Size comparison scale

[dinosauria101]

Max Daeodon (blaze), average Megaraptor (Wikimedia Commons), and max Tyrannotitan (Franoys)

[dinosauria101]

Elasmotherium (Sinnamonite) vs Tyrannotitan (Franoys), max vs max

[dinosauria101]

Ekrixinatosaurus (Wikimedia Commons) vs holotype and paratype of Giganotosaurus (Hartman)

[elosha11]

From Jaime Bran's twitter account, 5/8/19, image from Mace Brown Museum of Natural History, College of Charleston.

Baleen whales haven't always been big! On top is a tail vertebra from Eomysticetus, the largest (7-8 m long) Oligocene (25 Ma) baleen whale, and on bottom is a Plio-Pleistocene (2-4 Ma) fin whale sized (~25 m long) vertebra from the same region of the spine.

[dinosauria101]

Oxalaia vs Otodus

[dinosauria101]

Orinoco crocodile vs shortfin mako shark, record specimens for both 

[dinosauria101]

Deinosuchus (randomdinos) vs Ankylosaurus (Greg Paul), average vs average

Unfortunately, the Deinosuchus vs Ankylosaurus thread I made is probably a mismatch now that the crocodile is considered only about 1/4 as big as the dinosaur

[dinosauria101]

3 Daspletosaurus (Franoys) vs Purussaurus (randomdinos), average vs average

[dinosauria101]

Pete 3 the Daspletosaurus (Franoys) vs average Purussaurus (randomdinos)

[dinosauria101]

Deinonychus vs Giganotosaurus (MCZ 4371 vs MUCPv-95, both skeletals by Hartman)

[dinosauria101]

Alright, valkyrie , here's Naumann's elephant vs Daspletosaurus complete size chart (click for larger resolution). Elephant is scaled down Palaeoloxodon namadicus from Prehistoric Fauna, while Daspletosaurus is from Franoys. Note: the weight estimates for the elephant depend on what it's scaled down from

On top is 2.3 meters shoulder height elephant and 1.8 ton Daspletosaurus (lower size estimates)
In the middle is 2.55 meters shoulder height elephant and 2.8 ton Daspletosaurus (average size estimates)
On the bottom is 2.8 meters shoulder height elephant and 3.8 ton Daspletosaurus (max size estimates)
Likely not a mismatch, but I still have yet to see an argument that makes me lean towards the elephant. We can continue our Discord debates here (hyperlink)

Infinity Blade
I remember a while back, you did some scaling to figure out the Naumann elephant's weight. In your opinion, which weight estimates that you got are the best?

[dinosauria101]

Torvosaurus (Wikimedia Commons) vs Acrocanthosaurus (Franoys)

[Infinity Blade]

Oct 20, 2019 18:40:41 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

Alright, valkyrie , here's Naumann's elephant vs Daspletosaurus complete size chart (click for larger resolution). Elephant is scaled down Palaeoloxodon namadicus from Prehistoric Fauna, while Daspletosaurus is from Franoys. Note: the weight estimates for the elephant depend on what it's scaled down from

On top is 2.3 meters shoulder height elephant and 1.8 ton Daspletosaurus (lower size estimates)
In the middle is 2.55 meters shoulder height elephant and 2.8 ton Daspletosaurus (average size estimates)
On the bottom is 2.8 meters shoulder height elephant and 3.8 ton Daspletosaurus (max size estimates)
Likely not a mismatch, but I still have yet to see an argument that makes me lean towards the elephant. We can continue our Discord debates here (hyperlink)

Infinity Blade
I remember a while back, you did some scaling to figure out the Naumann elephant's weight. In your opinion, which weight estimates that you got are the best?

You mean this?

Okay, I'm going to assume these 2.3 to 2.8 meter shoulder height figures are accurate and will use them for what's below.

I was too lazy to do so this morning, but in the process of making this post I've consulted Larramendi (2016) and his skeletals with given body mass and shoulder height estimates for Palaeoloxodon spp.; here-> is a link to it so you can check it out yourselves. With this data from other Palaeoloxodon species, we should be able to use simple isometric scaling to get a good idea of how massive a 2.3 to 2.8 meter tall P. naumanni would be.

This isometric scaling formula is a straightforward one, and one I learned a long time ago; it's simply ((shoulder height of smaller animal/shoulder height of larger animal)^3)*body mass of larger animal=body mass of smaller animal.

Based off of a 40 year old male P. recki specimen weighing 12,300 kg and 427 cm tall at the shoulder, we get anywhere from ~1,922 kg to ~3,468 kg.
Based off of a young adult male P. namadicus specimen estimated to be 435 cm tall at the shoulder and estimated to have weighed 13,000 kg (it appears to be known only from four long bones), we get anywhere from ~1,922 kg to ~3,467 kg.
Based off of a possibly male 40 year old P. antiquus specimen weighing 11,300 kg and 381 cm tall at the shoulder, we get anywhere from ~2,486 kg to ~4,485 kg.
Based off of a >50 year old male P. antiquus specimen estimated to be 420 cm tall at the shoulder and estimated to weigh ~15,000 kg (it appears to be known only from a metacarpal(?), humerus, and teeth(?)), we get anywhere from ~2,463 to ~4,444 kg.
And finally, based off of the now well known 520 cm tall and 22,000 kg P. namadicus specimen (known from a femur fragment), we get anywhere from ~1,904 kg to ~3,435 kg.

I don't know. One thing I noticed is that three of them are extremely similar to each other (with two of those being virtually identical) while the remaining two, both of which scale from P. antiquus, are extremely similar to each other. It depends on which species P. naumanni was most similar to in proportions.

[dinosauria101]

^Yes, that was what I meant.
Given that most of the scaling produces basically interchangeable results and the true weights depend on proportion, someone could just post that in the thread when valkyrie's back and different outcomes could be debated based on different weight ranges.

[dinosauria101]

Proper Dunkleosteus (Blaze) vs Kronosaurus (Prehistoric Wildlife)