|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on Feb 14, 2014 7:12:40 GMT 5
Something slightly less gigantic:  For reference the smaller Velociraptor has a skull ~23 cm long, the Dromaeosaurus is ~24 cm, whilst the larger Velociraptor is ~26 cm. ____ Comparison chart of some Tyrannosaurus specimens I did a while back, click here for an easy to read 50% version, or here for the full size version. Fragmentary specimens could all be significantly larger or smaller than displayed, the MOR 008 skull is rather messily done, and the weight estimates for anything that isn't either Sue or derived from Sue are stabs in the dark (but they shouldn't be too far out). |
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Feb 14, 2014 7:40:07 GMT 5
I think significantly smaller is more likely, the measurements of MOR 008 are within the those of AMNH 5027 and Stan, both animals with skulls about 130cm in premaxilla-squamosal and pretty much exact same body size except from neck and tail length, the same goes for the UCMP maxilla, it's not really bigger than the maxilla of MOR 555 (1.5% longer but 1.3% shorter), another specimen of comparable skull and body size to AMNH 5027 and Stan. IMO both are <12m, ~7 tonne T. rex.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 14, 2014 17:35:33 GMT 5
Damn, I was not even aware there were such huge Hybodontids. Surprising that you did not know that one you guys ! |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 14, 2014 19:58:03 GMT 5
I should read more oceanofkansas.com
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Feb 15, 2014 8:26:48 GMT 5
Spino's tail looks a little to tall. |
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Feb 20, 2014 3:01:43 GMT 5
Continuing my previous post on Gigantopithecus, it seems like Grover Krantz reconstruction is not that far off in size to the one I made if you scale the mandibles correctly, after all his is supposed to be based on the same mandible as mine, however, I realized that the casts being sold on the internet are 18% too big (more so that other reconstruction, supposedly based on 15% larger teeth but actually 25% larger overall than Krantz's)  Now I know how they estimated such a "low" weight for a 3m tall ape. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 20, 2014 3:12:49 GMT 5
OMG
I think we’ve got a new contender for "most overestimated animal". The "real king kong"...Orang-utangorilla-sized 500kg ape.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Feb 20, 2014 5:56:41 GMT 5
Well, not quite orangutan sized, are orangutans normally 1.8-1.9m tall? but yeah, it does seem like massive overestimation, how in the hell did Ciochon and Munns estimated the skull at 46cm tall? my scaling results in one 30cm tall, Krantz's reconstruction (correctly scaled) is 32cm, even the oversized casts are only 38cm tall (though, they could be augmented by a bit from a taller saggital crest maybe), then we have to look at their method, they assumed that the height of Gigantopithecus was 6.5 times the height of its skull, scaled back from 1:8 in Lucy, supposedly, because of the deep jaws but it doesn't seem enough still, the gorilla skeleton I used had a head to total height ratio of 5.4. From the get go they were assuming hominin-like proportions on top of that inexplicable head size estimate so they were bound to end up with tall, relatively slender creature, but most people depicting Gigantopithecus do so as a giant gorilla/orangutan thing.
I've heard of another size estimate from the 70s, supposedly assuming gorilla proportions, resulting in a 2.7m tall ape, it might be true but for that you still need a head approaching 50cm in height, which I don't see as something likely.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 20, 2014 20:57:46 GMT 5
Another "debunked overestimate" on blaze's tally sheet.  Just joking, you have been well paying attention, as usual. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 20, 2014 23:02:54 GMT 5
Don’t ask me how but I somehow overlooked the smaller human and the skull superimposition in the larger one! Anyway, it’s still a huge difference.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Feb 21, 2014 1:01:28 GMT 5
creature386lol theropodThe smaller human wasn't there at first, judging from your response and DinosaurMichael's on cf I thought that the skull superimposition was easy to miss and that I should have added the standard 1.8m tall guy for reference from the beginning. haha
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 21, 2014 1:03:04 GMT 5
So what is the largest primate species ever to evolve ?
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Feb 21, 2014 1:21:10 GMT 5
Probably still Gigantopithecus, it seems the common "male gorillas are 1.7-1.8m tall on average" claim is exaggerated as well, Wood (1979) has measurements of the "height"* of 20 mature males and 21 mature females of Gorilla gorilla, average male was 155cm tall and average female was 135cm tall, and is not like this species is small, Jungers & Susma (1984) report the average of a sample of 77 males as 157kg and 84 females as 80kg
*maximum length of the freshly killed animal, with the legs extended, from the vertex (heighest point of the cranium) to the heel.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 21, 2014 1:22:54 GMT 5
I know, gorillas are tiny for their size, but this has really surprised me now.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Feb 21, 2014 1:56:32 GMT 5
They have big wide ribcages, big wide hips to accommodate their big mostly herbivorous guts and their limbs are far more robust than ours, height is deceptive when it comes to gorillas because of those things and their short legs.
|
|
