|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 25, 2013 20:28:43 GMT 5
Interesting info, thanks for posting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 25, 2013 20:35:48 GMT 5
Question : can we assume that they were of similar weight at similar length ?
Holtz : Good question. We need someone to do high-grade models of Giganotosaurus to actually test this.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 25, 2013 20:48:45 GMT 5
Couldn't we use the Acrocanthosaurus 3D model for testing this?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 25, 2013 20:55:41 GMT 5
I don't think their built is the same. The problem is, even after nearly two decades the bulk of Giganotosaurus osteology remains undocumented. But it is important to note they don't have the same total lenght, neither following the majority of estimates, nor Holtz himself. Interesting he does not totally reject similar weights at similar lenghts, but it seems very likely T. rex would be the somewhat heavier animal at similar total lenght.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 25, 2013 20:57:38 GMT 5
The other problem is that while the Acrocanthosaurus model may not be that much off (it had wrong rib posture, but in exchange left no space for the gastralia at all, and had little to no musculature on the crest.), figuring out which T. rex to use is an entirely different question.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 25, 2013 21:00:28 GMT 5
Was the question only about Giganotosaurus? I thought it was about if carcharodontosauridae members are heavier than tyrannosauridae at length parity.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 25, 2013 21:08:36 GMT 5
yeah, the original question seemingly was, but the second response just talked about Giganotosaurus. Scaling Acrocanthosaurus to giganotosaurus lenght may not be a great idea for sizing it, but we need more osteological data...
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 25, 2013 21:10:28 GMT 5
The second question did not specify anything, it only said "they":
"can we assume that they were of similar weight at similar length ?"
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 25, 2013 21:27:03 GMT 5
The response was talking about Giganotosaurus.
We can use Acro as a base for others, eg Carcharodontosaurus, however we have to take into account this would also make them longer. Scaling Acrocanthosaurus to Giganotosaurus' lenght will likely underestimate it since the former is pretty slender, at least when excluding the probable crest on its back.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 25, 2013 23:23:07 GMT 5
^Theropod manus are not built to support weight, they cannot even be pronated or turned so that they face forward. I highly doubt Spinosaurus would be the one exception. The model doesn't support the idea of it being a quadruped, it is obviously in bipedal stance, tought he legs are very short compared to the arms. There are also Allosaurus specimens (eg DINO 25xx) whose arms nearly reach the ground, yet they are by no means quadrupeds. Not really quadruped, but rather with the front legs close to the ground. However, Andrea Cau said that Spinosauruys is over 15 meters long and weighs 5-10 tons: translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.it/2008/08/ordini-di-grandezza-cenomaniana.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8"Spinosaurus , with more than 15 meters in length estimated (and their 5-10 tons, depending on the estimation method)" Hehe, nice looking avatar...  A favorite of my creations! I would doubt Spinosaurus was anything less than 16 meters long, Hartman's updated subadult is 13.8 meters long, and the adult is about ~20% larger, or 16.6 meters long. Shrinking the skull a bit more makes it 17.5 meters long. |
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226 
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jun 26, 2013 0:32:10 GMT 5
Hehe, nice looking avatar... A favorite of my creations! I would doubt Spinosaurus was anything less than 16 meters long, Hartman's updated subadult is 13.8 meters long, and the adult is about ~20% larger, or 16.6 meters long. Shrinking the skull a bit more makes it 17.5 meters long. I do not think that Spinosaurus was less than 15 meters, but something like ~ 17 meters and 12-14 tons. However, here's some stuff:  Carcharodontosauridae by RickRaptor Big brown guy: Giganotosaurus Green guy: Carcharodontosaurus Small brown guy next to Carcharodontosaurus: Mapusaurus Grey guy: Tyrannotitan Brown guy with the stripes: Acrocanthosaurus Red and yellow guy: Saochilong Green and brown guy: Eocarcharia (With a classic undersized Mapusaurus)  Tyrannosauridae by Teratophoneus |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 26, 2013 1:01:48 GMT 5
Is it just me or does the Giganotosaurus significantly outsize the Carcharodontosaurus in that image?
|
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Jun 26, 2013 1:09:46 GMT 5
This Mapusaurus is terrible undersized. Someone made it not bigger than Eocarcharia *Ouch*
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 26, 2013 1:14:44 GMT 5
gigadino already mentioned this in his post. As he said, this is something classic.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 26, 2013 1:45:25 GMT 5
It is strange, after 7 years of being known and a simple look at a freely accessible document being sufficient to informe oneself, and countless exhibits and articles even advocating it as beign huge, most people apparently still believe Mapusaurus was smaller than Giganotosaurus or Carcharodontosaurus.
|
|
A favorite of my creations! I would doubt Spinosaurus was anything less than 16 meters long, Hartman's updated subadult is 13.8 meters long, and the adult is about ~20% larger, or 16.6 meters long. Shrinking the skull a bit more makes it 17.5 meters long.
