Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 10:13:57 GMT 5
Some people here despises Andrea Cau when he suggests something that does not please them. We despise him because he simply dismisses the 1.6+ meter Spinosaurus skull estimates and the ~17 meter total length estimate as myths, without even trying to analyze what's wrong with them. He believes that his figures automatically debunk all others. Is that even scientific behavior? If he really wanted to be cautious, he should be more like Mike Taylor and the other SVPOW guys, they clearly did not state that ~78-tonne Amphicoelias is the only correct figure, they considered the possibility of larger figures instead of dismissing them as mere myths. Being cautious is not synonymous with making something as small as you can.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 7, 2013 10:26:03 GMT 5
Read again more carefully all his posts and my discussion with him then we talk. And stop that somewhat childish attitude please, it's kinda like "he's bad ! He makes my dinos too small ! I want them bigger !".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 10:39:05 GMT 5
Read again more carefully all his posts and my discussion with him then we talk. And stop that somewhat childish attitude please, it's kinda like "he's bad ! He makes my dinos too small ! I want them bigger !". Have you even read it carefully? In the two previous post I discussed the reconstructions of the skull of Spinosaurus using the exemplary "Milan" as the basis of the muzzle, and the various assumptions to "complete" the skull. I am fully aware that my arguments might regret, although I fear that it is often only for a more or less conscious desire to "save" a mythological monster created a decade ago, that is, the Spinosaurus-super-giant, with a skull more than 160 cm long, if not more than 180 cm, despite the fact that such a "monster" is devoid of evidence in its favor, like the Mokele-Mbe-Mbe (and this suggests that either never existed). - Andrea Cau I even highlighted the parts for you. He thinks that ~1.6+ meter skull figures are myths like cryptids. And it's more like "He says that the smaller dinos are the only correct ones just because he got smaller figures!". Btw there is nothing childish in my post. It's also notable that he makes NO actual move to find out what's "wrong" with the ~1.6+ meter figures, he simply makes lower bound figures and states that it's this way.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 7, 2013 10:44:08 GMT 5
No, he simply expresses that the safer approach is to be conservative, whatever Spino was that big or not.
And I'm always disturbed when I see forumers and fans attacking a professionnal who post things they don't appreciate or are not agreed with. Discuss with him instead of despise him here, that could allow to make progress.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 10:53:44 GMT 5
No, he simply expresses that the safer approach is to be conservative, whatever Spino was that big or not. And I'm always disturbed when I see forumers and fans attacking a professionnal who post things they don't appreciate or are not agreed with. Discuss with him instead of despise him here, that could allow to make progress. You do know that conservative means no extra assumptions/liberties right? I read all his posts about Spinosaurus size, and it seems that he's take quite some assumptions that would make Spinosaurus smaller, such as Spinosaurus having a particularly elongated rostrum by spinosaurid standards while the rear portion is highly compressed(based on his reconstructions). I don't really feel like discussing with him, he may just dismiss my arguments due to that entire thing with Amphicoelias. At least I got that cleared up with the SVPOW guys.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 7, 2013 10:59:59 GMT 5
He had read that you were trolled on SV POW and you can use anonymous (ever thought to change of pseudo ?). Confront him instead of argue here, but do it respectfully.
Regarding his reconstruction of Spino rostrum, though debattable I still prefer it over the 1.85 m and more oversized reconstructions.
I personnally rest on Hartman reconstruction but keeping in mind the uncertainities highlighted by Cau and acknowledged by Hartman. If that disturbs some internet maniacs, that's no problem.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 7, 2013 13:50:06 GMT 5
Novas et al., 2005: "The Cretaceous Carcharodontosauridae is the latest clade of carnosaurs, including the largest predatory dinosaurs yet recorded." They haven't said "larger than Tyrannosaurus", so I find that one rather unexplicit. 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)." I am not sure if they were referring to length or to volume, because Hone seems to think that Tyrannosaurus was heavier than Giganotosaurus: s7.postimage.org/9470g6cor/Trexmass01.pngs17.postimage.org/4oz0pwsgv/Giganotosaurus_size02.pngThat in two specimens the larger one is mostly cited as larger than the largest in 31 is a pretty clear indication. Uhm, in none of your quotes a specimen was specified, so how do you know that they meant Sue?
