Giant theropods overview thread

[creature386]

Aug 4, 2013 19:24:43 GMT 5 theropod said:

And what intervention by an admin. Have I missed something?

Probably Ursus' intervention on CF.

[Grey]

I become agressive and perhaps overly sarcastic with guys :

- unable to admit their errors
- unable to respect their elders
- relying on peer reviewed only when the paper is on their side
- despise or lack of respect for foremost authors
- make their own facts for the reason they have some skills in maths or at making models despite they never approach to study a theropod skull
- follow their own principles (sauropods have to be bigger than blue whales, everything new is necessary better, strong bias toward or against animals)
- at the end, imagine themselves as professionnal paleontologists when they are merely educated amateurs whose qualities are deeply parasited by their bias


I spent hours to get informations from various paleontologists (you know, the guys who spent for some decades dedicated to the science) and seeing how some can not take these as good material for the board (because not believing them) and stil argue against when the explanation does not follow their agenda, yes, I become agressive.

You'll remark that even members which I did not particularly appreciate like fragillimus and broly improved some of their judgements and show some opened mind. Think about that dude.

[theropod]

I do, you are just apparently unable to do so with your judgements about me, and as soon as something i write might cause you to question your opinions on the subject, you rather go the easy way and attribute everything to my incredibly biased attitude.

Think about your list and how much of that you can actually objectively attribute to me, and how much consequently rather to yourself. lol on the second point, and a funny demonstration of lacking modesty, especially since in our whole time together you never showed any respect for me. lol also as regards "my agenda". And as regards the rest, also lol, you know why.

It deeply disturbs me how I can argue whatever I want, no matter how legit it is, may it be, like in this case, just favouring other scientist's work, and you always claim all the stuff on your list about it. You also did during our argument concerning tooth measurements, remember? You attributed all this BS and more to me, because I wrote that you wouldn't convince me of slant height being the same as midline height as per Kent (2013). And you claim me to lack respect and be "deeply parasited by bias" in my choices?
I tought at least from that you should have learned a bit about your premature judgements about me. Luckily at least you don't behave like this when discussing with other posters, even if those are arguing just the same points as I do.

[Grey]

I show respect for people that I recognize their skills, objectivity and maturity in their approach, writing style and intellectual work. People such as Spinodontosaurus, 7alx, blaze, coherentsheaf, creature or stomatopod are a bit younger or way younger than I am but they all made numerously excellent posts and expressed cautiousness and when I read them, I almost all the time learn something new, unlike when I read your posts. Like anybody here, and many paleontologists actually, they like big things but they express cautiousness, very scientific approach and can welcome any new professionnally argumented suggestions regarding some problematic species.

Yeah, the case of the tooth measurement was your big success, you're obviously proud of it. Actually, once you've got the paper, that's the only point you first, directly reported me because this measurement actually a bit reduced the usual measurement (and estimates based on tooth slant height) we used (no word about the meg lineage, morphology, lifestyle points from the paper...). All being in the agenda to reduce the size of megalodon, an animal that you do not particularly dislike but that you'd prefer carnivore tetrapods, reptilians at best, to be bigger.
I've recognized you had the point though and I did personnal further research to clarify that. Because, despite my liking for meg (a liking expressed because I like big predators and meg has good chances to have been the biggest of them all), I prefer, at first and before anything else, the truth of the facts.


After more than a year discussing with you, I fully know how you work and what are your goals and preferences. So stop your crying at my "agressive" attitude and take example from others members. I'm not agreed with coherentsheaf on everything for example, but I respect him because he can question himself, he often learns me new stuff, and he does not follow an agenda, he likes pliosaurs (as I do) for what they are (perhaps the most powerful biters in history), he does not spent his time to make them bigger than blue whale godzillas. Think about that.

[theropod]

I show respect for people that I recognize their skills, objectivity and maturity in their approach, writing style and intellectual work. People such as Spinodontosaurus, 7alx, blaze, coherentsheaf, creature or stomatopod are a bit younger or way younger than I am but they all made numerously excellent posts and expressed cautiousness and when I read them, I almost all the time learn something new, unlike when I read your posts. Like anybody here, and many paleontologists actually, they like big things but they express cautiousness, very scientific approach and can welcome any new professionnally argumented suggestions regarding some problematic species.

So do I, but you fail to see it because your prejudices blur your vision and make you interpret things into my posts that aren't there, and overlook other things that are important.

Yeah, the case of the tooth measurement was your big success, you're obviously proud of it. Actually, once you've got the paper, that's the only point you first, directly reported me because this measurement actually a bit reduced the usual measurement (and estimates based on tooth slant height) we used (no word about the meg lineage, morphology, lifestyle points from the paper...). All being in the agenda to reduce the size of megalodon, an animal that you do not particularly dislike but that you'd prefer carnivore tetrapods, reptilians at best, to be bigger.
I've recognized you had the point though and I did personnal further research to clarify that. Because, despite my liking for meg (a liking expressed because I like big predators and meg has good chances to have been the biggest of them all), I prefer, at first and before anything else, the truth of the facts.

