Size comparison scale

[Fragillimus335]

Sept 3, 2013 9:49:24 GMT 5 blaze said:

His old, 2012 version had a skull that was too big, that's why MSNM V4047 was the same size as the holotype back then, 14m, but it now grew 11% to 15.6m with the new smaller head with different proportions.

That Hyrotrioskjan drawing is based on Hartman's 2012 Spinosaurus, I don't know what changes you made to it (did you asked for his permission? I don't think he has it with a commons license) but assuming you didn't made any changes to it, that scale is showing an Spinosaurus with a greatest skull length approaching 2.1m.

But looking at his drawing I think you made the head smaller.

I gave it a tail and rotated the head to a more neutral pose. (May have shrunk it a bit) I think Hartman's updated Spino still has a slightly oversized skull, as he restored the dentary of the holotype at over 90 cm, and when I scale the actual 75cm preserved piece in to his skull it fits perfectly into the dentary.

[blaze]

mmm It doesn't fit when I do that, it is true that in lateral view the preserved dentary looks "complete" but both Hartman and Stromer says that it is not and that's why he adds another 11cm to the preserved length (he said his old version was 90cm, and the new one is 4-5% smaller, which gives a length of 86cm, I get ~87cm from his skeletal which is probably because of the modifications suffered by the scalebar by being reduced by a factor of 3. The difference wouldn't even be a pixel in the version of his skeletla I'm using.

[blaze]

Sept 3, 2013 14:16:40 GMT 5 Grey said:

With a robust leather-like skin, thickness about 15 cm. I guess the account you refer is the two bull orcas attacking a 8 m immature individual off Baja.

It took 39 hours, five harpoons and more than 100 bullets to subdue that 12 000-13 500 kg individual :

An 8m individual weighing 12-13 tonnes? that's twice as robust as those supposed 6m, 3 tonne white sharks and almost 3 times as robust as the more conservative 2 tonnes for a 6m white shark. Another comparison would be Wood (1982) figures for the length and weight basking sharks, a 7m individual that weighted 3 tonnes (which would give 4.5 tonnes at 8m) and an average of 7.9m and 4.7 tonnes.

Edit: or are you talking about a different animal than coherentsheaf?

[creature386]

You have to remember that there can be a great variation in whale sharks:
theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/5060/thread

[blaze]

I still think a variation of one animal being almost 3 times as heavy at the same body length than others that are also supposed to be healthy is too much... the record 12.7m shale shark is said to be 21.5 tonnes right? that translates to 5.4 tonnes at 8m, much closer to the 4.5-4.7 tonnes for 8m basking sharks and the 4.7 tonnes based on a 6m/2 tonne white shark.

[Fragillimus335]

Sept 3, 2013 21:32:26 GMT 5 blaze said:

mmm It doesn't fit when I do that, it is true that in lateral view the preserved dentary looks "complete" but both Hartman and Stromer says that it is not and that's why he adds another 11cm to the preserved length (he said his old version was 90cm, and the new one is 4-5% smaller, which gives a length of 86cm, I get ~87cm from his skeletal which is probably because of the modifications suffered by the scalebar by being reduced by a factor of 3. The difference wouldn't even be a pixel in the version of his skeletla I'm using.

That's weird, because I get 91cm every time I measure it, excluding the outlines... And yes, it is his updated skeletal.. Still, just that 5cm change would increase MSMN V4047's length by ~1 meter, or to 16.5 meters long

[blaze]

Are you using his skeletal from Deviantart? I use the one from his website, it's a little higher in resolution, maybe that's why? or mmm are you using all of the scalebar?, if it was 90 before and now is supposed to be 4-5% smaller it shoulden't be 91.

[Fragillimus335]

Sept 4, 2013 22:51:31 GMT 5 blaze said:

Are you using his skeletal from Deviantart? I use the one from his website, it's a little higher in resolution, maybe that's why? or mmm are you using all of the scalebar?, if it was 90 before and now is supposed to be 4-5% smaller it shoulden't be 91.

Hmm, there must be an issue, because the one on his website, "Super Spinosaurus" Shows just the fragment of the dentary, but it is still 80cm long. That matches the ~5-6% inflation of the restored dentary in his other skeletals...

[blaze]

I'm not sure if is true in his new rigorous skeletal but he said that in the older version of his rigorous skeletal he left the complete dentary, not just what's preserved.

[Grey]

Livyatan skull compared with Kronosaurus.

[theropod]

That's a skeletal from reptile evolution, so no idea how much of it may just be Peter's fantasy. Those skeletals are very misleading because of their perfect visual style and technique, but there usually is little factual basis behind them.

As for Spinosaurus vs Whale shark: Depends on the size of the shark. But the large specimens you can read about, reaching or exceeding the 20t mark, are too much for any theropod, no matter how proficient a piscivore. It could have devoured any (extant) raptorial shark with ease of course.

blaze: Even at the 5,4t it would be damn bulky, too bulky to be underestimated by almost a factor of 3. I think Grey was certainly talking about two different specimens (the 8m animal exceeding 12t still has to be born or found. Even orcas or bowhead are far lighter than this, and they're among the bulkiest creatures on earth). I may be wrong, but I think not even elephants, with their extremely tall, compact bodies for their lenght, would be that massive.

Also it appears the conservative 2t/6m you mention come closer for the GWS, but fluctuation among specimens can be considerable.

theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/6175

[Grey]

There may have been some confusion. I've not indicated any weight figure for the 8 m whale shark devoured by two bull orcas. The 12 000-13 500 kg specimen in picture was measured at 38 feet. I've edited the post.

[Deleted]

 

[Fragillimus335]

Sept 6, 2013 19:53:56 GMT 5 @brolyeuphyfusion said:

 

Bite its ankles!!!!!!

[Deleted]

Sept 6, 2013 21:14:44 GMT 5 Fragillimus335 said:

Sept 6, 2013 19:53:56 GMT 5 @brolyeuphyfusion said:

 

Bite its ankles!!!!!!

Flying Disembodied Tyrannosaurus Head said:

Well, that didn't work.