Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Jul 8, 2022 14:26:14 GMT 5
Yup, the remains may also have a big impact on future reconstructions of Giganotosaurus and other advanced carcharodontosaurids. Even the authors estimated the Giganotosaurus holotype's skull length of ~163 cm, based on Meraxes.
|
|
|
Post by tyrannasorus on Sept 4, 2023 7:14:46 GMT 5
Thoughts on E.D copes size?
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 4, 2023 18:51:52 GMT 5
Thoughts on E.D copes size? I mean, the error bars are something to keep in mind here, but I honestly don't have a problem with some adult T. rex specimens reaching 10 or more metric tons, considering we have some specimens that probably approach such sizes anyway. To me, the question isn't "Could T. rex reach this size?" and more "Did this particular specimen reach this size?". The error bars alone are enough to make me feel a bit "Meh, it could still have been smaller, but huge in any case", more so than the Cope's fragmentary nature (the fact that they seem to have an intact femur isn't so bad). I'm honestly more curious about this Bertha specimen, which is apparently coming out with an actual paper. A worse crime IMO is the fact that they decided to name this awesome beast after Edward Drinker Cope; it deserves better lol.
|
|
|
Post by tyrannasorus on Sept 5, 2023 5:43:38 GMT 5
That’s pretty much how I feel since the size range in the video varies from 9.6 to almost 15 metric tons. But it wouldn’t be too much of a suprise if cope did weigh that much. I guess we’re just waiting on Bertha now. On a side note the possibility of the largest rex specimen being called Bertha is just
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 5, 2023 21:38:14 GMT 5
Yeah I noticed that specimen too in Paul et al.’s dataset. It is not all that fragmentary either. Besides the femur, there are also several skull parts (including a maxilla and dentary) as well as vertebrae and ribs. The femur is just the only part for which measurements have been reported (matter of fact, the femur wasn’t even listed in Larson’s original report on the specimen, which makes one wonder what else there might be in terms of additional material).
However it should not be completely ignored that the only other measurement that has been published (femur length) isn’t exceptionately large, and that none of the other remains have ever been noted to be of exceptional size either. T. rex specimens turning out to be larger than indicated by initial reports happens occasionally (see Scotty), but more commonly the opposite is true, and specimens are proclaimed to be the largest in the world only for actual measurements to show rather unambiguously that they are not (MOR 008, UCMP 137538, UCMP 118742).
Since this femur seems to be the most robust of any T. rex, but not exceptionally long, it would be worth checking if any of the other available remains can corroborate it being of exceptional size.
As for the size range from the video being that wide, I think that is mostly due to using different people’s mass estimates for more complete specimens, Dan Folkes’ most recent one seems to be about 2 tons higher than Hartman’s for the same individual (and this is nothing T.rex specific, his estimate for the Giganotosaurus holotype is also 2 t higher than Hartman’s), so that’s how you get to such a large mass range, nothing inherent about the specimen in question or it being too fragmentary.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 5, 2023 23:48:11 GMT 5
Yeah I noticed that specimen too in Paul et al.’s dataset. It is not all that fragmentary either. Besides the femur, there are also several skull parts (including a maxilla and dentary) as well as vertebrae and ribs. The femur is just the only part for which measurements have been reported (matter of fact, the femur wasn’t even listed in Larson’s original report on the specimen, which makes one wonder what else there might be in terms of additional material). However it should not be completely ignored that the only other measurement that has been published (femur length) isn’t exceptionately large, and that none of the other remains have ever been noted to be of exceptional size either. T. rex specimens turning out to be larger than indicated by initial reports happens occasionally (see Scotty), but more commonly the opposite is true, and specimens are proclaimed to be the largest in the world only for actual measurements to show rather unambiguously that they are not (MOR 008, UCMP 137538, UCMP 118742). Since this femur seems to be the most robust of any T. rex, but not exceptionally long, it would be worth checking if any of the other available remains can corroborate it being of exceptional size. As for the size range from the video being that wide, I think that is mostly due to using different people’s mass estimates for more complete specimens, Dan Folkes’ most recent one seems to be about 2 tons higher than Hartman’s for the same individual (and this is nothing T.rex specific, his estimate for the Giganotosaurus holotype is also 2 t higher than Hartman’s), so that’s how you get to such a large mass range, nothing inherent about the specimen in question or it being too fragmentary. I wouldn't be surprised at all if E.D. Cope was indeed less massive than its femur circumference suggests. But from a biomechanical perspective, I do think having an exceptionally thick femur that also wasn't especially long would actually help with the animal's ability to bear massive weights. A shorter but thicker bone is a stouter, stronger bone, after all. Then again, if Cope were just less massive overall, it could be that having a relatively robust femur was a locomotory adaptation, increasing its limb bone strength and overall athleticism (which makes me wonder why other T. rex specimens, like Stan, seemingly have more gracile femora that would seem to limit their athleticism). This is all speculative, of course.
|
|