com/spinoinwonderland/art/Carcharodontosaurus-saharicus-skeletals-6787474824: See the points about isometric scaling. 5: I was referring to this, that you said in one of your comments in reference to a Giganotosaurus I linked (it was this one: i.imgur.com/4GgsqxM.png). It was on the Carcharodontosaurus thread, not Tyrannosaurus vs Giganotosaurus:6: It's based on Giganotosaurus proportions and presumably also using Giganotosaurus to restore the missing pieces, which is a logical choice seeing as they are close relatives. SIW and Greg Paul both seem to have done so. 7: Refer back to the isometric scaling and numbers 5 and 6. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 23, 2020 7:32:58 GMT 5
You do NOW. Yes I do, thank you very much That's if SIW's reconstruction is accurate-and in all likeliness it isn't. The 2 interpretations are markedly different, with Franoys sticking closer to what is known. And who's to say this is an accurate method of scaling this animal? and why not use Franoy's Carcharodontosaurus instead of Tyrannotitan? Sue is also the heavier animal if we accuratley reconstruct carnosaurs like Franoys and Larramendi do. Those are...mildy similar, at best. Which is odd, given that the spines should therefore be shorter, thinner, and less prominent aaanddd there's nothing of substance that proves independently what you say. I know. Now, find me a comment where I agree that that is the correct skeletal. hint: it's not there. If you wish to try and misinterpret what I say, go ahead. It just makes you look more like a desperate fool. And yet it is still inaccurate. As for "point" 6, refer to the numerous comments explaining why such an animal is implausible. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 23, 2020 8:19:58 GMT 5
1: That's if SIW's reconstruction is accurate-and in all likeliness it isn't. The 2 interpretations are markedly different, with Franoys sticking closer to what is known. And who's to say this is an accurate method of scaling this animal? and why not use Franoy's Carcharodontosaurus instead of Tyrannotitan? 2: Sue is also the heavier animal if we accuratley reconstruct carnosaurs like Franoys and Larramendi do. 3: Those are...mildy similar, at best. 4: Which is odd, given that the spines should therefore be shorter, thinner, and less prominent 5: aaanddd there's nothing of substance that proves independently what you say. 6: I know. Now, find me a comment where I agree that that is the correct skeletal. hint: it's not there. If you wish to try and misinterpret what I say, go ahead. It just makes you look more like a desperate fool. 7: And yet it is still inaccurate. As for "point" 6, refer to the numerous comments explaining why such an animal is implausible. 1: Why is it most likely not accurate - just because it's 9 t? The reason Franoys' and SIW's differ is due to varying plausible interpretations due to the fragmentary nature of the material. As for what I scaled it from, the reason I used Tyrannotitan was that the morphology was overall very similar - moreso than any other skeletal, including (Franoys') Carcharodontosaurus. That might be because SIW's is based a lot on Tyrannotitan? 2: I wouldn't necessarily call it the heavier animal - they're like 5% size difference. Just as I wouldn't call an 8.6 tonne Giganotosaurus larger than an 8.4 tonne Tyrannosaurus - they are essentially the same size and so are Larramendi's Carcharodontosaurus and Sue. As for the accuracy of SIW's, again, VARYING INTERPRETATION. They're all quite plausible for the time being. 3: That may have to do with the posture of the skeletals as well as the different drawing styles of the authors. The former especially; SIW's appears to be a good deal more slanted upwards. 4: I'll try and ask SIW about that, but nothing I can find suggests them to be too large. 5: What? 6: Sorry, my bad, you didn't. I meant that that was more likely a better one since we agreed that the other had too little flesh, we didn't necessarily go over the other much. 7: Why would it be inaccurate? It's based on a close relative, and this is where varying interpretations can come into play - there are quite a few when reconstructing fragmentary taxa. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 23, 2020 8:27:45 GMT 5
