|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 2, 2013 19:01:43 GMT 5
He said a defenseless mountain of meat, that would be an insult (I know that you didn't say this, I just wanted to clarify his point). However, I too have my doubts if Tyrannosaurus could kill an Alamoasaurus, we would need quite a large pack for this. It would be possible, but I don't think it was likely, as broly said, we don't know if Tyrannosaurus hunted in packs. Since T. rex was the largest and most dominant apex predator in the region and that we now know that a huge sauropod several times bigger was also living in the area, keeping in mind the bite marks on the bones, not necessar all scavenging, it is not unreasonnable to think the possibility of T. rex to have hunted large Alamosaurus on occasion, not in a coordinated pack hunting but more something like Varanus komodoensis. A prey needs a predator, and even if, of course, T. rex would not have regularly preyed on a giant healthy Alamosaurus in a regular manner, we cannot rule out the possibilit that it happenned on occasion. The bite marks on bones are hints, even if we don't know if this is necessary scavenging or feeding after the hunt. I've asked this to Holtz, awaiting the response. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 2, 2013 19:04:08 GMT 5
Talking with Scott Hartman after his post about Spinosaurus.
Me : Based on Suchomimus, I'm betting on something like 11 tons or a bit more for the 15.6 m Spinosaurus. Can't wait to see if your results correlate this figure...
Hartman : I don't think you're too far off...
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 2, 2013 19:13:31 GMT 5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 19:22:28 GMT 5
Talking with Scott Hartman after his post about Spinosaurus. Me : Based on Suchomimus, I'm betting on something like 11 tons or a bit more for the 15.6 m Spinosaurus. Can't wait to see if your results correlate this figure...Hartman : I don't think you're too far off...So his Spinosaurus is about the mass that people usually give to a ~17-meter Spinosaurus... And also another statement: "When using some of the unpublished specimens the discrepancy drops even further..." - Scott Hartman comments.deviantart.com/1/278622408/3105513101Looks like shartman's Spinosaurus would remain quite accurate even when the supposed limb material description is finally published. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 2, 2013 19:22:48 GMT 5
I was more referring to a subadult...or not ? The size disparity between T. rex individuals and one adult Alamosaurus is not as massive as between lions and an adult bull elephant. Another quote. A guy : Acro was a liittle smaller than T. rex but was more powerfully built. If T. rex is the Lion the Acro would be the JaguarThomas Holtz : The bite force of Tyrannosaurus was considerably higher than Acro; its brain power about 2x; its neck muscles tremendously more powerful. It had a very different approach to hunting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 19:25:49 GMT 5
The size disparity between T. rex individuals and one adult Alamosaurus is not as massive as between lions and an adult bull elephant. It doesn't really need to be, because of how strength and mass scale up as dimensions increase. The same reason why ants can lift ~50x their own weight, while a man cannot. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 2, 2013 19:26:27 GMT 5
Talking with Scott Hartman after his post about Spinosaurus. Me : Based on Suchomimus, I'm betting on something like 11 tons or a bit more for the 15.6 m Spinosaurus. Can't wait to see if your results correlate this figure...Hartman : I don't think you're too far off...So his Spinosaurus is about the mass that people usually give to a ~17-meter Spinosaurus... And also another statement: "When using some of the unpublished specimens the discrepancy drops even further..." - Scott Hartman comments.deviantart.com/1/278622408/3105513101Looks like shartman's Spinosaurus would remain quite accurate even when the supposed limb material description is finally published. The 17 m figures depending of the tail length, thus he total weight being not that much heavier than at 16 m. I think the post will be published in few hours. I'm fine with a 11 tons (or a bit more), approx. 16 m Spinosaurus. Anyway it remains the largest land predator known from anytime, and quite possibly the most powerful. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 2, 2013 19:28:47 GMT 5
The size disparity between T. rex individuals and one adult Alamosaurus is not as massive as between lions and an adult bull elephant. It doesn't really need to be, because of how strength and mass scale up as dimensions increase. The same reason why ants can lift ~50x their own weight, while a man cannot. The same apply to both animals here. I'm not suggesting that adults Alamo were a regular prey, but they were certainly not totally immune against predation. But I'm going to dig further in this through my discussion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 19:32:11 GMT 5
