|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 2, 2013 21:25:47 GMT 5
Fragillimus335: That doesn't mean it is scientifically accurate. I was hooked to palaeontology among other things by the walking with series, which is terribly inaccurate on many points. Still I consider it perhaps the best documentary on prehistoric life that was ever made.
|
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193 
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Nov 13, 2013 1:42:46 GMT 5
 An oversized Ekrixinatosaurus: Priceless |
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 11, 2014 20:48:21 GMT 5
I always felt that this size comparison made the size difference between T-Rex and Amphicoelias far greater than it really is;  |
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 11, 2014 20:49:29 GMT 5
Another comparison from the same author:  I noticed the size of the Liopleurodon, and I laughed. Then I noted the size of that Giant Squid, and I was about to rip the eyeballs out of my skull. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 11, 2014 20:54:00 GMT 5
The 18 m Meg, 22 m Leeds and 15 m Liv are acceptable though (ok the Leeds is a bit larger than currently estimated), but what is fun is that this moron of Harry the Fox didn't care of the published rigorous estimates and made his own, only by guess and assumptions. Typically the douchebag I can't stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 11, 2014 21:09:40 GMT 5
22 m Leeds acceptable? I thought the possible maximum was 16.5 m.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 11, 2014 21:25:18 GMT 5
Based off that chart, the Giant Squid looks as if it could easily defeat a Great White Shark or Killer Whale; hell, if that scale was correct a Giant Squid could probably give a Megalodon and Livyatan a run for its money, which is absurd. Giant Squid grow to be 13 meters long at best, not 30 meters.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Mar 11, 2014 21:51:10 GMT 5
I always felt that this size comparison made the size difference between T-Rex and Amphicoelias far greater than it really is; It does, this is my most updated scale.  |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 15, 2014 23:23:37 GMT 5
Based off that chart, the Giant Squid looks as if it could easily defeat a Great White Shark or Killer Whale; hell, if that scale was correct a Giant Squid could probably give a Megalodon and Livyatan a run for its money, which is absurd. Giant Squid grow to be 13 meters long at best, not 30 meters. It looks as if it could easily defeat the Livyatan and the megalodon (especially the former) shown in that scale too. Hell, that’s a 100t squid that guy is depicting there, quite literally the mythological kraken in a squidish version! C. megalodon, Livyatan, O.orcinus, B. musculus and C. carcharias are all acceptable, within the size ranges attained by, or at least estimated for these species (although I cannot say it’s an objective comparison, since some are rather at the high end, others rather at the low end or in the middle. E.g. the scale would imply C. megalodon was larger than the blue whale, which is quite obviously not the case–the highest estimated masses for any megalodon are about on par with the average mass of a blue whale, and the former are not consensual even for its maximum size.). However the key problem are firstly the bad proportions of the reconstructions and secondly that the author doesn’t seem to like looking up reliable, objective, verifiable sizes. Gut feeling and documentaries just aren’t enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 15, 2014 23:31:54 GMT 5
Scaling even a colossal squid at 30 m doesn't make a 100 tons body mass. Anyway that's bullshit and Harry The Fox thinks of himself as some expert in zoology, he's not. Even though his reconstruction of Livyatan is not that terrible compared to others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 15, 2014 23:40:09 GMT 5
A 10 meter giant squid was 495 kg. Using the scale cube law, this puts the squid at a body mass of 13,365 kg. Even if we assume the colossal squid to be more robust than the giant squid, a 30 m specimen is 15-16 tonnes tops.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Mar 16, 2014 3:03:37 GMT 5
That's assuming it has the actual dimensions of a giant squid, the length of a giant squid is more or less ~17% mantle, 21% eyes to arms and the remaining 62% of their length is the two single long tentacles. Giant squid 13m long have mantles 2.25m long at most and the giant squid depicted there is over 11m in mantle length, it's actually a 65m long squid, which means is about 34 tonnes if we use that 275kg estimate for a 13m giant squid but I don't know how accurate it is.
Colossal squid have very different proportions, their arms and tentacles are proportionally much shorter, meaning that the mantle is almost half their total length, the 495kg specimen had a mandle length of 2.5m and it probably only about 5.4m long (the total length of anoher specimen with an equal mantle length), still, a 30m colosal squid will be 85 tonnes based on that, not quite 100 tonnes but close.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 16, 2014 3:50:23 GMT 5
Hold on here Blaze, I just realized that according to Wiki, the 495 kg squid was a colossal specimen, not a giant. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_squid#Largest_known_specimenI still find 85 tonnes extremely difficult to believe for any squid, even if it was 30 meters in length. That's simply far too heavy. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Mar 16, 2014 4:26:35 GMT 5
I always felt that this size comparison made the size difference between T-Rex and Amphicoelias far greater than it really is; Who knew the king was in reality such a shrimp. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 16, 2014 8:10:42 GMT 5
I don't believe at all in that Amphicoelias scale.
|
|
