|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 15, 2019 13:32:36 GMT 5
American mastodon (2.89 meters shoulder height) vs Purussaurus (10.3 meters), average vs average, by Larramendi and randomdinos respectively. Will upload to Imgur when I get the chance. Scalebar is 1 meter. View AttachmentI’ll give you a pass on the scaling on this one, but the Purussaurus in question is the largest specimen, not average. I honestly thought we’d gone over this two or three times already. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 15, 2019 16:25:58 GMT 5
You'll have to excuse me. I was just a bit burnt out when I posted that.
I'll fix it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 16, 2019 18:52:29 GMT 5
Alright, so I rescaled this. Let's see if it's any better. Holotype of Tyrannosaurus rex (11.9 meters axial length, 7.5 tonnes) vs paratype of Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum (~35 meters total length, 75 tonnes). Scalebar is 1 meter, skeletal credit goes to Hartman and Greg Paul respectively.  |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 16, 2019 19:03:14 GMT 5
I measured 27 px for both scalebars. That being said, you should probably mention what you measured if they are that blurry.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 16, 2019 19:07:18 GMT 5
A lot better. If your T. rex is 11.9 m in axial length, your Mamenchisaurus is now something like 35.9 to 36 m. I’ve measured axial length three times independently for each, and they were always within 1 px of each other, consistently 880 px for Mamenchisaurus, 291 to 292 px for T.rex. So significantly better, though still off somwehat.
I’m leaving this here for now, but I expect you to work towards improving this further, this is not to say this is good enough, but it’s at least a step in the right direction. I just hope it wasn’t just a guessing game.
Also, on an unrelated note, 75 t seems highly doubtful for this reconstruction. I made a fairly generous blender model for Paul’s skeletal scaled to 35 m axial length, and got around 58 m³ for the entire axial segment. I’m too lazy to model the legs right now, but if the thing wants to have a shot at reaching 75 t, they would have to add around 30 t, which seems clearly impossible.
EDIT: ok, I got over my lazyness. As expected, nope. The hindlegs segments are a little over 600kg each and the forelimbs slightly shy of that, giving us a total volume of around 60 m³. At a density of 0.8, this gives us around 48 t, not 75.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Nov 20, 2019 1:46:38 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 20, 2019 17:19:39 GMT 5
Southern mammoth mount from Paris Museum of Natural History (~4 meters shoulder height, 10.7 tonnes) vs Jimbo the Supersaurus (~33 meters TL, 35 tonnes) Credit to Larramendi and Hartman for the skeletals, scalebar is 1 meter  |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 23, 2019 18:05:53 GMT 5
I rescaled this; let's see if it's any better. Palaeoloxodon namadicus (500 cm shoulder height, 22 tonnes) vs Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum (246 cm femur, 75 tonnes). Skeletals are by Larramendi and Greg Paul.  |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 23, 2019 18:13:07 GMT 5
It is almost accurately scaled, but why is it 5 m now, not 5.2 as stated by Larramendi? A 5 m specimen would be less than 20 t, scaling from Larramendi’s estimate.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 23, 2019 18:29:37 GMT 5
but why is it 5 m now, not 5.2 as stated by Larramendi? A 5 m specimen would be less than 20 t, scaling from Larramendi’s estimate. That's funny, I could have sworn the chart I took it from gave 500 cm at the shoulder. This is it:  Maybe this was just a typo? |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 23, 2019 18:44:21 GMT 5
Hmm interesting. This is the comparison he published:  Larramendi, A. 2015. Shoulder height, body mass, and shape of proboscideans. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 61 (3): 537–575.but it seems he has it at 5 m in his comparison on DA, so perhaps he did some rescaling on the legs since then.  EDIT: He seems to imply he is sure it reached 5 m, but could have been closer to 5.2 m. So it depends on the respective reconstruction you use and whether it’s meant to show a 5 m or a 5.2 m animal. I don’t know where the one you posted comes from though. www.deviantart.com/asier-larramendi/art/The-colossal-Narmada-valley-elephants-572548197(btw off-topic, "Mammut" borsoni really, really should be Zygolophodon borsoni. The teeth are quite distinct from those of Mammut, it probably represents a separate phylogeographic lineage, and every mammal palaentologist I know agrees it should be Zygolophodon.) |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 23, 2019 20:09:12 GMT 5
I think it's either a spinoff on another chart or vice versa. Here's another chart using the same:https://www.deviantart.com/eofauna/art/The-Largest-Land-Mammal-in-History-545389385
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 24, 2019 4:42:20 GMT 5
Tyrannosaurus rex (CM 9380, 11.9 meters TL, 7.5 tonnes) vs Brontosaurus Apatosaurus (CM 3018, 23 meters TL, at least 22 tonnes). Both skeletals by Hartman  |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 24, 2019 16:04:30 GMT 5
Don’t you mean Apatosaurus?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 24, 2019 16:58:26 GMT 5
I thought CM 3018 was Brontosaurus louisae?
|
|
