|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 20:44:08 GMT 5
That was no attack but a recall of what is real science. But I can quote one of yours posts about 80 m sauropods being very real and report it to Hartman if you don't understand how this sentence from him was applied to any enthusiastic reconstruction we see on CF or elsewhere. Yes, 14,5 m T. rex (a toe bone existing) and 80 m A. fragillimus (a partial bone disappeared) are pretty much the same thing. It was about 100-200t sauropods, which are very real, valid estimates. If you don't believe that please read the damn post on SVPOW about it! 14,5m T. rex bases on a hard-to-diagnose phalanx, possibly IV-2 70m Amphicoelias bases on a partial vertebra reported with measurements and a decent drawing, and it uses the same methodology as the one proposed in peer-reviewed literature. Neither is really reliable, but you must not always take figures out of context. The assumption of 200t sauropods existing at some time is not a far-fetched one, supported by scientists as well as fossil evidence. Since those are being compared to extant animals with a sample of several thousand individuals, there is not much reason to favour the lower end here. The assumption of 14,5m T. rex existing is not that far fetched either, but there hardly seems to be any valid evidence, and the point is that this T. rex is all the time being compared to other theropods known from few specimens, which would probably be even bigger at maximum. I think you see where the flaw in your reasoning is. And I think it is time to recall this is no thread to attack people because they don't agree with your views about sauropod size. @metriacanthosaur: Many factors influence footprint size and shape, but you will see many on examination, and others can just as easily make it smaller as they can make it larger. For every underprint, there's an overprint. For every eroded wall, making the footprint a bit larger, there's a collapsed wall, making it smaller. No 100% certainities, as nowhere in science, but still not to be disregarded and called unscientific. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 20:48:02 GMT 5
Nothing far-fatched in my reasoning, we simply have to be cautious with such statements. The range of possible sizes for Amphicoelias is as huge as its sizes figures themselves. The quote from Taylor summarizes this very well.
But remember that we had an agreement (or was it with fragillimus).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2013 21:07:33 GMT 5
Yes, 14,5 m T. rex (a toe bone existing) and 80 m A. fragillimus (a partial bone disappeared) are pretty much the same thing. No, it clearly is not. How you can compare a vertebra with a toe bone is beyond me. And the ~80-meter A. fragillimus assumes a longer neck than what isometric scaling suggests. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 21:11:08 GMT 5
A partial vertebra lost decades ago, may I correct...
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 21:15:06 GMT 5
Nothing far-fatched in my reasoning, we simply have to be cautious with such statements. The range of possible sizes for Amphicoelias is as huge as its sizes figures themselves. The quote from Taylor summarizes this very well. But remember that we had an agreement (or was it with fragillimus). I do not doubt we have to be cautious with stating things as facts. That doesn't imply you have to call everyone who considers them unscientific. Did you read Wedel's post about the plagne tracks and his results? That's the best proof you can get for waht I'm arguing. This size range is fully feasible. Not factual, feasible. and stating it is about as unscientific as one of the world's top sauropod specialists. btw 80m figures in neck allometry. 70m is the figure yielded by Carpenter's method. You can get it down to ~60m with the vertebral reconstruction used by Taylor. And you may get it even lower using some other diplodocoideans, however then you have to account for greater bulk too. None of these are some "liberal speculations". A single toebone whose assignment is not supported by characters but...superficial resemblance is a different story. And keep in mind the references we compare each of these two. T. rex to other theropods alltogether known from a much smaller sample (even the best known, Mapusaurus, has a sample roughly 3 times smaller than T. rex). Amphicoelias to the only real competition as regards size, known from a far bigger sample. We don't really disagree, but you are just too quick dismissing things in an insulting manner. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 21:17:10 GMT 5
A partial vertebra lost decades ago, may I correct... more than a century ago, may I correct? We have no reason to suspect Cope made it up. He was a scientist. Usually, you don't assume things to be made up, unless there's a good reason. What one should assume as an automatical condition is that reported things are also real. btw, what do you think about B. nougaredi/how do you explain it? |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 21:27:27 GMT 5
A century equals decades, you understood me.
I don't think Cope made it up, I was asking to metria.
The size range proposed for A. fragillimus is so huge that it is almost meaningless (and boring IMO). I really hope we found new remains of it or it will be even more boring to me.
I definitely prefer to discuss about Puertasaurus and others.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 22:06:06 GMT 5
Don't discuss about it if you think it is boring, nobody has a problem if you have no strong liking and enthusiasm for sauropods, but don't judge those who have, and stop spamming a thread dedicated to theropods!
The size range that is proposed is large, but that doesn't mean the animal is meaningless. Again, may I remind you in a far bigger sample of C. megalodons the size range for the maximum is similarly large (about two-fold), and yet you love discussing its size and have no problem establishing figures for it (indeed you even attacked me for not liking it as much as you think I should)?
