Size comparison scale

[Fragillimus335]

Dec 14, 2013 14:06:30 GMT 5 Grey said:

Cassowaries are bigger than that!

[theropod]

Yes, large cassowaries are around 1.8m tall and double the weight of a large rhea. C. casuarius is the second-heaviest bird on earth (but the third-tallest). No idea where whoever made that scale took his/her illusions from.

Most are smaller (but not just in cassowaries), around the size seen in those pictures.

gigadino96: I'm wondering what he'd say if someone scaled that Spinosaurus 40% larger to fit the size of MNHM V4047 as it would be if it's skull was restored the way Headden does in one scale...

[Deleted]

Dec 14, 2013 22:53:29 GMT 5 theropod said:

I'm wondering what he'd say if someone scaled that Spinosaurus 40% larger to fit the size of MNHM V4047 as it would be if it's skull was restored the way Headden does...

I have a feeling that he won't like it...

Here it is:



I do not agree with this model for Spinosaurus at all, but I made this anyway.

[blaze]

Bad news, while making this, I realized that the skull length of the largest Kronosaurus is actually just shy of 2.5m in total length, yes, BSL is around 2.3m but that's not the longest measurement. Why is that bad news? because it affects the size of P. funkei, they estimate that the largest specimen has a skull 2-2.5m in length, but they don't specify in what measurement, if its total length, then the skull is no larger than in the biggest Kronosaurus, indeed after reading again the description paper, it appears the biggest pliosaurid they compared it to using vertebral measurements was MCZ 1285 and in none of the plots does P. funkei vertebrae cluster as indicating an animal considerably bigger than it, meaning that at most, it was just as big 10-11m but not 13m.

btw tell me if my Kronosaurus is too skinny it looks too skinny to me but I'm not sure.

edit:
Also you can't use Headden's 40%, because he scaled the size of the holotype mandible wrong. Read the comments of the blogpost he later conceded that it didn't matter because that wasn't his point, but that there shouldn't be an overbie, grab Dal Sasso et al. drawing, close the jaw and try to eliminate the overbite, it only took making it 4% larger, consequently, it could be eliminated by making the angular and surungular longer.

[Grey]

Excellent model blaze as ever. I'm not sure for the proportion of Kronosaurus, my guess would be that it was a bit thicker than this, but pliosaurs were pretty wide from an anterodorsal view. I think coherentsheaf would have interesting remarks.

Good observation regarding the skull measurement, like you did on the giants "crocs". Blaze you should contact and discuss with the respective authors when you come to these observations.

I'm quite convinced by Cau's works regarding Spinosaurus. Especially, it is true the vertebra are really not that massive compared to Sue. Anyway, we'll know more with the future publication. For now, I'd stay on Hartman reconstruction but keeping an eye on Cau's research.

[blaze]

I'll probably do that.

coherentsheaf, where are you?

[Grey]

Also, I appreciate how Kronosaurus gets again somewhat of a fame. It was so longly eclipsed by the oversized Liopleurodon and the big pliosaurs found the last decade, initially too large, that it had lost its long time reputation of Tyrannosaurus equivalent among plesiosaurs. At the end, all are downsized (still big) whereas Kronosaurus regains his status of spectacular pliosaurs due to this very big skull.

[coherentsheaf]

Dec 15, 2013 10:32:31 GMT 5 blaze said:

I'll probably do that.

coherentsheaf, where are you?

lying around being drunk

Birthday parties will be my ruin. I ll respond when I am in a better state of mind

[Grey]

Dec 15, 2013 12:30:19 GMT 5 coherentsheaf said:

Dec 15, 2013 10:32:31 GMT 5 blaze said:

I'll probably do that.

coherentsheaf, where are you?

lying around being drunk

Birthday parties will be my ruin. I ll respond when I am in a better state of mind

Don't like to spam but :

[blaze]

lol have fun and happy birthday!

Grey
Indeed and hey MCZ 1285 is more than a skull, the presacral vertebral series is pretty much complete.

[Grey]

Clearly, Kronosaurus is one hell of a beast.

Check this one compared with C. porosus :

[theropod]

^It should be noted that's probably rather a 3m croc than a 6m one, which makes quite a difference.

blaze: I didn't use Headden's measurements for the holotype (I would have arrived at over 100% had I done so), what I read on Cau's blog convinced me that the dentary is really rather 75cm.
I just used his restoration of the skull's proportions, assuming a specimen that's 75/52.5 times the size as his 0.8m holotype cranium. One arrive at an animal whose skull is 1.43 times the lenght, which is 1.14m, compared to that of MNHM which he shows as 1.6-1.8m (that's 40-58% bigger than the holotype).
Then you just have to go on and assume the animal in Cau's comparison was supposed to represent a specimen 8% larger than the holotype (his vision of the biggest Spinosaurus), and voilà, you've got a 38% bigger specimen. Then, every point against the relevance of this comparison aside, it isn't really surprising BSPG has such relatively gracile bones.

