|
Post by creature386 on Jul 7, 2013 1:39:31 GMT 5
I think Grey wanted to say that it wouldn't be that "terrible", it Spinosaurus turned out to be smaller than some want.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 7, 2013 1:41:51 GMT 5
^It would make the task more difficult actually, since the size differences would be smaller and the title of the largest theropod less unequivocal. But the uncertainities about Spinosaurus status are greater, as well as its weaponry parameter (bite force, teeth potency on a large foe, skull resistance, arms capabilities...). Comparing Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus skills at both rough similar size is easier to me.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 7, 2013 1:42:01 GMT 5
A 12,5-14m Spinosaurus doesn't really base on any of it's relatives proportions, so we don't really know how massive the animal would be. Grey: But this isn't really relevant to science. We know enough about its capabilities to assess its lifestyle and ecological role, especially considering the scarcity of remains. And Spinosaurus status as by far the largest theropod is pretty clear, unless following Cau's most liberal assumptions, which is much better than what we know with most giant theropods.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 7, 2013 1:42:37 GMT 5
Badassness : sheer killing power I mean.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 7, 2013 1:45:32 GMT 5
A 12,5-14m Spinosaurus doesn't really base on any of it's relatives proportions, so we don't really know how massive the animal would be. Grey: But this isn't really relevant to science. We know enough about its capabilities to assess its lifestyle and ecological role, especially considering the scarcity of remains. Yes, I was talking about the classical fun comparisons of course, not the true scientifical insight of Spinosaurus. Regarding its mass, Cau simply lists it at 5-10 tons.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 7, 2013 1:47:40 GMT 5
Well, you can compare T. rex with Giganotosaurus in terms of function either way and as long as you want, no? The size is problematic even here, it is usually cited and shown as larger, but how much? The opinions vary here.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 7, 2013 1:50:01 GMT 5
It is just as often cited as "comparable in size to Tyrannosaurus".
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 7, 2013 1:57:17 GMT 5
The material in Giganotosaurus and T. rex is still more substantial and the sizes estimates, not only less variable, but even almost meaningless as they are very close (in a non-scientific fight contest of course).
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 7, 2013 2:07:05 GMT 5
Novas et al., 2005: "The Cretaceous Carcharodontosauridae is the latest clade of carnosaurs, including the largest predatory dinosaurs yet recorded." Hone and Rauhut, 2009: "Throughout this paper, reference is made to large theropods. These often include animals of similar size to tyrannosaurs (e.g. Carcharodontosaurus, Saurophag- anax, Ceratosaurus) and some might have actually been significantly larger (e.g. Giganotosaurus, Spino- saurus; see Dal Sasso et al. 2005)." www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/lectures/104therop.html : "Carcharodontosaurids are among the largest theropods known: in particular, Mapusaurus and Giganotosaurus exceed Tyrannosaurus rex in size" EDIT: this has been revised, he follows Hartman now and gives no judgement about the species' sizes any more, merely compared MUCPV-95 and FMNH PR 2081 as similar-sized. He seems to be of the odd opinion that T. rex and Giganotosaurus equaled Spinosaurus in terms of mass, which with all due respect I'm merely waiting for Hartman to debunk. Coria & Calvo, 1998: " Other big-sized theropod dinosaurs, such as Tyrannosaurus rex OSBORN,1905 and Carcharodontosaurus saharicus STROMER, 1934 seem to have been quite smaller than Giganotosaurus (Fig .7)." Greg Paul: blog.press.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Fig30.jpgNot necessarily agreed with all of them, not at all (if not even disagreed with most). This is just what is mostly cited, for those to whom that matters. Sure, not everybody agrees. That the difference is "almost meaningless" I can not agree. It can very well be argued one is larger, and I have heard and made convincing arguments for both, tough I strongly tend towards Giganotosaurus being the larger animal, especially considering the substantial debate is between the larger in two and the largest in 40. Following Hartman's skeletals it might be about a ton heavier (lateral area measurement of thoraca + density). Funny thing and of course of little scientific relevance: Naish states sue was only 73% complete in "the great dinosaur discoveries" (I really hope that was a typo or result of the terrible german translation of that book). Some sources claim MUCPv-Ch1 was 70-80% complete. Is Giganotosaurus the more complete one (because I don't get that impression in the slightest)?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 7, 2013 2:31:26 GMT 5
I justly follow the recent Hartman reconstruction for the reconstructions, not the older datas.
The second specimen of Giganotosaurus by Hartman is only a bit larger than Sue (if we assume the linear scaling), in terms of weight it does not seem that heavier. Whatever which is bigger, it seems like the difference is only in few hundreds of kilogrammes, perhaps less. Not significant impact.
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Jul 7, 2013 4:20:19 GMT 5
A 12,5-14m Spinosaurus doesn't really base on any of it's relatives proportions, so we don't really know how massive the animal would be. Grey: But this isn't really relevant to science. We know enough about its capabilities to assess its lifestyle and ecological role, especially considering the scarcity of remains. So how big would it be based on Angaturama?
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jul 7, 2013 6:14:45 GMT 5
Isn't Angaturama a fragment of a premaxilla?
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Jul 7, 2013 6:29:41 GMT 5
Isn't Angaturama a fragment of a premaxilla? And a Femur, most of the pelvis, all sacrals(though they are lacking the toop og their spines, like most vertebrae), some caudals, a few dorsals and some elements of the manus. I also think a single rib, too.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jul 7, 2013 7:32:26 GMT 5
Damn, I wasn't aware of that, better hunt down for those papers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 8:21:10 GMT 5
Isn't Angaturama a fragment of a premaxilla? And a Femur, most of the pelvis, all sacrals(though they are lacking the toop og their spines, like most vertebrae), some caudals, a few dorsals and some elements of the manus. I also think a single rib, too. Do you have pictures of the vertebrae? I want to know if other spinosaurines also had tall dorsal spines like Spinosaurus.
|
|