|
|
Post by spartan on Dec 18, 2019 0:15:29 GMT 5
Yes, but there are large T. rex with missing femurs. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 18, 2019 0:23:50 GMT 5
Yes, but there are large T. rex with missing femurs. AFAIK, they were taken into consideration as well with their femur length extrapolated from others. 6.6 tonnes, which Spinodontosaurus got, also works as it fits into 6-7 tonnes |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 18, 2019 0:39:20 GMT 5
So then, when I get the chance to update my post I should say the averages they use are unreasonably high and then show why this is? It's best to do so. You can still show what is the most likely average, but don't frame them as fanboys for disagreeing and show your sources. |
|
|
|
Post by spartan on Dec 18, 2019 1:22:03 GMT 5
Yes, but there are large T. rex with missing femurs. AFAIK, they were taken into consideration as well with their femur length extrapolated from others. 6.6 tonnes, which Spinodontosaurus got, also works as it fits into 6-7 tonnes This 6.6t estimate does not include these specimen. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 18, 2019 1:26:03 GMT 5
I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Dec 21, 2019 7:34:56 GMT 5
They aren't. They weren't as heavily built nor as barrel chested as something like Tyrannosaurus, it's really just rather that simple. Conservatism is better than extravagant estimates anyway. Only in the realm of fanboys is this an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 21, 2019 14:48:05 GMT 5
They aren't. They weren't as heavily built nor as barrel chested as something like Tyrannosaurus, it's really just rather that simple. Conservatism is better than extravagant estimates anyway. Only in the realm of fanboys is this an issue. What I mean by that is extremely conservative length figures thus leading to lower estimations mass-wise. 8 plus tonne carcharodontosaurids are very much on the table depending on lengths. Tyrannotitan estimates go up to 13 meters, and that would be ~8.6 tonnes scaling from Franoys' mass estimate for an 11.63 meter specimen. Carcharodontosaurus is probably a bit larger than what Franoys gives (Spinodontosaurus got 13 meters and 8 tonnes for SGM DIN-1, and SpinoInWonderland's skeletal is 13.22 meters and 9 tonnes), Giganotosaurus could get larger than what DeviantArt says (the argument against MUCPv-95 is that it could be a same size or smaller animal than the holotype with a big jaw, but under this logic it could also be a Giganotosaurus more than 8 percent larger than the holotype with a small jaw; and besides, Hartman gives 8.2 tonnes for MUCPv-95 so we can at least count on that), and Mapusaurus is pretty good size too (we have MCF-PVPH-108.202, a fibula that would belong to a ~12.8 meter animal approaching the 8 tonne mark, and MCF-PVPH-108.145, which estimates vary for but could possibly be up to 8.5 tonnes, as opposed to the mere 7 tonnes Franoys gives). |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 21, 2019 22:05:21 GMT 5
theropodI remember you mentioning earlier some extensively pneumatic carnosaurs on par with some coelurosaurs. Out of curiosity, which species are you referring to?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Dec 22, 2019 6:47:25 GMT 5
They aren't. They weren't as heavily built nor as barrel chested as something like Tyrannosaurus, it's really just rather that simple. Conservatism is better than extravagant estimates anyway. Only in the realm of fanboys is this an issue. What I mean by that is extremely conservative length figures thus leading to lower estimations mass-wise. 8 plus tonne carcharodontosaurids are very much on the table depending on lengths. Tyrannotitan estimates go up to 13 meters, and that would be ~8.6 tonnes scaling from Franoys' mass estimate for an 11.63 meter specimen. Carcharodontosaurus is probably a bit larger than what Franoys gives (Spinodontosaurus got 13 meters and 8 tonnes for SGM DIN-1, and SpinoInWonderland's skeletal is 13.22 meters and 9 tonnes), Giganotosaurus could get larger than what DeviantArt says (the argument against MUCPv-95 is that it could be a same size or smaller animal than the holotype with a big jaw, but under this logic it could also be a Giganotosaurus more than 8 percent larger than the holotype with a small jaw; and besides, Hartman gives 8.2 tonnes for MUCPv-95 so we can at least count on that), and Mapusaurus is pretty good size too (we have MCF-PVPH-108.202, a fibula that would belong to a ~12.8 meter animal approaching the 8 tonne mark, and MCF-PVPH-108.145, which estimates vary for but could possibly be up to 8.5 tonnes, as opposed to the mere 7 tonnes Franoys gives). This little rambling paragraph just seems to me that you prefer liberal estimates to the more conservative estimates. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 22, 2019 15:40:41 GMT 5
What I mean by that is extremely conservative length figures thus leading to lower estimations mass-wise. 8 plus tonne carcharodontosaurids are very much on the table depending on lengths. Tyrannotitan estimates go up to 13 meters, and that would be ~8.6 tonnes scaling from Franoys' mass estimate for an 11.63 meter specimen. Carcharodontosaurus is probably a bit larger than what Franoys gives (Spinodontosaurus got 13 meters and 8 tonnes for SGM DIN-1, and SpinoInWonderland's skeletal is 13.22 meters and 9 tonnes), Giganotosaurus could get larger than what DeviantArt says (the argument against MUCPv-95 is that it could be a same size or smaller animal than the holotype with a big jaw, but under this logic it could also be a Giganotosaurus more than 8 percent larger than the holotype with a small jaw; and besides, Hartman gives 8.2 tonnes for MUCPv-95 so we can at least count on that), and Mapusaurus is pretty good size too (we have MCF-PVPH-108.202, a fibula that would belong to a ~12.8 meter animal approaching the 8 tonne mark, and MCF-PVPH-108.145, which estimates vary for but could possibly be up to 8.5 tonnes, as opposed to the mere 7 tonnes Franoys gives). This little rambling paragraph just seems to me that you prefer liberal estimates to the more conservative estimates. Not necessarily. Just 2 things: -What I want people to realize is that realistic estimates for these animals are often a lot higher than they may think -Franoys' work - that is, extremely carnosaur-conservative - is taken as factual and set in stone by many. I hope I do not have to explain why it is NOT. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 22, 2019 17:34:09 GMT 5
Set in stone? Perhaps not. Factual? I see no reason to think it is any less factual than the more liberal estimates you seem to really like; I hope you don't seriously think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 22, 2019 17:47:02 GMT 5
1:Factual? I see no reason to think it is any less factual than the more liberal estimates you seem to really like; 2: I hope you don't seriously think so. 1: I never said it was any less factual; they're all fairly reasonable estimates depending on how one interprets the data. The problem is that many many people just take Franoys' work for gospel and brush everything else off as the work of carnosaur fanatics 2: Of course not Edit: I think I see what you meant; my post LOOKS like I am saying I hope I don't have to explain why Franoys' work is not factual. What I mean by that is that I hope I don't have to explain why Franoys' work is not set in stone. As I said before, all of it is perfectly factual depending on how the data is interpreted. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 22, 2019 18:06:34 GMT 5
Why do you think I said "I hope you don't seriously think so."?
Also, if Franoys' work is supposedly "extremely carnosaur-conservative", can I deem supposed mass estimates >8 tonnes "extremely liberal"?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 22, 2019 18:20:04 GMT 5
Ah. I suppose I ought to watch the formatting of my posts.
As for liberal vs conservative, I suppose it's fair to call the >8 tonne mass estimations liberal, but maybe not EXTREMELY liberal. That would probably be something like Therrein and Henderson (2007) Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus.
(To be fair though, maybe EXTREMELY conservative wasn't the best wording about Franoys. Maybe I should say generally errs on the rather low side)
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 22, 2019 19:06:56 GMT 5
So we're on the same page? Good.
|
|
