|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 23, 2019 23:41:06 GMT 5
How was Kelsey's torso width measured? Was the actual specimen examined or did someone measure it using a skeletal? Scott Hartman never made a top view of his skeletal. For that reason people doing a GDI of Triceratops using his skeletal have to use someone else's top view to actually perform the GDI. Afaik, it was the specimen. Broly says he got it from the BHI's website. And yes, that is correct. Hartman has no Trike top view, so both the top view from Hartman's and GAT's Trike is GSP's, which is a heck of a lot thinner for its size than it should be, thus leading to these low mass figures. Maybe I should have said it was GSP's. |
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 24, 2019 4:27:31 GMT 5
I can’t give links I’m on mobile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 24, 2019 5:19:09 GMT 5
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 24, 2019 5:20:50 GMT 5
No, but I don’t know how to type links on mobile |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 24, 2019 6:09:07 GMT 5
What mobile device are you using? Surely it can't be that hard to copy and paste a link onto any such device?
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 24, 2019 6:21:44 GMT 5
What mobile device are you using? Surely it can't be that hard to copy and paste a link onto any such device? iPhone X and I’m using Safari |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 24, 2019 6:26:50 GMT 5
That’s exactly what I use on mobile. But I have no problem posting links.
But I don’t want to prolong this discussion any further in this thread since we’re getting off topic. If you want to continue this conversation, I guess you can PM me.
|
|
|
|
Post by DonaldCengXiongAzuma on Dec 26, 2019 3:02:31 GMT 5
Back to topic, I am still going to vote for the triceratops. The dinosaur’s horns might be stronger than the pachyderm’s tusk?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 2, 2020 10:00:06 GMT 5
Sorry for the necropost, just thought this thread needed some elaboration on my point of Triceratops' size and a more in-depth size comp. As was previously stated, the earlier GDI ( here) gives a Triceratops with a 2.5 meter skull and total length of 8.26 meters a mass of about 10.5 tonnes, and I'd in fact argue it would be closer to 11 tonnes given that the parts of the head in red are excluded and that there is very little soft tissue on the legs, tail, and chest, as I did earlier. And that's not the biggest Trike - the largest specimens would have skulls of 2.7 meters. Scaling to this increases mass by about 26%, and thus scaling that Triceratops to specimens such as AMNH 5040 and UCMP 128561 gives a mass of 13.85 tonnes when scaled from a more realistic weight of 11 tonnes from the hyperlinked GDI. HOWEVER, these mass estimates are still probably undersized at least a little bit. The width of the top view of the hyperlinked GDI is about 3/4 of the length of the skull, which would give us about ~185 cm width for the top view. The thing is, a smaller specimen of Triceratops called Kelsey, at 6-7 meters, is also 185 cm wide in top view ( link). Thus, this 8.26 meter Triceratops has the width of a 6-7 meter one and is therefore almost certainly underestimated in terms of mass. If we choose to go by direct scaling from Kelsey, this specimen would have a width of about 235 cm top view, and is probably undersized width wise at 11 tonnes by about 27 percent. As for the largest Triceratops specimens, the same would apply; they are just under 200 cm (199.8) wide directly scaling from the GDI as-is, but this also appears to be an underestimate as scaling from Kelsey would give us about 253 cm for the top view-width of these specimens. Note that this is by no means to be taken as 100% factual or set in stone whatsoever as it is, just like every other mass estimate for every extinct animal, an educated guess. However, it is entirely possible and on the table that the largest specimens of Triceratops could have exceeded 13.85 tonnes quite substantially, and even smaller ones could well have been over 11 tonnes by quite a bit. In regards to more average sized specimens, scaling down from an 11 tonne specimen with a 2.5 meter skull gives ~8.23 tonnes for a Triceratops with a 227 cm skull if we choose to trust theropod on that being average. This is fairly comparable to what Larramendi estimates the average Columbian mammoth at (9.5 tonnes) - however, the width of the 8.23 tonne specimen would have still been undersized by about 27%, as per what I went over above. On average, the mammoth and Trike are probably about the same mass (maybe even a bit bigger for the Trike), and at maximum the biggest Trikes (13.85 tonnes with a 27% too thin top view) would have a rather substantial mass advantage over the largest Columbian mammoths (12.5 tonnes). I definitely favor the ceratopsian in those instances; larger, more durable, more mobile, more weapons, better weapons, SIGNIFICANTLY more stable and robust, and probably more powerful. Here's also an updated size comp I made, average vs average on top and max vs max on bottom. Trike skeletal by GetAwayTrike and top view by Greg Paul, while mammoth skeletal and top view are by Larramendi. Note that the mammoth top view is based on Larramendi's steppe mammoth because it's the closest thing I could find to a top view for the species being used here. On top is Triceratops with 227 cm skull scaled to proper top view width (~213 cm) vs average mammoth (372 cm shoulder height). These animals should be about the same, mass-wise. On the bottom is Triceratops with 270 cm skull scaled to proper top view width (~253 cm) vs max mammoth (420 cm shoulder height). The mammoth is about 12.5 tonnes while the Triceratops is >13.85 tonnes.  roninwolf1981, you may wish to take note of this post DonaldCengXiongAzuma, found the post on the strength of ceratopsian horns. It's here (hyperlink) |
|
