|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 31, 2013 20:48:38 GMT 5
Yes, that was my point. He dies not reject the possibility, but clearly rejects the so-called facts that these animals were significantly larger than the largest tyrannosaurs.
The more I read paleontologists and theropods specialized on blog, the more I see an approaching consensus that these animals, overall, were if very very similar dilemsions, not exactly the same, but with no apparent disparity.
However, I've read all the time that Tyrannosaurus, overall was the most robust.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 31, 2013 22:38:11 GMT 5
I think you mean similar in size, not dimensions.
Anyway, that's exactly my point, possibility, but of course not a fact. It seems widely accepted (Naish and Cau so far being the only ones expressing doubts) that the carcharodontosaurs were dimensionally bigger. Weight is more difficult to determine, but opinions tend to go the way of them being a bit heavier too. at least that is what is commonly accepted (Holtz/ Hone & Rauhut, 2009/ Novas et al., 2005/Candeiro & Martinelly, 2005 etc. these are just some, but it is clear what this points out to).
We'll hopefully see about that as soon as someone bothers to search for a bit more of Carcharodontosaurus or Giganotosaurus, because at the moment they are very hard to actually compare as we have so few specimens. If the larger of 2 diagnostic specimens ine ach already easily matches, perhaps exceeds the largest T. rex in weight, and almost certainly is longer, this deomnstrates the point we are probably talking about a larger animal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 31, 2013 22:55:03 GMT 5
That's too bad actually. We can have some hopes but even though new dinosaurs discoveries are more frequent than ever, it's still a very chancy task to fond such large top predators in isolated regions. I think some research is incoming about the large footprints allegedly attributed to large carcharodontosaurids or spinosaurids from Peru...
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 1, 2013 0:00:08 GMT 5
I've never heard of these footprints (tough there are other really huge ones too that I have heard about)
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 1, 2013 12:26:28 GMT 5
That's Big Al who showed me a paper about trackmarks in, if I remember right, Peru. These are alleged to belong either to carcharodontosaurids or spinosaurids.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 1, 2013 15:30:28 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 9, 2013 7:16:40 GMT 5
Skeletal drawing comparisons and comments from Scott Hartman about Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus : Let's move beyond just T. rex, to a question I think I've been asked a jillion times - who was bigger between T. rex and Giganotosaurus? Well, looking at what is missing in the tail of Sue and the Giganotosaurus type specimen it's clear that we really can't be precise enough to know which was longer.
I would think Sue would be heavier, since tyrannosaurs seem to have had broader torsos. The large isolated Giganotosaurus jaw suggests a bigger animal than Sue (assuming it wasn't just a Jay Leno-type individual with a disproportionately larger chin), but there are fragments of T. rex specimens that also suggest significantly larger specimens.
So I think the only reasonable conclusion here is that we simply don't know whether T. rex or Giganotosaurus got larger, but they are both freakin' huge! That's likely the best models we can have of them. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Apr 9, 2013 22:37:40 GMT 5
I would like to know how Hartmann made his calculations for the weight, because he claimed Sue to be heavier than Giganotosaurus (he claimed Sue to weigh 6,4 t).
Wouldn't this mean Giganotosaurus would weigh only 6 t?
He included the second species and stated it to be 13,2 m long. Or was this particular sentence only about the holotype specimen. If my second guess is correct, he may be right with his statement, as this is not too far off.
A similar weight has been stated in the range given in the 1. description of Giganotosaurus.
Tough there it was stated to be heavier, but seemingly, they only claimed it due to the longer femur.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 9, 2013 23:50:38 GMT 5
No matters the actual weight of the animals, IMO here we can have a good look of their ud to date proportions.
I don't understand your question, the bigger one is the one based on the dentary. He acknowledges to reported fragmentary T. rex so do not agree on any statement about which is bigger, even if like said by Cau, at similar body size, Tyrannosaurus display a somewhat more robust morphology.
