|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 23, 2020 3:01:24 GMT 5
Scotty being 13 m is highly unlikely based on the skeletal measurements Currie & Persons list. It is probably within 1-2% of Sue, length-wise, so at most around 12.5-12.6 m. Vertebral measurements would provide more reliable data, obviously, so if randomdinos has them, that is what you should go by. But as of now, no scientific data to suggest anything like a 13 m + length for this specimen.
And we should really stop having "It is impossible taxon A can reach length B/weight C because I personally feel like that is too large to work for an animal of its phylogeny/ecology/locomotion"-kind of arguments here. In the end the only thing that can inform a size estimation is actual data on the animal’s size. When your T. rex then ends up at 30 m, that would be grounds to question the plausibility of the estimate, but if it were 13 rather than 12, it hardly is. 13 m T. rex specimens in all probability did exist and are therefore in all probability possible, that much is clearly implied by the known individuals (just like a 10 or 9.5 m individual is totally plausible, an adult that is), but we haven’t found any so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Mar 23, 2020 3:04:09 GMT 5
completely agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Mar 23, 2020 3:10:16 GMT 5
Depending on who you quote, that is Seriously, there is no way a Tyrannosaurus can reach 13 meters, unless it was a very gracile specimen. Scaling Scotty to 13 m gets a 10.66 tonne animal, which we know is implausible because it would be far too heavy to chase prey and need too much food. Considering how flamboyantly you promote 13m carnosaurs, for you to say 13m tyrannosaurs is "implausible" is incredibly laughable. An animal being 3ft longer snout to tail tip isn't going to make it an obese blob incapable of hunting. On the point of impossibilities, you can be quoted verbatim at least 5 times on this forum saying how nothing is "set in stone" in paleontology when you have been called out for your very odd, rhetorical posting behavior. Yet here you are, outright claiming something is an implausibility in the same field you were so self righteously declaring that nothing is set in stone; so which kind of rhetorical nonsense do you want to stick with: - (x) is implausible - (x) is possible, nothing is set in stone Choose carefully, for you might want to retain the possibility of anyone on this forum taking you seriously in the least bit. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Mar 23, 2020 3:25:24 GMT 5
I didn't mean the length was impossible, sorry. I mean that any 10+ tonne predatory dinosaur, be it tyrannosaur or carnosaur, is going to have a difficult time getting enough food because a theropod that size probably wouldn't be a very fast runner, yet need more food than an 8-9 t theropod because it is larger, therefore it's going to have a hard time getting enough to eat. (like i said, applies to both tyrannosaurs and carnosaurs. I don't see either group getting much over 9 t) EDIT: theropod, if I didn't make it clear in my post, it's the mass of a 13 meter Tyrannosaurus that would make life very hard for the animal and therefore it's implausible due to its increased needs but limited ability to meet them. The length isn't the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Mar 23, 2020 3:33:43 GMT 5
That was a very roundabout way of saying nothing at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Mar 23, 2020 3:56:55 GMT 5
Once again, an animal being 3ft longer isn't going to make it exceptionally more unhealthy to the point of not being able to feed itself. You say length is not the problem here, but the alleged figure you're putting forward is a direct consequence of a longer animal. So, you cannot say length is not the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Mar 23, 2020 4:03:47 GMT 5
I could see a 13 meter Tyrannosaurus with a proportionately narrower torso and longer tail, yes. Just so long as it's not much over 9 t, beyond that and it wouldn't have a very easy lifestyle.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Mar 23, 2020 4:05:53 GMT 5
Yeah, they get revised a lot. But even with revisions, they can be badly inconsistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Mar 23, 2020 4:15:34 GMT 5
Pretty sure a 10 ton theropod could use ambush to hunt prey items in fact many of them probably did.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Mar 23, 2020 4:26:51 GMT 5
They could. However, most of Tyrannosaurus' prey items (ceratopsians, ornithomimosaurs, hardrosaurs) were rather cursorial, and I'd imagine an ambushing 10+ tonne theropod would have a lower success rate than a <9 tonne one, since the latter would be able to chase its prey down more efficiently and accelerate more due to it being smaller. Bear in mind the success rate for said <9 tonne theropod would already be quite low.