That and the fact that it's neural spines are bloody enormous. *Franoys is plausible. Seeing as Carcharodontosaurus is, well, Carcharodontosaurus, it would be more apporpriate to use a carcharodontosaurus skeletal regardless of what SIW used to reconstruct his into a 9 tonne abomination. And therefore whoever has the 5% advantage is the heavier animal. The (nonexistent thus far) 8.6 tonne Giganotosaurus would therefore be larger than the 8.4 tonne Tyrannosaurus. See cerato's comment There's also the fact that the neurals on teh carch are longer, thicker, and more unform when compared to any other skeletal. A cursory glance at the 2 shows that the carch has much longer neural spines. It basically repeats what you have said-it's not proof that he's right. The 6.5 and 2.2% are better, given that 8.8% is implausible (and even then Franoys is better, which I know will prompt you to aggressively ask why Franoys is better before repeating your already oft-repeated point about fragmentary remains in an attempt to defend your use of an inaccurate skeletal). Refer to both my numerous posts and Cerato's |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 23, 2020 16:23:48 GMT 5
1: That and the fact that it's neural spines are bloody enormous. 2L *Franoys is plausible. 3: Seeing as Carcharodontosaurus is, well, Carcharodontosaurus, it would be more apporpriate to use a carcharodontosaurus skeletal regardless of what SIW used to reconstruct his into a 9 tonne abomination. 4: And therefore whoever has the 5% advantage is the heavier animal. The (nonexistent thus far) 8.6 tonne Giganotosaurus would therefore be larger than the 8.4 tonne Tyrannosaurus. 5: See cerato's comment 6: There's also the fact that the neurals on teh carch are longer, thicker, and more unform when compared to any other skeletal. A cursory glance at the 2 shows that the carch has much longer neural spines. 7: It basically repeats what you have said-it's not proof that he's right. 8: The 6.5 and 2.2% are better, given that 8.8% is implausible (and even then Franoys is better, which I know will prompt you to aggressively ask why Franoys is better before repeating your already oft-repeated point about fragmentary remains in an attempt to defend your use of an inaccurate skeletal). 9: Refer to both my numerous posts and Cerato's 1: That may have to do with the difference in drawings and the postures, as I said earlier. SIW also edited the neural spines to take out some 'weirdness' (may have been distortion) the dorsals had. Nonetheless, they're already very similar to the spines on Franoys' Tyrannotitan, and slightly shortening them won't make very much relevant mass difference. The animal would still be ~9 tonnnes. 2: Never said it wasn't. But so is Larramendi's and SIW's. 3: 9 tonnes is not an abomination. And just because they're the same species won't necessarily work if the authors restored them somewhat differently. SIW's is still closer to Tyrannotitan in build. 4: Well, technically yes, but it doesn't really make much of a relevant difference, as does the Tyrannosaurs/Giganotosaurus example. If the author had gave 2.5% too much muscle to Tyrannosaurus and that much too little to Carcharodontosaurus, the animals would be the same size IRL. Same goes for Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus except vice versa. 5: Not using ad nauseam here. 6: May have to do with the edit. But even with the neurals trimmed as I said, not gonna make a difference. 7: May have to do with the (relatively minor) edit. 8: I agree that 8% is implausible if we were to use GAT's - the animal is already 9 tonnes at 6.5% and it would get too slow to chase food and need too much of it if it got much bigger. As for the skeletals, Franoys' is fine. I just prefer GAT's because it seems to be, well, a healthier animal. It's not inaccurate either; a 68 kg person can gain 7 kg, be 75 kg, and still be healthy. That also appears to be the case here. 9: Refer to my posts on varying interpretation. Restoring fragmentary animals isn't a 1 way street. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 23, 2020 18:44:36 GMT 5
Just moved the recent discussion here, as the size comparison thread got a little bit too flooded with that sort of stuff.
By the way, dinosauria, I really think you should take more time for your size comparison and post them less frequently. They are mistake-prone and thus need individual evaluation which is difficult if there is such a sheer flood of them (especially since they bury everything else).
|
|