In my opinion, in a fight contest, Sue would prevail against the holotype specimen of Giganotosaurus, looking at many parts of their respective structure, Sue is simply a more muscular beast, but the potentially quite larger owner of the isolated dentary matches Sue in weight and overall strength.
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Apr 10, 2013 7:30:53 GMT 5
In my opinion, in a fight contest, Sue would prevail against the holotype specimen of Giganotosaurus, looking at many parts of their respective structure, Sue is simply a more muscular beast, but the potentially quite larger owner of the isolated dentary matches Sue in weight and overall strength. I think both beasts are deadly enough to kill each other (realistic perspective). Bone-crushing or not, jaws as big as those can inflict lot of damage. Giganotosaurus possibly have advantage in mobility if not mass. ------ Besides, very informative thread. Great job, fellow members. |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Apr 10, 2013 9:44:35 GMT 5
Yes great posts on the comparison between Gigantosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. I really appreciate the detail of the Hartman models, they really show some of the similarities and likely differences between the species. I'm struck by how much more comparatively massive the T-rex's skull and mandible are then Gigantosaur's. However, Gigantosaur seems a bit more streamlined and for what it's worth its hand claws seem like they could potentially do more damage/holding in close quarters combat, which may give it an advantage. It's always interesting when people say T-rex forelimbs were puny. I understand there have been studies indicating that the bicep muscles associated with T-rex's forelimbs indicate they could lift over 400 pounds, so those forelimbs are certainly not as weak as believed.
I was also interested that Hartman said fragmentary evidence suggests animals significantly larger than Sue. I knew there was a skull of an individual a bit larger than Sue's. Are there other fossil remains suggesting larger specimens?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 10, 2013 16:43:03 GMT 5
 Another comparison by Hartman. I use only his original creations and not modify them like it was done in Carnivora. I agree with you Life, this is similar to the opinion of Holtz who was asked about the battle T. rex/ Spinosaurus and said that it simply depend of who strikes first. At these scales and with so limited size disparity, that's the most faire answer to give. That being said, I'm impressed too by the morphology of the largest tyrannosaurs. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Apr 10, 2013 18:58:59 GMT 5
I don't understand your question, the bigger one is the one based on the dentary. My question was, which specimen does he mean with "lighter than Sue"? |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 10, 2013 19:01:56 GMT 5
Obviously already the holotype and I really feel that the larger one and Sue would be almost exactly similar in body mass given their respective proportions.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 12, 2013 14:09:37 GMT 5
We'll see about the details. For sure, it's the holotype specimen hartman is referring to, and he accepts MUCPv-95 to be bigger and probably heavier than sue. This specimen would have equaled or exceeding sue in terms of mass and strenght, but this is not the place to debate about interspecific conflict (I don't think we should do so at all, at least not in anachronistic scenarios like this one). That supposed skull, MOR 008, was said to be 1,5m in a single press release. Several sources give even bigger figures for sues skull lenght (Holtz in The Dinosauria, McHenry in his doctoral thesis...). In my gallery you can find a demonstration how many ways there are to measure a tyrannosaur skull. Both the maxilla and the dentary of MOR are much smaller than in sue, and adding to that it was reconstructed in a way making it too large (see this demonstration done by member Blaze at carnivora: 1kvzgw.bn1.livefilestore.com/y1pZuAhVuYWYM2YxliLrpNUW9mZWHvG39B2LchKtp8ooOVdbeTd6INTZDpNXTmIxyCzo2M1Jv8Jf898xZ_haCA0DnkprnydhGRg/mor008.gif) so even if it was really the lenght it was reported to be in any of the normal ways to measure it (which too is unlikely) it was still smaller than sue. The only really interesting candidate for that "T. rex larger than sue" claim would be UCMP 137538. "It has potential" would probably be the right way to put it, even tough it has been greatly blown up and many of those claims are far too optimistic about it really being that one toebone. I don't currently know about any other spoecimen in which there even is indication of being bigger than sue, correct me if I'm wrong... And that comparison is not from Hartman. |
|