You don't have to be interested in it, but be honest enough to confess YOU aren't, not judge those who are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 22:12:54 GMT 5
Don't discuss about it if you think it is boring, nobody has a problem if you have no strong liking and enthusiasm for sauropods, but don't judge those who have, and stop spamming a thread dedicated to theropods! The size range that is proposed is large, but that doesn't mean the animal is meaningless. Again, may I remind you in a far bigger sample of C. megalodons the size range for the maximum is similarly large, and yet you love discussing its size and have no problöem establishing figures for it? Yes, this discussion about a long lost bone and the rampant speculations about are totally boring and I prefer more substantiate (and still problematic though) species like Puertausaurus and others. The maximum sizes in megalodon based on the largest teeth with all the published methods is at 17-20 m, nowhere the same disparity as we see in Amphicoeliasof 50-70 m. I should not discuss something that does not interest me a lot surely, but you shouldn't make bad analogies with a subject (megatooth) that you don't control. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 22:26:20 GMT 5
"That you don't control" now I'm scared  !!! Try again. Various proposed maximum sizes for megatooth (16-21m) would yield volumetric differences of a factor of 2,2. Very similar to Amphicoelias fragillimus. Whenever I make an analogy it is bad. whenever you make one, it is "the best we have" or something like that. Fine, if you think it is boring, nobody forces you to do anything here, you don't even have to post at all! EDIT: posting this here to avoid spamming: I would not post such "bad analogies" (lol) if you didn't force me to do so. I jsut find it kinda ironic you are of course absolutely convinced of the validity of an animal whose size bases on isolated teeth, and at the same time dismiss people who estimate size based on footprints or fragmentary remains. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 22:28:37 GMT 5
"That you don't control" now I'm scared !!! Try again. Various proposed maximum sizes for megatooth (16-21m) would yield volumetric differences of a factor of 2,2. Very similar to Amphicoelias fragillimus at now. Whenever I make an analogy it is bad. whenever you make one, it is "the best we have" or something like that. Fine, if you think it is boring, nobody forces you to do anything here, you don't even have to post at all! Gottfried maximum size for megalodon is 17 m (the 16 m is based on a 6,6 inches tooth). 21 m is based on a non-published method (1 inche=10 feet). Yes, you don't control that subject so don't make such bad analogies. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 30, 2013 22:29:50 GMT 5
I don't believe a maximum size of 16 m is still proposed. This was a very conservative maximum size for a 16,8 cm UA, but now we have far larger specimen.
EDIT: Slow.
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Jun 30, 2013 22:31:56 GMT 5
I have an idea: we can discuss those estimates based on actual fossils that still exist(and are not single toes) on this thread, and open another thread called: Exceptional dinosaurs based on dubious or lost material. If you want we can do this for multiple animal groups, therpods, sauropods, whales, stomatopoda (xD). This would surely reduce confrontations and improve the atmosphere. In the sauropod thread, I will post my ultralight A. fragillimus reconstructions based on Andrea Cau´s reconstruction of the Vert. I will make one for early cretaceous lamniforms reaching 15 meters, and one with a 50 meter Balaenoptera sibbaldina.
(note, the last one is a joke). How about that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 22:34:37 GMT 5
I have an idea: we can discuss those estimates based on actual fossils that still exist(and are not single toes) on this thread, and open another thread called: Exceptional dinosaurs based on dubious or lost material. If you want we can do this for multiple animal groups, therpods, sauropods, whales, stomatopoda (xD). This would surely reduce confrontations and improve the atmosphere. In the sauropod thread, I will post my ultralight A. fragillimus reconstructions based on Andrea Cau´s reconstruction of the Vert. I will make one for early cretaceous lamniforms reaching 15 meters, and one with a 50 meter Balaenoptera sibbaldina. (note, the last one is a joke). How about that? Total approval. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 1, 2013 1:02:16 GMT 5
I have an idea: we can discuss those estimates based on actual fossils that still exist(and are not single toes) on this thread, and open another thread called: Exceptional dinosaurs based on dubious or lost material. If you want we can do this for multiple animal groups, therpods, sauropods, whales, stomatopoda (xD). This would surely reduce confrontations and improve the atmosphere. In the sauropod thread, I will post my ultralight A. fragillimus reconstructions based on Andrea Cau´s reconstruction of the Vert. I will make one for early cretaceous lamniforms reaching 15 meters, and one with a 50 meter Balaenoptera sibbaldina. (note, the last one is a joke). How about that? May not be a bad idea, and help keep some threads clean. However: A: this might tempt some people to "overliberalise" injto really unscientific stuff B: this would bring up the problem of differentiating C: we would have to differentiate more strongly than would be good, meaning something is either totally reliable or totally speculative. Hence I tought keeping reasonable evidence in one thread would not be bad, but if this starts to become a debate about fanboy animals and how much of a true core there is in them, I agree. Maybe we should make a thread "liberal speculations", but only for veeery slim and accordingly speculative stuff. We can also post figures for the same animal in both threads, one for likely ranges, one for slimmer possibilities. Valid figures, even liberal ones, should not be separated from other ones, neither should this or the sauropod thread become a "lower-end-estimate-thread". I think one thread should be enough, and yes, it might help with the athmosphere. |
|
!!!
