|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 29, 2013 23:01:39 GMT 5
Stop to undermine Cau because he does not necessarily agree with the most optimistics estimates. He simply suggested that Spino could be smaller than we think because the skull could be shorter, stockier than a model at a more modest size. Premature is not the word I would aply to Cau, rational and safe is more likely, even if I agree with Hartman estimates.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 23:08:17 GMT 5
Cau's Spinosaurus is ~14.4 meters in standing length. ~12.5 meters is a liberal estimate* made just to show error bars.  *liberal estimates are those that make extra liberties and assumptions. Nothing to do with how high or low an estimate is. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 29, 2013 23:12:56 GMT 5
I primarily meant his pretty definitive claims of the 17m being a children's myth and the "no theropod exceeds 13m" thing.
And noting that this is very extreme is not "undermining", it is a fact. He doesn't disagree with the most optimistic estimates, he disagrees with all with those claims. To put it this way, he seems extremely optimistic towards small figures.
Broly is right, conservative should probably be used for estimates taking no liberties, in both directions, not just liberties that make the animal larger. Same goes for rational, which should apply to reasonable figures, not figures that are as low as possible. Tough premature was probably the wrong phrasing, "extreme" fits pretty well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 29, 2013 23:18:29 GMT 5
The 17 m estimate depends of the tail of the length actually, this does not change greatly the size impact and "badassness" of Spinosaurus. Almost 16 m sounds right looking at Hartman. This weekend he's going to release an article about the weight. This is going to be interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 23:19:00 GMT 5
Cau doesn't believe in that ~13-meter threshold anymore, I just measured his Spinosaurus in axial length and it came out at roughly ~15 meters.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 29, 2013 23:22:36 GMT 5
Could it be that 12,5 m was only for the holotype?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 29, 2013 23:25:56 GMT 5
Cau doesn't believe in that ~13-meter threshold anymore, I just measured his Spinosaurus in axial length and it came out at roughly ~15 meters. True, I don't think Cau would have any problem with Hartman reconstitution. |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 29, 2013 23:31:40 GMT 5
Actually I measured Hartman's Spinosaurus, and the holotype's dentary is about 10-13% too big, which if fixed, would make the larger specimen ~17.5 meters long.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 29, 2013 23:40:15 GMT 5
Maybe he used the 95cm figure? That would also explain why compared to the neural spines his dentary is too big (I scaled the photograph of the holotype to equal dentary size and the spines ended up much longer than in the skeletal)
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 0:51:31 GMT 5
A message from Hartman on FB which summarizes well my thoughts of many homeworks I've seen here and on CF :
Apparently I already did, since whoever made that diagram simply reused an older version of my Sue skeletals without crediting me. As I've said also, these specimens are either fragmentary (UCMP 127538 is just a toe bone) unpublished (e.g. MOR 1126), etc. There are websites dedicated to trying to take any scrap of bone and extrapolate them into ever bigger specimens - and I won't knock these people for their enthusiasm or enjoyment of a hobby, but it's NOT science.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 30, 2013 0:56:38 GMT 5
A message from Hartman on FB which summarizes well my thoughts of many homeworks I've seen here and on CF : Apparently I already did, since whoever made that diagram simply reused an older version of my Sue skeletals without crediting me. As I've said also, these specimens are either fragmentary (UCMP 127538 is just a toe bone) unpublished (e.g. MOR 1126), etc. There are websites dedicated to trying to take any scrap of bone and extrapolate them into ever bigger specimens - and I won't knock these people for their enthusiasm or enjoyment of a hobby, but it's NOT science.Then pack up and leave, I'm tired of you continuing to cry. The debate is over, please move on with your life. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 1:00:09 GMT 5
No I won't. Why should I do let lies and/or misconceptions invade this forum ? That's no debatte that's for recall that many things tht we see here, including some of my works, are not science. And yes fragillimus, I prefer Hartman works and reasonning than yours on that matter.
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Jun 30, 2013 11:41:33 GMT 5
Then pack up and leave, I'm tired of you continuing to cry. The debate is over, please move on with your life. So you are the boss of this Forum now, eh? And telling people to leave just because you do not share their opinions (which try to keep the quality of the Forum high, a behavior that is advised in the Rules) on highly speculative assumptions is just vile. No offense but I think your post is a bit funny. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 14:36:08 GMT 5
Grey: A reply to what was that? Sounds like one of those madeup giant-T. rex-specimen-scales to me. Comparing something like that to what we do here is pretty insulting. Where exactly has anyone here done anything like making up a 14-17m T. rex from a small(ler than sue's) maxilla or an unsure phalanx? Fragillimus335: Be a bit more patient with grey, he often writes stuff like that but you can get used to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2013 15:56:43 GMT 5
It was probably a reply to bone crusher's posts.
bone crusher takes the exaggerated ~14+ meter UCMP 137538 as factual.
|
|
