|
Post by creature386 on Jul 11, 2013 23:28:10 GMT 5
That's similar to what you posted on your CF blog. Will you also post your Tyrannosaurus vs Spinosaurus posts there?
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 12, 2013 1:28:44 GMT 5
I forgot to note the enlarged crest on the parietal and supraoccipital also seems to shift the occipital condyle a bit backwards (see the point were the vertebra starts). Anyway, still not really a difference for skull or body size, for the latter it is important to reconstruct spinosaurus to match other spinosaurs, to allow for proper scaling between them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2013 19:50:50 GMT 5
Word from Scott Hartman regarding Giganotosaurus bite force "Ugh - sorry I'd mentally entered the thousand after 20 and THEN converted it in kilonewtons (e.g. 20,000 kilonewtons!) and was wondering what on earth you were thinking. That's what I get for trying to do math before I've had a cup of coffee!
Anyhow, I think 20k is in the right ballpark. If you've read Bates & Falkingham's 2012 paper then you probably realize how large the error bars are on trying to get an exact number. So to answer this more in line with the margin of error, I think it's safe to say that the bite force is larger than Allosaurus (due to scaling alone) but not as strong as T. rex (with a skull less designed for a crushing bite, and less room for jaw closing muscles).
But still, you wouldn't have wanted to stick your hand inside." - Scott Hartman comments.deviantart.com/1/302541476/3117891850
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2013 21:19:53 GMT 5
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jul 22, 2013 21:45:34 GMT 5
Yeah, Cau acts more like a jilted 9 year old than a scientist in this post. I know this is just a stab at other people, but I think most of his giant theropod "information" is rather rashly posted.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 22, 2013 23:13:41 GMT 5
Because your multiple posts with totally made up dinos weighing several hundreds tons are mature perhaps ? Try to bring to the paleontological world 1% of what Cau brings each year then you talk.
On the contrary, this Spino is huge, it should please you.
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Jul 23, 2013 0:04:38 GMT 5
Yeah, Cau acts more like a jilted 9 year old than a scientist. I know this is just a stab at other people, but I think most of his giant theropod "information" can be ignored. It must really, really hurt in the butt to get trolled by a professional palaeontologist. And wheren´t you the one dreaming of 600 ton sauropods? And as you study palaeontology, I would be very cautious what I write over potential fellow scientist. Your prof wont be pleased how you antagonize others in the field(who worked on several important papers), and that can become really, really ugly. Again you do not attack his argument but his person, which is just gross and unprofeesional. Counter his argument, not his person. But I know why you do not even try...
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 23, 2013 0:17:49 GMT 5
I've several times confronted different authors opinions with the suggestions of others, each time they counter argument, they do it very respectfully and NEVER argue that they are absolutely right in their own reasonning. Cautiousness and respect for others is a basic rule if I'm not mistaken.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jul 23, 2013 5:41:47 GMT 5
God, you people's lack of understanding is unfathomable. Cau's post was a childish attack on other people restoring Spinosaurus as the large theropod it likely was, IT IS A JOKE in bad taste, there is no need to refute the argument.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jul 23, 2013 5:44:48 GMT 5
Yeah, Cau acts more like a jilted 9 year old than a scientist. I know this is just a stab at other people, but I think most of his giant theropod "information" can be ignored. It must really, really hurt in the butt to get trolled by a professional palaeontologist. And wheren´t you the one dreaming of 600 ton sauropods? And as you study palaeontology, I would be very cautious what I write over potential fellow scientist. Your prof wont be pleased how you antagonize others in the field(who worked on several important papers), and that can become really, really ugly. Again you do not attack his argument but his person, which is just gross and unprofeesional. Counter his argument, not his person. But I know why you do not even try... You don't understand the basis of my remark, Cau's post is a stab at other people, not an actual "method" so there is no need to refute it. And I never claimed 600 ton sauropods as fact. I was scaling known animals to a possible foot width, as more info came to light other measurements were proven more likely, and I correspondingly changed my estimates. Something many posters here seem unwilling to do.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 28, 2013 0:46:21 GMT 5
Some of Cau's points indicating a longer neck in Spinosaurus are valid, and indeed I can envision it very well. Sadly, he is just too determined to find arguments for his speculations to seem the most likely ("it's teeth have some very small similarity with sauropod teeth=argument for a long neck"?... ), he totally exagerates the results in every way, and of course there always seems the not-so-hidden attempt to make "traditional" reconstructions (those that are using phylogenetic bracketing instead of wild speculations, the latter being fine as long as they remain what they are) look wrong by making strange claims himself. It is as if he wanted to show something, but in the end all he shows is "if you take some ridiculous freedom for speculation and ignore the indirect evidence, you can arrive at creatures somewhat comparable to reconstructions of incomplete taxa that you'd see in papers that are a century old". This applies equally to the other new reconstruction he made, and his toughts on Spinosaurus in general. I can see some logic in some of Cau's suggestions (long neck, or even atrophied limbs), really, but his renderings are exagerated for no proper reason and he seems so damn fixed upon the idea "those guys are all wrong and not thinking enough about their reconstructions". I particularly like how he calls other renditions "simplistic", considering his spinitator and spinonyx claims.
