Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 7:29:48 GMT 5
He assumed both at the same density, while Tyrannosaurus would have been more pneumatic, being a coelurosaur. So I think MUCPv-95 still wins out against Sue in terms of mass, but not volume. Also, all other known Tyrannosaurus specimens are still outmatched! Had he used AMNH 5027 and/or CM 9380 the result would be in favor of Giganotosaurus.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 8, 2013 7:36:04 GMT 5
Of course there is no data, but the statement "There are likely no Giganotosaurs larger than our current specimen is about 5,000,000 to 1. (Depending on population size) While the statement "We probably don't have the largest Giganotosaur yet." Is almost certainly correct. In other words it would be a HUGE assumption to assume Giganotosaurus didn't get bigger than our current specimens. As for how much bigger, that's where real speculation comes into play, but as far a species go today, I wouldn't be surprised by a 14 meter 9 ton Giganotosaurus. The problem is that this is just as true with T. rex. 31 rexes compared to the hundreds of thousands that ever existed is not much more statistically than 2 Giga on the hundreds of thousands that ever existed. In both case, we can apply the same speculation. And I'm not interested in that.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 8, 2013 7:39:39 GMT 5
He assumed both at the same density, while Tyrannosaurus would have been more pneumatic, being a coelurosaur. So I think MUCPv-95 still wins out against Sue in terms of mass, but not volume. Also, all other known Tyrannosaurus specimens are still outmatched! Had he used AMNH 5027 and/or CM 9380 the result would be in favor of Giganotosaurus. The pneumacity question is limited, but of course you could find any argument for undermine Tyrannosaurus... Here we see how childish you are. Stan and Carnegie have good chances themselves to rival or exceed the Giganotosaurus holotype.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 8, 2013 7:47:49 GMT 5
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jul 8, 2013 8:16:49 GMT 5
Another baseless rant from good old Cau! I'm beginning to like reading these!
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 8, 2013 8:28:07 GMT 5
He's debatable but I wouldn't call his stuff "baseless rant"....
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jul 8, 2013 9:12:22 GMT 5
I do think that in the end we will end up saying "they are equal" but the question of "will we find a larger one?" is a lot more valid for Giganotosaurus than Tyrannosaurus, like Hartman said, we only have one good specimen that we found 10 years ago and it took almost a hundred years to find Sue, all other big specimens found during the century are similar in size and all of them are smaller than Sue, finding an even bigger specimen of Tyrannosaurus doesn't seem to be something that'll happen any time soon.
On top of that there's lot more than just 30 T. rex specimens, I know it is kind of a "known fact" by now but the sources are? For example, during the decade long excavations by Horner and company at Hell Creek, the results of which were published some years ago (Horner et al, 2011), they found 36 T. rex skeletons, this number, I repeat, only includes specimens found during the project, the exceptions being MOR 555 and MOR 0009 which were found in the same area but excavated before the project started.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 8, 2013 9:21:11 GMT 5
Sure, but my point is that on the individuals that ever existed (or ever been fossilized) the chance to found larger individuals in both species are existing. How larger is a matter of speculation at this point. Even if we found a bigger Giga this year (how larger ?) the same question will be expressed for rex. Hartman said also that larger rexes may exist as well. So, one or the other, I'm not that interested in that kind of thoughts.
Whatever, they appear roughly similar at the end of the day.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jul 8, 2013 9:32:59 GMT 5
I can agree on that.
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Jul 8, 2013 9:54:52 GMT 5
Another baseless rant from good old Cau! I'm beginning to like reading these! LOL, it does not seem to fit your ideology, that´s why you are negative on him. Why don´t you try to actually adress the points made by him? That would be scientific. Broly: Just because it is a Coelurosaur does not mean that it is more pneumatized.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 10:54:48 GMT 5
He assumed both at the same density, while Tyrannosaurus would have been more pneumatic, being a coelurosaur. So I think MUCPv-95 still wins out against Sue in terms of mass, but not volume. Also, all other known Tyrannosaurus specimens are still outmatched! Had he used AMNH 5027 and/or CM 9380 the result would be in favor of Giganotosaurus. The pneumacity question is limited, but of course you could find any argument for undermine Tyrannosaurus... *snip*. Stan and Carnegie have good chances themselves to rival or exceed the Giganotosaurus holotype. Stop with the "I hate Tyrannosaurus" accusations already!!!!!!!!
I even stated in my post that Giganotosaurus does not win out against FMNH PR2081 in terms of volume.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 8, 2013 13:33:00 GMT 5
What? The density? from what I know carnosaurs almost certainly DO have somewhat higher densities. The width? I don't know what it bases on. I'll try to adjust the density, for demonstration to the approximate densities of Acrocanthosaurus and FMNH PR 2081. Giganotosaurus holotype: 7 450l, density of 0,91=6,77t +2,2%=7,22 +6,5%=8,1t +8%=8,5t +10% (largest Mapusaurus)=9t FMNH PR 2081: 9 200l, density of 0,8=7,3t it seems hard to believe, but there either is an embarrassing calculation error on my side, or the density really has significant impact here. In any case this does revise Hartmans earlier 6,4t figure for sue. I know that Tyrannosaurus was less dense. I wanted to say that if this are rigorous mass estimates, he would have included all the factors.
|
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Jul 8, 2013 13:36:30 GMT 5
The holotype's dentary matchs up better to MSNM's than i excepted. I do not say that MSNM was most likely just as large as Holotype though, but less than 20 % bigger is pretty possible. I think ~1.4 m skull for MSMN v4047 would be a bit too short for my eyes, but still better than 2 m and assumimg the rostrum is around 1/2 length of skull like someguy said half year ago
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 8, 2013 14:02:52 GMT 5
Broly, no wonder, you get the idea of Tyrannosaurus more pneumatized than others carnosaurs so you envision T. rex as dinosaurian balloon !
Hartman responded you that the impact is not significant (assuming this is true) but you still come back everywhere arguing against Hartman post. Well, at least you're quite funny.
That's bad, some of your last posts showed an increasing degree of maturity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 15:37:50 GMT 5
Broly, no wonder, you get the idea of Tyrannosaurus more pneumatized than carnosaurs so you envision T. rex as dinosaurian balloon ! Hartman responded you that the impact is not significant (assuming this is true) but you still come back everywhere arguing against Hartman post. Well, at least you're quite funny. That's bad, some of your last posts showed an increasing degree of maturity. I wrote those BEFORE I saw shartman's reply. I am not some kind of psychic who gets the info as soon as it appears. And the dinosaurian balloon was exaggeration on your part. The notion of Tyrannosaurus being more pneumatic has basis on theropod phylogeny. Anyway if I have the time, I could do a GDI of the Tyrannosaurus holotype CM 9380 to see how it stacks up.
|
|