Whether this was "my success" or not is totally irrelevant. I had just hoped this obvious case might have opened your eyes to the way you often treat me during discussions

Aug 4, 2013 22:25:07 GMT 5 Grey said:

After more than a year discussing with you, I fully know how you work and what are your goals and preferences. So stop your crying at my "agressive" attitude and take example from others members. I'm not agreed with coherentsheaf on everything for example, but I respect him because he can question himself, he oftenly learns me new stuff, and he does not follow an agenda, he likes pliosaurs (as I do) for what they are (perhaps the most powerful biters in history), he does not spent his time to make them bigger than blue whale godzillas. Think about that.

And there are your problems. I'm doing just the same thing, I'm not making up things but having a realistic look at them. Often enough I have "learned you new stuff", but you didn't accept it as anything other than biased claims, so no wonder you don't get that impression.

I actually recall having argued just the same things as coherentsheaf ("Meg isn't bigger than Livyatan on average"). I got called a fanboy, he got a civilised expression of disagreement.
This is due to your dislike towards me, not due to what I argue. Of course it is also due to this dislike that what I argue always deeply disturbs you, no matter what it is; everywhere you suspect some hidden attack on your ideas or some ridiculous speculation.


And then you accuse me of crying? It's your own fault when I complain about you treating me like a piece of sh**, because that you do is undeniable. You are the one permanently crying about my incredibly biased attitude under any pretext you can find, no matter how ridiculous it is from an objective viewpoint.
Nowadays I'm even a biased fanboy because I make evidently correct observations you don't like. No wonder I always was when I just made logical points not necessarily in agreement with scientists, or, more often, your interpretation of those scientist's work.

[Grey]

So do I, but you fail to see it because your prejudices blur your vision and make you interpret things into my posts that aren't there, and overlook other things that are important.

That's odd that I only misinterpret you in that case. On the other hand, you get in conflicts with a number of these members. I only act, with reason or not, more agressively than them, certainly because I don't have the endurance to repeat myself again and again, whereas I could spent my time to learn things from the paleontologists I'm in contact or these educated guys.

Whether this was "my success" or not is totally irrelevant. I had just hoped this obvious case might have opened your eyes to the way you often treat me during discussions

That was a good point and I've stated it, only that's the lone point you noticed from the paper, whereas you could have talked about a number of other substantial data from it. But you've focused on the tooth size measurement making my self-made direct sizing estimates off. With reason, but I'm justifiably suspicious at the fact that you only talked about it. This would have came from another member, I wouldn't have had such skepticism. I cannot trust you, that's my 1.5 year experience with you which learnt me that.

and there are your problems. I'm doing just the same thing, I'm not making up things but having a realistic look at them. often enough I have "learned you new stuff", but you won't accept it as anything but biased claims, so no wonder you don't get that impression.

I actually recall having argued just the same things as coherentsheaf ("Meg isn't bigger than Livyatan on average"). I got called a fanboy, he got a civilised expression of disagreement.
This is due to your dislike towards me, not due to what I argue. Of course it is also due to this dislike that what I argue always deeply disturbs you, no matter what it is, because everywhere you suspect some hidden attack on your ideas or some ridiculous speculation.

The amount of stuff I've learnt from you is definitely way smaller than from some other members. Good enough, I've not learnt that there was a 20 m Livyatan paratype or that carnosaurs could slice through armored preys...

I was and I'm not agreed with coherentsheaf in that we cannot establish an average size from meg or Liv, one estimated typically by different, various teeth sizing methods, in which a maximum size has yet to be conclusive, and the other only known by one isolated skull, with absolutely no data about the intraspecific variation and from which we have yet to know the exact body size. However, I had with him an interesting discussion where we agreed that meg could possibly be on average smaller, based on the variations of size in modern sharks in which the mature and average size is often far below the maximum size, whereas size in odontocetes is easily more uniforme. We mutually agreed on that possibility (which does not make it a scientific data, something you often forgot, you think that discussions between forumers result in absolute facts, like the the Spino bite force).

So don't discuss with me, I'm perhaps naturally nasty and somewhat (but not totally) unfair with you, and you'll be happy. I let you with your list of tens of theropods larger than T. rex, macropredatory ichthyosaurs as large as meg or Livyatan, sauropods bigger than blue whales, and carcharodontosaurids with teeth adapted to impact bones. Be well, you'll grown up.

[theropod]

theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/212/discussion-theropod?page=4&scrollTo=5164

And now stop spamming "my thread" (pharasing: grey impudens et, felicitati eius, sine alii, 2013) with your big bunch of impertinent and wrong accusations against me!

[Fragillimus335]

Is anyone else having a stroke waiting for Hartman to post his Spinosaurus GDI!!!?! I know I won't last much longer...

[theropod]

Me too!

