|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 21, 2017 2:06:42 GMT 5
Yup.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 7:01:54 GMT 5
good Finds Grey.
are there any numbers or names for the fragmentary specimens that out sized Sue?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 29, 2017 17:28:47 GMT 5
I’ve never read anything about those vertebrae before, including Zhuchengtyrannus.
If any of them are described anywhere, I’d be very interested in having a look at that. Has anyone here ever found information of that sort?
As for other fragmentary specimens, short recap:
Obviously UCMP 137538 is the most prominent of those and was apparently just debunked with finality (not to say that it ever held as much significance as some made it out to be). Similar story with MOR 008, but that was years ago. UCMP 118742’s purported giant size never had any basis in facts to begin with, it’s smaller than sue in all dimensions and didn’t necessarily have much left to grow (also the growth argument could be applied to any theropod, often much more so than this one). And then there’s undescribed C-rex, which has more myths surrounding it than actual bones preserved and whose size remains inspired by nothing but vague statements Horner made 17 years ago and never followed up on.
Also, RSM P2523.8/"Scotty" has a femur that is 129cm long (Larson 2008) and has a circumference of 57.0cm (Campione et al. 2014) while FMNH PR2081 has a femur at least 131cm long (Brochu 2003) and 57.9cm in circumference (Campione et al. 2014). No idea where Hone is coming from on that matter, but Sue is actually the longest and thickest T. rex femur known to date. The only reason Campione et al. got a higher mass estimate for Scotty was that they made the unfounded assumption that scotty’s femur was less anteroposteriorly compressed than Sue’s.
–––References:
Brochu, Christopher A. (2003): Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex: Insights from a Nearly Complete Skeleton and High-Resolution Computed Tomographic Analysis of the Skull. Memoir (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology) 7 pp. 1-138.
Campione, Nicolás E.; Evans, David C.; Brown, Caleb M.; Carrano, Matthew T. (2014): Body mass estimation in non-avian bipeds using a theoretical conversion to quadruped stylopodial proportions Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5 (9) pp. 913-923.
Larson, Neal L. (2008): One Hundred Years of Tyrannosaurus rex: The Skeletons. In: Larson, Peter; Carpenter, Kenneth: Tyrannosaurus rex the Tyrant King. Bloomington, pp. 1-56.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 29, 2017 19:15:39 GMT 5
David Hone told me Tom Holtz mentionned him the vertevra. Holtz told me they are in private collection and just marginally bigger than Sue.
There is indeed no solid specimen even fragmentary that points on a specimen larger than Sue, except maybe C. rex, I recall Spinodontosaurus reporting a possible 5% of larger sizing... However some of those previously said to be larger end up being quite close in size so I disagree when some argue Sue is an exceptional specimen.
I wont be surprised when a new individual will appear to be definitely older and bigger.
Trix is reported to be older and very large, I hope it gets a proper publication.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 22:43:06 GMT 5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 0:15:07 GMT 5
Trix should be about 12.25 meters long according to the 3D scan although i never measured it myself. the Skull should be ~150 cm assuming the dentry is 101 cm long (Sue's dentry is used for Trix due to both animals being about the same size) Trix is also seemingly on the same bulk level as Sue going by the rib cage being just a bit wider than the Skulls total length. sketchfab.com/models/8bb05194fb6d4c8a9afa3c61a58d47c7Edit : on UCMP 118742, the maxilla is about the same size as Sue's since Scott Hartman's Sue has a 81.3 cm maxilla vs UCMP 118742's 81.0 cm maxilla so the two animals are roughly the same size going by that. Tristan's maxilla is about 78 cm while the whole animal is ~12 meters long and i think Scottys Maxilla is close to that aswell. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 31, 2017 0:56:29 GMT 5
The rumors didn't lie. Utahraptor really was a robust beast. The body, the metatarsals (which turned out even shorter than I thought), even the head seems somewhat larger than I thought it would be (and decently constructed as well). |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 31, 2017 1:54:54 GMT 5
@kirkseven : In Scott Hartman’s skeletal of sue I’m actually getting 89px for the longest maxillary length I can measure, scalebar is 104px, so that’s 86cm, pretty much perfectly reflecting the real measurement.