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 7, 2013 15:47:41 GMT 5
I'm ignoring a reportedly 6m long Angatuarama as long as it remains undescribed. Skeletons don't necessarily have to be accurate, you know? @creature: they wouldn't write "larger" if there were T. rex specimens that were bigger, would they? Or are they actually using averages? My intention was to point out what is usually cited, because that seems a key argument and very important to some, not to discuss the reliability of these quotes. Grey: I cannot see where cau does not dismiss the other figures. what does the "end of debate" and "myth" mean if he doesn't? You should not be disturbed of the "forumers" who are sceptical of him, all the time assuming them to be unscientific in their reasoning, you should be disturbed of the "professional" who actually does reject the vast majority of professional estimates (Hartman, Dal Sasso, Headden, hell, even Therrien&Henderson is too high for him even tough he agrees with their terrible method). Why is it that you always support Cau's opinion so vehemently, despite claiming to not favour it, and why do you never support criticism of stuff like exagerated mass estimates for T. rex (eg Paul or Brochu)?
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 7, 2013 16:36:08 GMT 5
@creature: they wouldn't write "larger" if there were T. rex specimens that were bigger, would they? That's true, but I wouldn't rely too much on interpretation, you could just have written "it's usually cited to be bigger". My intention was to point out what is usually cited, not to discuss the reliability of these quotes. I didn't want to say that they are wrong, I just wanted to point out that we don't know if they just spoke about length, because judging from what Hone (on of the authors of one of your quotes) wrote on the images I have shown, it doesn't look like he believes Giganotosaurus was heavier (although I don't agree with him, because I believe Sue and the largest Giga specimen were similar in mass).
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 7, 2013 16:45:43 GMT 5
That's actually what I wrote: That was my point. Imo, MUCPv-95 may have been a ton heavier based on Hartman, perhaps more when based on Paul. Most seems to indicate Giganotosaurus was a bit heavier. Scaling Hartman's holotype Giganotosaurus to 108% it turns out with a bigger torso in lateral view. If we assume roughly similar thoracal width (the mount is not good for deducing depth because of the rib posture), so Giganotosaurus being more slender but not as much more slender as to be still narrower even at generally bigger size (Paul has a dorsal-view T. rex which seems to be about 1,4m wide, so likely comparable) and add the densities to this it appears likely the carcharodontosaur would be the larger animal ( as Hartmans states toohe corrected himself by the seem of it: link, but based on an assumed wider torso), perhaps ~8t compared to a 7t T. rex. If we now consider that this is a far smaller sample of Giganotosaurus compared to T. rex, and still the largest individuals, I don't think we should just deduce them as the same size and ignore it from then on.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 7, 2013 21:04:13 GMT 5
I'm ignoring a reportedly 6m long Angatuarama as long as it remains undescribed. @creature: they wouldn't write "larger" if there were T. rex specimens that were bigger, would they? My intention was to point out what is usually cited, not to discuss the reliability of these quotes. Grey: I cannot see where cau does not dismiss the other figures. what does the "end of debate" and "myth" mean if he doesn't? You should not be disturbed by the "forumers" who are sceptical of him, all the time assuming them to be unscientific in their reasoning, you should be disturbed of the "professional" who actually does reject the vast majority of proposed estimates. An author logically defends his position. The purpose of his post is clearly explained as he wants safe approach instead of anything unverifiable. The professionnal is one of the world leading authorities in terms of theropods so his opinion has some weight, cf : Hartman comment about that. Regarding the forumers, I care of those who will confront him or contribute with him, not those who cry because he makes an enigmatic dinosaur smaller than they would want it to be.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 7, 2013 21:22:11 GMT 5
What is there to confront or contribute? may I remind you of the "end of debate"?
One can defend one's position without calling everything else a "myth". You automatically assume when people disagree with him, noting rightfully that many of Cau's claims in this matter are too extreme, they do it because "they cry because their dino is downsized". How come you have such a bad opinion about any non-scientist you are discussing with?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 7, 2013 21:46:34 GMT 5
Well, I have a good opinion of critics from people like blaz, stomatopod, coherentsheaf or metriacanthosaurus, because I know they are not biased and honest. They don't criticize scientific authors all the time, which implies that once they do it, there are some good reasons for it. Regarding Cau, comments are allowed. The End of Discussion means that at the end there is no certainitiy, not that his description is the conclusive one. Don't hesitate to confront him so... BTW, I'm serious, I'm sure that some posters I've crossed the path here or in CF would really cry if Spino was downsized as such. Even if I personnally prefer larger size, I'd like to see that
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 7, 2013 23:55:13 GMT 5
Blaze too cricisised Cau's claims and noted the same points as I and broly did. So no matter what personal opinion you have about me or broly, what matters, what we write, is justified by your own logic.
I don't criticise scientific authors "all the time", I criticise them when I get the impression what they report is not accurate, and I only do so when there is a basis for it (namely other scientific works). I however DO indeed criticise misconstructions resulting from misinterpretation of scientific author's work all the time. I will stop neither because someone has the feeling I should or doesn't like it when some things he believes in turn out to be misunderstandings or poorly supported.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 8, 2013 0:36:03 GMT 5
So confront Cau on his blog, contributions make progress.
|
|