|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 3, 2013 3:30:12 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 3, 2013 11:37:37 GMT 5
Grey: No it is not, and you failed to bring up evidence to prove me wrong. T. rex´ neck is not "tremendously more powerful", it is at parity probably as much stronger as is required to lift and control its heavier skull, not more. Both are tremendously powerful. Calling me unobjective in this regard, while you yourself developed the whole argument around an inofficial sensationalistic quote contradicting the evidence and not supported in the literature (contradicted by the literature of Holtz himself!), and always the same claim of me being the biased guy... so let me explain this to you for the last time: sources and evidence in peer reviewed literature>facebook quotes using wording such as "lousy" or "tremendously more powerful", no matter who made them>your interpretations of them Such sensationalist opinions don't interest me. And especially someone like you, who even requires an explicit, published statement when it is about ribcage depth that you can see in a skeleton, should know what I'm talking about I doubt T. rex having a "tremendously more powerful" neck than Acrocanthosaurus, because the evidence in Acrocanthosaurus and other carnosaurs tells us otherwise, and if I have a choice, which I have, I believe the verifyable information, which does not suggest what you argue. So please, at any time, feel free to produce arguments, but do not argue as if you were above me and giving logical points was beneath your dignity. No need to keep arguing when you haven't even shown anything to support your claim. It is you who I am arguing with (if you want to call this arguing, since right now it is a very one-sided story "quote-argument-insult-argument-insult..."), you who heavily attacked me, so it is also your task to find evidence for what you are claiming, instead of the same insults, all the time. I am opened to evidence, but not opened to statements contradicting it in a sensationalistic ("lousy"!) manner. It is time you learn telling apart facts and the kind of statement you posted. We had this problem before. And it is not my fault it exists, since I am not the one making the unsubstantiated claims (or in some other cases, the unsubstantiated rebuttals, which is not better at all).
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 3, 2013 11:38:30 GMT 5
Where again is that Spinosaurus model mounted? and is there any source of information about it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2013 23:43:42 GMT 5
Where again is that Spinosaurus model mounted? and is there any source of information about it? It's in Milan and judging by the proportions, it seems to be a chimera of MSNM v4047 and a smaller specimen(the rumored "Spinosaurus limb material") |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 4, 2013 23:56:43 GMT 5
What makes you think that it is a chimera? It could as well be a specimen with odd proportions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2013 0:10:55 GMT 5
What makes you think that it is a chimera? It could as well be a specimen with odd proportions. You could say the same for the Berlin Giraffatitan if you haven't found out that it was a composite. And the alleged "Spinosaurus femur" seems to be only 1 meter long, further reinforcing the thought that the Milan model is a chimera of two or more differently-sized specimens. |
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Jul 5, 2013 0:26:20 GMT 5
Where again is that Spinosaurus model mounted? and is there any source of information about it? It's in Milan and judging by the proportions, it seems to be a chimera of MSNM v4047 and a smaller specimen(the rumored "Spinosaurus limb material") How do you know that the limb material is from a smaller specimen? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2013 0:32:34 GMT 5
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Jul 5, 2013 1:01:22 GMT 5
So how did you actually logically deduce that Spinosaurus had to have legs as long (proportionally speaking)as Baryonyx? The Femur seems more closely to be 1.3 meters long(maybe a bit smaller, its hard to properly measure a femur with flesh on it, at least if the guy is 6 feet tall. Suchomimus has a femur slightly over 1,07 meters (BTW where do you get a 1 meter Baryonyx femur?, whats the problem? Especially we do not know what the requirements for its lifetyle were. I heartly doubt that it would have the need to run fast or to run at all. I also think that since they found more material than the legs that they are more abled to say something about the size of a specimen than some random guy on the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 5, 2013 1:25:19 GMT 5
What makes you think that it is a chimera? It could as well be a specimen with odd proportions. You could say the same for the Berlin Giraffatitan if you haven't found out that it was a composite. Well, the fact that there are chimeras, does not prove that this one is a chimera. After all, MOR 555 is not a chimera, because it has a proportionally much longer dentary than AMNH 5027. And the alleged "Spinosaurus femur" seems to be only 1 meter long, further reinforcing the thought that the Milan model is a chimera of two or more differently-sized specimens. OK, that's an extreme difference. You are very likely right, in this case. |
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jul 5, 2013 1:30:50 GMT 5
 So I heard someone mention me, and I stand by what I said earlier, the femur in the Milan reconstruction appears to be closer to 1m, apparently no bigger at all than that of Suchomimus. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2013 14:52:04 GMT 5
So how did you actually logically deduce that Spinosaurus had to have legs as long (proportionally speaking)as Baryonyx? The Femur seems more closely to be 1.3 meters long(maybe a bit smaller, its hard to properly measure a femur with flesh on it, at least if the guy is 6 feet tall. Suchomimus has a femur slightly over 1,07 meters (BTW where do you get a 1 meter Baryonyx femur?, whats the problem? Especially we do not know what the requirements for its lifetyle were. I heartly doubt that it would have the need to run fast or to run at all. I also think that since they found more material than the legs that they are more abled to say something about the size of a specimen than some random guy on the internet. I never deduced that Spinosaurus had legs proportionally as long as Baryonyx, I said that it's logical to say that Spinosaurus has longer legs in absolute terms than Baryonyx. There's a difference between proportional and absolute. And if you measure Scott Hartman's Baryonyx skeletal, the femur comes out at between ~1-1.1 meters long. Btw I don't think Spinosaurus could run at all due to likely being the size(mass) of Diplodocus. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 5, 2013 18:54:38 GMT 5
It is apparent from Blaze's scale the pelvic girdle and femur ar far too small for the size of the animal.
It is hard to imagine how thick such a femur would have to be compared to its lenght. Maybe Spinosaurus wouldn't have legs proportionally as long as in Baryonyx (because Baryonyx is not fully mature yet), perhaps not even like Cristatusaurus (since there is also an allometric trend outside ontogeny). But shorter in absolute terms than the femur in a 9-10m animal? Despite being nearly double the body lenght?
Highly doubtful. There'd better be some very good evidence for this extraordinary deduction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 6, 2013 6:45:07 GMT 5
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jul 6, 2013 12:27:18 GMT 5
That's not Baryonyx, is Rauhut's "generalized baryonychinae" and come on, it is obvious that the maxilla of spinosaurus is much bigger than in rauhuts reconstruction and in height not just in length so it can be explained by elongation alone and yet he gets the posterior half of the skull of spinosaurus smaller than suchonyx (lol)? yeah right.
|
|