The first problem is that that’s a mere 4 pixels more than your measurement, which is well within the plausible range. For example I included the black margins of the bone in the maxilla instead of the overlying jugal and premaxilla (there’s no cartilage between these bones, the black margins do have to go somewhere in terms of measurement), if I strictly measure without those I get 86px or 83cm.
Giving a measurement to the millimetre from data only resolved up to the nearest pixel at this resolution is useless. Justrounding to significant digits, at most you could use centimetres, but even then that’s still not accounting for the error margin which is several pixels and would thus amount to several centimetres, which means that your figure is appearing way more precise than it really is.
And in the end that’s still comparing apples to oranges because you’re not comparing the two maxillas from measurements that were taken using the same criteria.
The maxilla is medial to the jugal and premaxilla at their contacts, so logically the measurement of what’s externally visible in the skeletal would fall slightly short of the total length of the maxilla when measured individually (not much, which fits with the fact that it can be compensated in this case by including the lines, but if you are talking about that).
But luckily we don’t need any guesswork or differing personal measurements here, the length figure for UCMP 118742 that you cite was directly measured by Larson 2008, as was Sue’s maxilla, and this is how they match up, not just in overall length but other dimensions too (measurements in mm):
UCMP 118742 FMNH PR 2081 ratio
depth 390 400 0.975
length 810 855 0.947
diagonal length 690 720 0.958
tooth row length 625 645 0.969
Since we have these figures, we can certainly all agree that there’s no need for imprecise digital measurements of skeletal restorations to determine their relative sizes.
So this means UCMP 118742 would be around 11.8m when based on Sue. Supposedly, it it followed an ontogenetic trajectory similar to other specimens at that size it’d have a proportionately slightly smaller skull and be a little longer overall, but clearly it’s still smaller than sue
Where are the figures for Tristan and Scotty from?
(Actually I’ve been looking for measurements of Scotty all over the place, but the only ones I know are femur length and circumference)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 3:14:34 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 2, 2017 5:29:44 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 7, 2018 10:48:54 GMT 5
Description of a gigantic megalosauroid vertebra and review of two giant footprint morphotypes from the Kimmeridgian of Asturias: Rauhut, O. W. M., L. Piñuela, D. Castanera, J.-C. García-Ramos, and I. Sánchez Cela. 2018: The largest European theropod dinosaurs: remains of a gigantic megalosaurid and giant theropod tracks from the Kimmeridgian of Asturias, Spain. PeerJ 6:e4963. peerj.com/articles/4963One striking feature of the vertebra from the Vega Formation is its enormous size. With a posterior centrum height of 150 mm, MUJA-1913 is larger than most anterior caudals for which measurements can be found in the literature. In particular, anterior caudals of Torvosaurus tanneri are about 25% smaller (Britt, 1991), an anterior caudal of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus is c. 10% smaller (Stromer, 1915), and one of the largest theropod caudals from the Jurassic, for which measurements were given, a possible carcharodontosaurid caudal from the Tendaguru Formation (Rauhut, 2011), is also c. 25% smaller than the specimen described here. Larger caudal vertebrae are present in the gigantic Cretaceous carcharodontosaurids (Canale, Novas & Pol, 2015) and Tyrannosaurus (Brochu, 2003), but might also be found in the largest allosauroid predators of the Late Jurassic Morrison Formation of the western USA (Chure, 1995 , 2000 ; Williamson & Chure, 1996), though no measurements are available in the literature for these specimens. However this may be, Hendrickx & Mateus (2014) argued that the holotype of Torvosaurus guerneyi represented the largest theropod dinosaur yet recorded from Europe (see also specimens described by