|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 26, 2013 1:58:17 GMT 5
Because the document you mentioned didn't state a length figure for the largest specimen.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 26, 2013 2:01:07 GMT 5
Sadly wiki made this very bad phrasing which one half ot the internet mistook as Mapusaurus maxing out at 10,2m and 3t.
I should start an information campaign...
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226 
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jun 26, 2013 2:36:34 GMT 5
Is it just me or does the Giganotosaurus significantly outsize the Carcharodontosaurus in that image? Probably looks bigger due to the skull based on the old model of 1.95 meters. theropod: Yes, you're right, Mapusaurus was as large as Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus, but the guy who made that image think that Mapusaurus is smaller than Tyrannosaurus, so in this image would be <12.3 meters. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 8:04:18 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 26, 2013 16:01:07 GMT 5
Spinosaurus depiction of Cau : 
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 29, 2013 17:53:19 GMT 5
Super Spinosaurus? In the past I have been skeptical of claims of 50+ foot Spinosaurus specimens - and with how little we know about the tail length in Spinosaurus there is still reason for caution. That said, science is always based on data, and sometimes the data isn't what you expected. I was reminded of this once again recently after I tweaked the scaling of elements in my Spinosaurus skeletal reconstruction. The "main" skeletal seen above (the fully restored version is in the theropod gallery) is based on a composite skeletal of the type specimen and other various referred bits. Previously I'd had the mandible scaled up too much by about 6%. After correcting I measured and sure enough, a nice 14m (46 foot) long beast. Now please use some caution here: as you can see the composite skeletal is missing large swaths of bones. I have filled those in with bones from other relatives (e.g. Baryonyx and Suchomimus), but there's definitely some uncertainty here. Of particular note, tail length varies quite a bit in dinosaurs (as demonstrated recently by Dave Hone), and I would feel a lot better about estimating the length if we had some more Spinosaurus tail vertebrae. Still, unless you restore an almost comically long tail the type specimen of Spinosaurus was less than 50 feet. Ah, but that's not the largest specimen! The biggest specimen referred to Spinosaurus is MSMN V4047, a giant snout that Dal Sasso et al described in 2005. Assuming that the composite is scaled correctly and that the giant MSMN specimen scales up isometrically (which seems probable) then it would be in the range of 15.6 meters (51 feet) give or take. That's one long theropod we are looking at! Given our margin of error it's entirely possible that the MSMN specimen is actually 48 feet (or 55 feet!), but assuming it had proportions similar to that of other spinosaurids, then it seems clear that 50 foot lengths were most likely attained. Of course length is just one estimate of size, and mass is generally considered more important. And here things get interesting. Check back this weekend for a closer look at how much Spinosaurus may have tipped the scales in life.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 29, 2013 19:48:14 GMT 5
15,6 m is similar to what I get from scaling an 11 m long Suchomimus with a 1,25 m skull (15,4 m).
Anyway, where is this from?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 29, 2013 19:57:11 GMT 5
15,6 m is similar to what I get from scaling an 11 m long Suchomimus with a 1,25 m skull (15,4 m). Anyway, where is this from? Scott Hartman, I thought it was obvious ! |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 29, 2013 20:12:09 GMT 5
I know who made this, but I rather wanted a link (google didn't help).
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 29, 2013 20:13:22 GMT 5
Skeletaldrawing.com
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 29, 2013 20:32:02 GMT 5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 21:05:45 GMT 5
It seems that the below-15-meter estimates are getting less and less support. Scott Hartman even states that ~17-meter(~55-foot) Spinosaurus is entirely possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 29, 2013 22:05:48 GMT 5
It seems that the below-15-meter estimates are getting less and less support. Scott Hartman even states that ~17-meter(~55-foot) Spinosaurus is entirely possible. He also states that 48-foot is possible as well, even if something above 15 m is more likely. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 22:24:30 GMT 5
It seems that the below-15-meter estimates are getting less and less support. Scott Hartman even states that ~17-meter(~55-foot) Spinosaurus is entirely possible. He also states that 48-foot is possible as well, even if something above 15 m is more likely. I know that. ~14.63 meters isn't really far off from the ~15-meter mark anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 29, 2013 22:48:58 GMT 5
What does seem to have extremely little support is Cau's 12,5m/all theropods below 13m claim, and the 17m is BS thing. That was pretty premature considering the facts.
14,6m is still significantly larger than he stated, not to mention 15,6m or 17m. Looking at the skeletal, how Spinosaurus could be below 14m is completely alien to me, and not supported by any evidence.
|
|