So his Spinosaurus is about the mass that people usually give to a ~17-meter Spinosaurus... And also another statement: "When using some of the unpublished specimens the discrepancy drops even further..." - Scott Hartman comments.deviantart.com/1/278622408/3105513101Looks like shartman's Spinosaurus would remain quite accurate even when the supposed limb material description is finally published. The 17 m figures depending of the tail length, thus he total weight being not that much heavier than at 16 m. I think the post will be published in few hours. I'm fine with a 11 tons (or a bit more), approx. 16 m Spinosaurus. Anyway it remains the largest land predator known from anytime, and quite possibly the most powerful. It also depends on how the rostrum is scaled. "When estimating MSNM V4047 it's important to get the scaling between the dentry fragments and and the snoat fragments correct, that's where estimates in the 17-18 meter range can come from. In the snoat fragments there is a narrowing where I imagine the the larger teeth at the front of the dentry interlock with. I've played around with the holotype dentry and MSNM V4047 in photoshop and I can't figure out what the best way to combine them is. Maybe what would be usfull is a hi-res image just showing your interpretation of how the skull fits together in a bit more detail." - Steveoc86 And here is the response: "You're absolutely right Steve, and that's a separate issue altogether from how the back of the skull should be restored. If I get a chance I'll whip up something on this (although I can't show everything), but it'll be a little bit as I have a full docket of posts and work atm." - Scott Hartman comments.deviantart.com/1/381444515/3113754238I've always stayed within a range of ~10-14 tonnes for an adult Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, so the new mass estimate is perfectly fine for me as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 2, 2013 19:34:56 GMT 5
The 17 m figures depending of the tail length, thus he total weight being not that much heavier than at 16 m. I think the post will be published in few hours. I'm fine with a 11 tons (or a bit more), approx. 16 m Spinosaurus. Anyway it remains the largest land predator known from anytime, and quite possibly the most powerful. It also depends on how the rostrum is scaled. "When estimating MSNM V4047 it's important to get the scaling between the dentry fragments and and the snoat fragments correct, that's where estimates in the 17-18 meter range can come from. In the snoat fragments there is a narrowing where I imagine the the larger teeth at the front of the dentry interlock with. I've played around with the holotype dentry and MSNM V4047 in photoshop and I can't figure out what the best way to combine them is. Maybe what would be usfull is a hi-res image just showing your interpretation of how the skull fits together in a bit more detail." - Steveoc86 And here is the response: "You're absolutely right Steve, and that's a separate issue altogether from how the back of the skull should be restored. If I get a chance I'll whip up something on this (although I can't show everything), but it'll be a little bit as I have a full docket of posts and work atm." - Scott Hartman comments.deviantart.com/1/381444515/3113754238I've always stayed within a range of ~10-14 tonnes for an adult Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, so the new mass estimate is perfectly fine for me as well. Interesting indeed. I will stay on this first prediction by Hartman though. I would like that the giant snout in a private collection is published. Horner said me it was about 1,20 m, altough I would be cautious with it. |
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Jul 2, 2013 20:22:17 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 2, 2013 20:31:02 GMT 5
Ahahah, how to break the myth...Should link this to Hartman. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 2, 2013 20:42:38 GMT 5
I was more referring to a subadult...or not ? The size disparity between T. rex individuals and one adult Alamosaurus is not as massive as between lions and an adult bull elephant. Another quote. A guy : Acro was a liittle smaller than T. rex but was more powerfully built. If T. rex is the Lion the Acro would be the JaguarThomas Holtz : The bite force of Tyrannosaurus was considerably higher than Acro; its brain power about 2x; its neck muscles tremendously more powerful. It had a very different approach to hunting.Still awaiting to see the proof for the neck muscles, which were obviously very large in Acrocanthosaurus too. I think with powerful built, the guy rather meant muscularity in the whole body, not bite force, and even less "brain power". Maybe due to the spinous processes. The lion/jaguar analogy is BS tough. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 2, 2013 20:47:06 GMT 5
It sounds clear through the various rigorous models that T. rex possesses more powerful neck muscles than Acrocanthosaurus and I doubt that Holtz claims this without support in backup.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 20:57:06 GMT 5
And Cau makes another weird estimate for Spinosaurus, his second since his ~12.5 meter estimate(which he does not go by anymore). A ~1.3-1.4 meter MSNM V4047 skull would be almost all rostrum and little of anything else. Also try putting his proposed ~1.3-1.4 meter long skull onto his very own Spinosaurus reconstruction.
I smell the scent of a wrong method, namely using a coelurosaur to verify a method that tries to extrapolate a megalosauroid's skull...should have used Baryomimus instead...
|
|