Malafaia et al., 2017a). This specimen includes a partial anterior caudal vertebra, the posterior articular surface of which is about 15% smaller than that of MUJA-1913. Thus, given that the specimen from the Vega Formation probably belongs to a closely related taxon, this specimen probably represents the largest theropod dinosaur recorded so far in Europe, and represents an apex predator of more than 10 m in length. With up to 82 cm, the Asturian specimens show FLs that fall within the range of thelargest tracks in the world (Boutakiout et al., 2009;Pinuela Suárez, 2015; Marty et al.,2017). Some of these large predators from the Late Jurassic of Asturias apparently hadcursorial adaptations, as deduced from the morphological study of their footprints(morphotype B), which show strong mesaxony (sensuLockley, 2009); their clawimpressions, when preserved, are long and very narrow. These dinosaurs were as large as,but more agile than trackmakers of Morphotype A tracks. The largest theropod trackmakers from the Jurassic of Asturias were thus similar in size to Tyrannosaurus rex,based on known footprints of that taxon (Lockley & Hunt, 1994;Manning, Ott &Falkingham, 2008;McCrea et al., 2014) and foot skeletons (Brochu, 2003). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2018 22:14:08 GMT 5
If anyone cares, the caudal for the torvo specimen above suggests an individual that's about 10.1 meters long and a mass of 2.8 tonnes.
Footprints aren't really reliable for size estimates in any case, but using Hartman's Torvo, the lengths for morphotype A footprints suggest an animal with a length of 10.3-11.4 m long and a mass between 2.9-4 tonnes
Not even half the size of some cretaceous theropods.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 14, 2018 5:00:59 GMT 5
^May I ask how you made that first estimate? The holotype of T. gurneyi as shown in Hendrickx & Mateus (2014) is itself pretty much exactly 10m long based on the scalebar (the maxilla is not fully visible, but seems to be scaled to the right size), and Rauhut et al.’s vertebra is 18% bigger than the only anterior caudal of that specimen, which would suggest an animal at least approaching 12m in length, and probably 5t in weight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2018 5:58:33 GMT 5
^May I ask how you made that first estimate? The holotype of T. gurneyi as shown in Hendrickx & Mateus (2014) is itself pretty much exactly 10m long based on the scalebar (the maxilla is not fully visible, but seems to be scaled to the right size), and Rauhut et al.’s vertebra is 18% bigger than the only anterior caudal of that specimen, which would suggest an animal at least approaching 12m in length, and probably 5t in weight. The T. gurneyi holotype has a centrum height of 145mm against 150mm of the spain thing. ~10 meters/145* 150 = ~10.3 meters. (Not 10.1 meters, but I used Hartman's skeletal that time not Hendrickx & Mateus) The 18% discrepancy seems to be width, and we know a 18% wider centrum will not get you an 18% longer animal.... worse, the width of the caudal of the spanish thing is apparently reconsructed because the right rim is eroded, so it is estimated to be between 140-145 mm wide versus compared to 121 in T.gurneyi so it seems like height is more complete along with being much more reliable to try and scale. The 18% wider figure isn't totally reliable to top things off is what I'm trying to say. The paper describing the new remains also said the thing is around 10 meters long not an animal ''at least approaching 12m in length.'' seriously, this thing is the size of a big rhino or a female asian elephant. A 8.43 meter Torvosaurus would have a mass of about 1.6 tonnes, so one that's 10.3 meters should weigh around 3 tonnes (in case you want to see my source for the weight estimates being thrown around) cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/226476069128110080/382271221661696000/Torvo.gdi.pngcdn.discordapp.com/attachments/226476069128110080/382271694481522690/TorvosaurusGDIresults.png |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2018 6:30:06 GMT 5
Also, to the 7 other people who sometimes visit this forum, I have some news and measurements from Thomas Carr on Jack Horners C.rex if anybody cares.
|
|