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Jul 30, 2013 23:30:20 GMT 5
Some of Cau's points indicating a longer neck in Spinosaurus are valid, and indeed I can envision it very well. Sadly, he is just too determined to find arguments for his speculations to seem the most likely ("it's teeth have some very small similarity with sauropod teeth=argument for a long neck"?... ), he totally exagerates the results in every way, and of course there always seems the not-so-hidden attempt to make "traditional" reconstructions (those that are using phylogenetic bracketing instead of wild speculations, the latter being fine as long as they remain what they are) look wrong. This applies equally to the other new reconstruction he made, and his toughts on spinosaurus in general. I can see some logic in some of Cau's suggestions (long neck, or even atrophied limbs), really, but his renderings are exagerated and he seems so damn fixed upon the idea "those guys are all wrong and not thinking enough about their reconstructions". I particularly like how he calls other renditions "simplistic", considering his spinitator and spinonyx claims. You seem to not to understand what he is actually doing: Arriving at strange reconstructions with more rigorous methods than certain Fanboys. This is not because he believes his models, but because he is calling for better methods: No simple linear scaling, not using somewhat distant relatives(and only a few of them), taking into account evolutionray trends. I have seen no one actually trying to engage a proper discussion on this with him, only people crying about his writings without a proper counter. And please what is simplistic about Spinitator(he also writes that actually made this estimate in a fashion he dislikes)?
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 31, 2013 0:51:41 GMT 5
We're not talking about "certain fanboys", unless you call other scientists studying Spinosaurus like that...
Have an objective look at his methods. All the time it is far more speculation that's involved, all the time the results are liberal in how conservative they are by willingly not using relatives as a proxy, or they show strange features like the diplodocus-like neck or atrophied flippers. And all the time, he seems to regard them not as demonstrations or interesting experiments, but the best interpretation or as good as any interpretation there is, simply ignoring the rest of the researchers or the phylogenetic bracketing; either to bash on someone as some way to prove he's right, or, less likely, because he really considers them better.
Spinitator is simplistically scaled to depth of the rostrum at a point he must have hypothetised to fit best, and then stated as the most likely estimate. For some reason all the people who actually attempted a reconstruction of the skull, not such a simplistic scaling experiment, turned out at different results.
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jul 31, 2013 11:51:05 GMT 5
The problem with this small estimate is that Irritator have different proportions than Spinosaurus in the skull.
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Jul 31, 2013 15:01:17 GMT 5
We're not talking about "certain fanboys", unless you call other scientists studying Spinosaurus like that... Have an objective look at his methods. All the time it is far more speculation that's involved, all the time the results are liberal in how conservative they are by willingly not using relatives as a proxy, or they show strange features like the diplodocus-like neck or atrophied flippers. And all the time, he seems to regard them not as demonstrations or interesting experiments, but the best interpretation or as good as any interpretation there is, simply ignoring the rest of the researchers or the phylogenetic bracketing. Spinitator is simplistically scaled to depth of the rostrum at a point he must have hypothetised to fit best, and then stated as the most likely estimate. For some reason all the people who actually attempted a reconstruction of the skull, not such a simplistic scaling experiment, turned out at different results. Fanboys refers to non professionals crying about his opinions, of which are there a lot. I do not see how he does not use relatives, he uses Irritator, he uses Baryonyx. And if you do not get that his proposals are not what he actually believes, I cannot help you, because its pretty obvious.(BTW, not being abled to see hardcore sarcasm is either a medical symptom or carelessness. Knowing you I guess its the latter) He later even writes over Spinosaurus litteralis that it can fly, spits flames and had the voice of Sean Connery. Do you think he is serious there? Spinodocus is clearly a taunt towards those crying about his Spinosaurus being to small. He also writes in the comments that he wants to provoke a discussion. I also do not understand what you problem with arriving at different results due to the use of different methods is. First you would have to provide information on why one method is better than another. Sorry but it is the same situation with Giganotosaurus back then. People cried at Cau´s proposals because they did not fid their wishes. Only back then he did not further infuriated the fanboys with sarcastic posts.
|
|