|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 25, 2019 2:17:29 GMT 5
Can you PLEASE explain to me how my comment gave you that idea? I was purposefully refraining from saying how many exactly were adult, or even how many individuals were present in the bonebed to begin with, because we simply cannot tell without a histological study. Yes, most are probably immature, that much is clear. All that tells us is the obvious, that the average size of all individuals is not the average adult size.
Err I highly doubt that, consider that Franoys restores all the giant Mapusaurus material, including the large pubic shaft, as parts of the same individual, which he restores as just slightly larger than the Giganotosaurus holotype. I don’t necessarily agree, I think in trying to get an idea of the size we should simply look at all specimens individually without making an a priori hypothesis about which ones go together, a hypothesis that might influence our results. But it’s important to have your sources actually say what you think they say. And what exactly did they say about what specimens should be considered mature and which should not?
As a rule of thumb, if someone doubts your claims and asks you for your sources, and the source you come up with is that person, you should maybe check whether you misunderstood something. As the author of my skull reconstruction, I’m certainly qualified to say that I have never stated or implied any of the things about which Mapusaurus specimens are mature and which aren’t that you cite me for, even despite me making some statements back in 2013 that I would not make like that today.
Then why not explain how you get this figure using evidence-based methods, not guesswork.
I wrote "not fully grown". Generally when saying immature without specifying we mean skeletally immature, we are referring to reproductive maturity.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 25, 2019 2:39:08 GMT 5
Oh. Looks like I misinterpreted everything.
Maybe a better (most likely) average for Mapusaurus is around the size range of the larger individuals in the bonebed
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 25, 2019 2:51:55 GMT 5
What individuals do you mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 25, 2019 2:57:17 GMT 5
MCF-PVPH-108.202, MCF-PVPH-108.145, and MCF-PVPH-108.2
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 25, 2019 3:34:16 GMT 5
And how do you know those are mature, and everything else immature?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 25, 2019 4:53:23 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 25, 2019 10:49:39 GMT 5
Yes the bonebed contains individuals of many stages of maturity. But how do you know which ones wete how mature exactly? The skull paper doesn't tell us that, at best it tells use the rrlative states of maturity of the cranial material.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Nov 22, 2019 5:49:29 GMT 5
So how massive could perhaps potentially be the second known Giganotosaurus compared to Sue and Scotty in volume ?
Is it again the "closest" contender to Tyrannosaurus to the "unofficial" heavyweight league something akin to the late 90's ? I like 90's anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 22, 2019 6:30:00 GMT 5
From what I can tell, they're roughly equals (the Rexes are ~8 tonnes while the Giga is 8.2)
Having said that, I'd expect it to have a bit more volume than both of them if the individual variation so often cited to dismiss it goes the opposite way
|
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Nov 22, 2019 8:49:57 GMT 5
You're either lying or have a bad memory. you were told on discord Sue ranges from 8.4 to 9.1 and Scotty is 8.8 tons in modern estimates . Both of them are estimated to outmass the largest estimated mass for the largest Giganotosaurus and its easy to see why when you compare them together. Rex is the overall wider and more robust animal that's why it masses more.
You already know this anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 22, 2019 9:02:06 GMT 5
Neither. I'm merely rounding.
My point isn't even to discuss masses of Sue and Scotty. Just that individual variation for MUCPv-95 can go both ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Nov 22, 2019 9:09:21 GMT 5
Well if your just rounding then Sue and Scotty are both closer to 9 tons than 8 you were also told this on the discord.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 22, 2019 9:10:39 GMT 5
8-9 tonnes, then.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 22, 2019 14:08:09 GMT 5
The second Giganotosaurus specimen is quite problematic for obvious reasons, as you will recall Coria himself doesn’t remember how they measured their figure. It’s most likely that it is length along the toothrow or something like that. Of course this is also just a fairly small (61 cm) piece of dentary, so there is a lot of room for individual variation. You could easily fit this dentary in a skull the size of the holotype’s. If the second Giganotosaurus specimen is 8% larger than MUCPv-ch1 that makes it a simple matter of scaling up isometrically. That would make it 26% more voluminous, or 9.4 m³ = 8.6 t. Is it really this large? We cannot be sure.
Scotty, by ratio between sums of all bone measurements it shares with Sue, is about 2 % bigger than it, meaning 9.8 m³ and 8.9 t. Essentially the same size. Unlike with MUCPv-95, we can be fairly confident about this, as the skeleton is quite substantial and this bases on a whole number of bones (and all are just very marginally larger than sue’s based on the study that measured both).
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 22, 2019 17:09:17 GMT 5
|
|