[gigadino96]

Aug 1, 2013 16:23:46 GMT 5 @brolyeuphyfusion said:

Jul 31, 2013 11:51:05 GMT 5 gigadino96 said:

The problem with this small estimate is that Irritator have different proportions than Spinosaurus in the skull.

What does that have to do with what I posted there? It's Cau's Sauropod-Spinosaurus "reconstruction", not his ~1.3-meter skull claims.

Ops my bad

Well, Cau is sarcastic in this post. 

Look this, from Lessem:

25.media.tumblr.com/474b3cba893c57ddb14b430574b8bd31/tumblr_mqcqgrjqVv1sa5stto1_1280.jpg

Spinosauria as Sauropodomorph !

[gigadino96]

Jul 11, 2013 5:48:09 GMT 5 Fragillimus335 said:

Here's some fun info, I think we can put the, "which theropod had the longest skull" debate to rest... Hartman's MSMN V4047 with the rostrum scaled to 99cm. Total skull length to the sagittal crest is a whopping 1.98 meters. Now, in my opinion Hartman still has the heads of his Spinos a little too large, and shaving them back to ~185 cm makes the entire animal ~16.8 meters long.

I really doubt that Spinosaurus has the largest skull among the Theropods. Look:

www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/scaling-issues-a-minor-irritation712013

Spinosaurids' skulls were proportionally shorter than other Theropods. Spinosaurus is the biggest Theropod, but probably isn't the one with the largest skull.

The longest skull belong to Giganotosaurus (153-164 cm) or to Mapusaurus (156-169 cm). 

Scaling a Ville Sinkonnen's Mapusaurus to have a pubic shaft 10 % larger than those of MUPCv-Ch1, it would end up at 13,3 m long with a skull of 156 cm. In this case, the one of Giganotosaurus is the largest. But I'm not sure about how accurate is this skeletal. Looks very skinny. But assuming that MUPCv-95 is just a specimen equal in size with MUPCv-Ch1 but only with a heavy dentary, the one of Mapusaurus is larger. It's all too uncertain, so we don't know who is the Theropod with the longest skull.

[theropod]

A better terminology would be "longest known skull". All this is less about which theropod has the biggest skull but which one happens to have the biggest (and likely also most large-skulled) specimen referred.

The biggest Mapusaurus is a bit bigger than the biggest Giganotosaurus (for all we know at least), but it's also the biggest in a greater number of individuals.

I'm confident we can say it has a bigger skull at maximum in the known specimens, but this is not conclusive for a comparison of species. I'm not too fond of the skeletal for reasons already explained, it seem exageratedly slim in the ribcage and pectoral girdle.


besides, I'm quite certain at least the largest Tyrannosaurus crania, while shorter, are more voluminous due to their width. This should in any case be kept in mind when talking of the "largest skull".


Quite possible, but heavily dependant on measurement and reconstruction technique, that the longest theropod cranium belongs to S. aegyptiacus.

[Grey]

I would be interested at knowing the approximative mass of the cranium in the largest theropods. I'd guess, but with no certainty, that Sue may have had the heaviest skull.

[theropod]

It's quite likely imo that fmnh pr2081 has the heaviest skull on record, altough it is also highly pneumatic. The cranial expansion is thought of as a reason for the barrel-chest, to anchor the needed lateroflexors.


That being said there are certainly several theropod specimens known whose skulls are/where probably a good deal longer & deeper in their greatst dimensions.

[Fragillimus335]

Time to add some life to this thread!

This is my list of super-theropods, those massing over 5 metric tons. Tell me if I made any gross errors, or left any theropods out!


Acrocanthosaurus atokensis
Weight-6.2t
Length-12m
Height-3.1m

Oxalaia quilombensis
Weight-6.9t?
Length-13m?
Height-3.4m

Tyrannosaurus rex
Weight-8t
Length-12.3m
Height-3.5m

Carcharodontosaurus saharicus
Weight-8.8t
Length-13.8m
Height-3.9m

Tarbosaurus bataar
Weight-5-6t
Length-11-12m
Height-3.3m

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
Weight-14.8t
Length-16.8m
Height-4.4m

Epantarias amplexus
Weight-5.2t
Length-12m
Height-3.1m

Giganotosaurus carolinii
Weight-8t
Length-13.2m
Height-3.7m

Saurophaganax maximus
Weight-6.7t
Length-13m
Height-3.4m


Mapusaurus rosae
Weight-7-8t?
Length-12.5-13.5m?
Height-3.5m?

Tyrannotitan chubutensis
Weight-6.5t
Length-12.2m
Height-3.2m

Deinocheirus mirificus
Weight-5.1t
Length-12.5m
Height-3.6m

Therizinosaurus cheloniformis
Weight-6-7t?
Length-10-11m?
Height-3m?

Suchomimus terensis (Subadult)
Weight-4.2t/5.4t
Length-11m/12m
Height-2.8m/3m

Sauroniops pachytholus
Weight-5t
Length-10-12m
Height-3m

Mapusaurus rosae
Weight-6.8t
Length-12.4m
Height-3.5