By mere coincidence, my restoration gives you comparable percentages.

On your Kronosaurus: Excellent work, and interesting points regarding P. funkei. From McHenry 2009 I had suspected it wasn't really any bigger than 11m.

If it is too shallow-bodied, then not by much. Pliosaurs aren't that deep, but pretty wide.

coherentsheaf: Happy birthday!
Well, in that case, Happy Birthday to the person whose birthday it is!

[Grey]

Sure, this is clearly not a Lo Long-sized salty, even though this part of Kronos snout is huge. Kronosaurus since a long deserves just as much fame as others pliosaurs as a badass Mesozoic marine carnivore.

[coherentsheaf]

Dec 15, 2013 15:35:32 GMT 5 theropod said:

^It should be noted that's probably rather a 3m croc than a 6m one, which makes quite a difference.

blaze: I didn't use Headden's measurements for the holotype (I would have arrived at over 100% had I done so), what I read on Cau's blog convinced me that the dentary is really rather 75cm.
I just used his restoration of the skull's proportions, assuming a specimen that's 75/52.5 times the size as his 0.8m holotype cranium. One arrive at an animal whose skull is 1.43 times the lenght, which is 1.14m, compared to that of MNHM which he shows as 1.6-1.8m (that's 40-58% bigger than the holotype).
Then you just have to go on and assume the animal in Cau's comparison was supposed to represent a specimen 8% larger than the holotype (his vision of the biggest Spinosaurus), and voilà, you've got a 38% bigger specimen. Then, every point against the relevance of this comparison aside, it isn't really surprising BSPG has such relatively gracile bones.

By mere coincidence, my restoration gives you comparable percentages.

On your Kronosaurus: Excellent work, and interesting points regarding P. funkei. From McHenry 2009 I had suspected it wasn't really any bigger than 11m.

If it is too shallow-bodied, then not by much. Pliosaurs aren't that deep, but pretty wide.

coherentsheaf: Happy birthday!

Not my birthday ;D

[coherentsheaf]

Dec 15, 2013 3:30:46 GMT 5 blaze said:

Bad news, while making this, I realized that the skull length of the largest Kronosaurus is actually just shy of 2.5m in total length, yes, BSL is around 2.3m but that's not the longest measurement. Why is that bad news? because it affects the size of P. funkei, they estimate that the largest specimen has a skull 2-2.5m in length, but they don't specify in what measurement, if its total length, then the skull is no larger than in the biggest Kronosaurus, indeed after reading again the description paper, it appears the biggest pliosaurid they compared it to using vertebral measurements was MCZ 1285 and in none of the plots does P. funkei vertebrae cluster as indicating an animal considerably bigger than it, meaning that at most, it was just as big 10-11m but not 13m.

btw tell me if my Kronosaurus is too skinny it looks too skinny to me but I'm not sure.

edit:
Also you can't use Headden's 40%, because he scaled the size of the holotype mandible wrong. Read the comments of the blogpost he later conceded that it didn't matter because that wasn't his point, but that there shouldn't be an overbie, grab Dal Sasso et al. drawing, close the jaw and try to eliminate the overbite, it only took making it 4% larger, consequently, it could be eliminated by making the angular and surungular longer.

That Kronosaurus is about the size of P. funkei ad P. kevani is no surprise. Quoting myself

Given that P. kevani was very similar in size to P.fukei and the latter has comparable vertebral size very large Kronosaurus I reasoned that they would have comparable body size.

Anyway yur comparison is in overall pretty comparable to what I got following the measurements given by McHenry:



A word regarding the comparability of Pliosaurus to Kronosaurus: The problem we have is that giant specimen of genus Pliosaurus are very fragmentary. Some of their skeletal elements suggest that they are larger than Kronosaurus others do not. The flippers were much larger, the vertebrae were comparable in P.fukei and larger but not much larger in the Monster of Arramberri (Given the stratigraphic age, the MoA is probably also more closely related to Pliosaurus). Comparison with the more closely related Liopleurodon leads to lengths excess of 15m for the Monster of Arramberri. The problem of course is that the comparative specimen of Liopleurodon is much smaller (only 5m), so it is hard to say which comparison is to be trusted. In terms of cranial elements, Kronosaurus is again comparable to the giant Pliosaurus specimens. A more comprehensive evaluation of size would require finding a more complete giant Pliosaurus specimen. Tentatively I would say that P. kevani and P. funkei are similar in size to a very large specimen of Kronosaurus, and the giant specimens of P. macomerus as well as the Monster of arramberi are probably larger.