9-10 tonnes at the very most is the size I see cursorial theropods approaching.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 23, 2020 5:20:49 GMT 5
First of all none of the megafaunal prey of a tyrannosaurid was as cursorial as the tyrannosaurids themselves. If the relatively small cursorial ornithomimosaurs couldn't be caught via ambush, then no adult Tyrannosaurus of any kind would have had any business hunting them. Second, you don't know what the hunting success rate of a giant theropod is, and I don't really know where you got that from. I will ask this as food for thought, though: do you think an animal that could eat pretty much nothing but meat, and, as I've demonstrated on this forum before, could not reliably fall back on scavenging carcasses (or at least not nearly as much as more intermediate-sized theropods)-> could have survived for some 2 million years if its hunting success rate was that low? I'm not saying theropods up to 10 tonnes were a thing. Hell, I'm not even saying we have unequivocal evidence of any known Tyrannosaurus specimen weighing at 9 tonnes or more. But heck, your claim that a 13 meter Tyrannosaurus would be too heavy to hunt and survive isn't even consistent with your guesstimate that 9-10 tonnes is the maximum a cursorial theropod could be. A hypothetical 13 meter T. rex would weigh just under 10 tonnes. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Mar 23, 2020 5:50:29 GMT 5
1: Well, true. It just may not be able to keep up as well as a smaller one, but perhaps not as much as I first made it out to be.
2: No, I do not. In general though, predatory animals fail most of the time, so I think it's reasonable to assume that applied to dinosaurs too.
3: I was referring to a 13 meter Scotty - it would be ~10.7 tonnes scaling from Randomdinos' GDI.
A 13 meter Sue, CM 9380, or AMNH 5027 would be 9.3, 9.12, and 9.2 tonnes, respectively - if a 13 meter Tyrannosaurus had a build like one of those specimens, I could see it possibly getting enough to eat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 23, 2020 5:59:40 GMT 5
And keep in mind too, you're the same person who thinks that Triceratops could have easily weighed about as much as the largest Tyrannosaurus specimens, and that masses as high as 14 tonnes are still possible ( link). And in fact, there were some actual double digit-tonned hadrosaurs living in Tyrannosaurus' environment. Yeah, gonna be real hard keeping up with those things /sarcasm. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Mar 23, 2020 6:15:08 GMT 5
1: Well, true. It just may not be able to keep up as well as a smaller one, but perhaps not as much as I first made it out to be. 2: No, I do not. In general though, predatory animals fail most of the time, so I think it's reasonable to assume that applied to dinosaurs too. 3: I was referring to a 13 meter Scotty - it would be ~10.7 tonnes scaling from Randomdinos' GDI. A 13 meter Sue, CM 9380, or AMNH 5027 would be 9.3, 9.12, and 9.2 tonnes, respectively - if a 13 meter Tyrannosaurus had a build like one of those specimens, I could see it possibly getting enough to eat. Whether or not a large animal can catch prey as easily as a smaller representative of a species is irrelevant as long as it maintains itself. A very big representative of a species gets to that size, in part, due to access of food. Very large crocodilians and lizards only have difficulty near the end of their lifespan in regards to food acquisition. Most of that is age related over much else. The point is, you're incorrect. So what if they do? Success is variable from species to species. Making blanket terms and encompassing extinct species is not a good way to make an argument. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Mar 23, 2020 6:27:37 GMT 5
For Infinity Blade, you are correct about the sizes, but I'm referring to younger, smaller individuals who would be softer targets (and also more fast/agile since they were smaller). I doubt a 6-7 t Tyrannosaurus would target a healthy 10+ t Edmontosaurus or a 13-14 t Triceratops - at all.
For Cerato, maybe I was a bit too hasty to proclaim that, you may be right.
Let me rephrase my original statement: I do not consider 13 meters plausible for Scotty because it would result in a far longer and more massive animal than the most rigorous and up to date reconstruction of it I know suggests.
|
|
