|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 12, 2013 19:45:12 GMT 5
I did not see any sources claming MOR 008 skull was no larger than Sue's, even though I do not consider it as belonging to necessary a larger animal. There are several very fragmentary remains listed and discussed in some sources. At the end of the day, they are no formal indications of larger animals than Sue, they are indication that if Sue likely represents the approaching maximum size in Tyrannosaurus, she's not one helluva freak.. I would ask to Hartman if he has actually taken a look at it.  Regarding the larger Giganotosaurus and Sue, they seem roughly similar in weight as the torso of the smaller Sue is almost rigorously as deep (and wide ?) than in the larger Giganotosaurus. In terms of a hypothetical battle, in these two guys that's really, really a matter of who bites first. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 13, 2013 1:10:13 GMT 5
I totally agree on that statement, however I'd be cautious with claiming sue already approaches the maximum size, we cannot know that.
Concerning MOR 008, I haven't seen reliable data for it being any larger than sue in the first place, so no reason to have sources disproving something not even properly theorized. Fact is, MOR 008 has a maxilla measuring 720mm, and a dentary measuring 880mm, as opposed to the same bones in sue being 19 and 14% larger respectively, and the whole skull has missing bits that were reconstructeed very awkwardly.
And as it appears some other specimens might be similar in size to sue (eg. LACM 23844...), so no, it definitely isn't a freak, and as you have remarked correctly on several occasions the probability to find a freak (a freak of the kind of a 700+kg brown bear or stuff like that) is low, even in 313640+ T. rexes. And it appears sue's gender is unknown, just like every other rexe's, so we'll have to keep referring to it as "it".
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 13, 2013 7:54:26 GMT 5
Well, I refer as "she" simply because of the feminine name of the woman who found the specimen, I know there's no proof it was a female or not, but there are more elements in that way. I'm quite agreed with that.
I don't know about MOR 008, I did not look too much in these details (could you provide the source BTW ?), but I did not read any criticism about the size of the skull when searching about largest Tyrannosaurus/theropods on the net. Hence, I will ask to Shartman.
But the skull, even partially reconstructed, looks freakin' huge and at the first look sounds to rival with Sue's. I'd like to know if there is an estimate of how much such a head may have weighed in real-life.
I would have no problem with the restoration as in T. rex, contrary to most gigantic carnivores (cf : skull size and structure in Giganotosaurus), we have an excellent understanding of its morphology. So whatever the size, I think the reconstruction is quite probably reasonnable.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 13, 2013 16:11:30 GMT 5
the source for what? Everything about MOR 008 save for the lenght of the maxilla and dentary is from this press release: www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=3607Dentary and maxilla are from the theropod database You are familiar with the trend to enlarge something as much as possible. T. rex is not an exception here, the link I posted earlier proves it. Sure, that skull looks huge. So do stan and sue however. One of them is among the largest, and one among the smallest adult T. rexes. www.dinohunters.com/images/sue%20skull.jpgand this is just the crushed version, the decrushed one would be visually far more impressive... sue's skull is freakin' huge, that's for sure. I don't think there is evidence or even good indication for MOR really being bigger. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 13, 2013 20:55:07 GMT 5
The source for MOR 008 measurements, you just gave it thanks. What do you mean  It wouldn't be surprising that errors occure in that big skull, but I'm no convinced yet. The best way to accurately question the proportions of such a piece is to evaluate it in life, with the appropriate skills. So an uncertainty exists, but not convinced for now. I will discuss this with Hartman on occasion. And yes, a big impressive skull does not indicate a precise body size, that's why I don't consider MOR 008 as larger or smaller than Sue, just potentially similar in size. That's true for any giants theropods known by fragments. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 15, 2013 21:13:47 GMT 5
Potentially similar in size is something I acknowledge too. My point is there is no reliable indication for the skull to really have been larger, but a rather large amount of indication against it. Was the skull really larger, I would also acknowledge it being larger, varying proportions can make an animal both smaller AND larger compared to some body part, so that's not the problem. The link I referred to was this: 1kvzgw.bn1.livefilestore.com/y1pZuAhVuYWYM2YxliLrpNUW9mZWHvG39B2LchKtp8ooOVdbeTd6INTZDpNXTmIxyCzo2M1Jv8Jf898xZ_haCA0DnkprnydhGRg/mor008.gifI guess this demonstrates the point, it is more than obvious which one is more accurate (compare to other, more complete skulls such as stan or sue. those strangely backward-swept quadratojugal-area, enourmous overbite and the odd hump in the frontal area are not found in any). But we both understand it, so no reason to repeat ourselfes. I'd be more interested in diagnostic characters of the large UCMP phalanx, those would be interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 17, 2013 10:34:02 GMT 5
I've asked to Hartman.
He did not have the opportunity to examine it but it turns out, simply looking at the picture I've posted, he would definitely question it. He said the fixed version in your link looks a lot more plausible.
So well done, MOR 008 indeed cannot be counted as valuable in its dimensions and Sue still holds the largest skull in any reasonable tyrannosaur.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 17, 2013 16:06:44 GMT 5
Not my link, the credit goes to member blaze. He is indeed very knowledgeable on these subjects.
Did you ask Hartman in private or in a comment somewhere? If the second is the case, could you post the link, in case I meet another guy who needs to be convinced of MOR likely not being a 14m giant?
In any case it is great to have an experts opinion on this matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 17, 2013 16:30:07 GMT 5
Well, good job blaze, yes he's clearly educated and objective as I remember, he should come here too.
I discuss with Hartman simply on FB. The guy who does not believe it he just has to contact himself the author, and he still rejects this, then he does not deserve any discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 17, 2013 18:37:14 GMT 5
Well, most people are of the opinion that this specimen was larger than sue, simply because of a single figure mentioned in a single news report, as I always like to remark. Even without contacting the author the facts make this more than doubtful, but you know what fanboys are like...
Blaze is already here, I invited him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 17, 2013 19:07:20 GMT 5
Oh yes, I had forgotten this, he sould not hesitate to contribute !
No wonder, news reports are hardly reliable, but I don't understand why some criticism from theropods or tyrannosaurs specialists did not occur when the article appeared.
Anyway, that skull just indicates...a skull. No size can be reliably estimated, most of the time seen in many genera. Whatever, there are no fanboys around, only enthusiasts interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 17, 2013 20:39:38 GMT 5
not here, but try and talk about MOR 008 on carnivora or youtube and you'll attract many MORons lol
Probably most specialists didn't have a look at it, it is simply some heavily reconstructed skull in a museum...
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 17, 2013 21:30:16 GMT 5
I don't discuss anymore on YT, this place is the realm of the stupidity, I really hope most of the users are young in age because this is insane...
Regarding the subject, I'm skeptical. The giant toe bone could have been interesti if it was more than this. The really big disparity with Sue's equivalent bone is too great to be unsignificant, but I would certainly not scale up the whole animal from this.
Let's say that for me, if you depict at one time a 13-13,5 m long tyrannosaur, I would have no problem with it, as it is quite plausible given the uncertainty and is still in the reasonnable range possibly reached by this species. The same is true for the early Cretaceous behemoth.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 17, 2013 22:40:10 GMT 5
What early cretaceous behemoth are you referring to?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 17, 2013 23:18:12 GMT 5
The giants carcharodontosaurids and spinosaurids !
|
|
