|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 12, 2019 21:28:20 GMT 5
spartanI used a different skeletal than the one there. Hartman's skeletal gives 11 tonnes while GetAwayTrike's would give 14. jdangerousdinosaurAFAIK the consensus was that it was not off the table, but they're just estimates and as such are not guaranteed. Franoys even agreed on that IIRC. Just for the record, if this wasn't already clear, I fully, acknowledge the biggest Trikes could be anywhere for 11-14 tonnes. It all depends on what skeletal is used, and I did say in the posts with the size comparisons that different skeletals get different masses.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Dec 12, 2019 22:18:52 GMT 5
No it was concluded that the largest Triceratops so far is around 7 tons and the very largest size we could obtain is probably 9 tons and you are using very old outdated stuff to justify these oversized animals. You just ignore everything that is said to you and carry on doing this.
I can just go on the discord and find everything that was said to you regarding this.
Il do it after work.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 12, 2019 22:30:25 GMT 5
That's just GSP's skeletal which is not quite the best. Hartman's would give 11 tonnes, and what was agreed on in the Deviantart comments was that it's not necessarily impossible but ought to be regarded with the dimensions fully in mind. Moreover, GAT's new skeletal has yet to be GDI'd.
If we're going down this rabbit hole again, I'm out.
|
|
|
|
Post by spartan on Dec 12, 2019 22:36:50 GMT 5
spartan I used a different skeletal than the one there. Hartman's skeletal gives 11 tonnes while GetAwayTrike's would give 14. jdangerousdinosaur AFAIK the consensus was that it was not off the table, but they're just estimates and as such are not guaranteed. Franoys even agreed on that IIRC. Just for the record, if this wasn't already clear, I fully, acknowledge the biggest Trikes could be anywhere for 11-14 tonnes. It all depends on what skeletal is used, and I did say in the posts with the size comparisons that different skeletals get different masses. I have no idea who GetAwayTrike is. Show in detail how he or you arrived at a this mass estimate. "I used a different skelet on" isn't a valid answer. Even 11t is larger than what is currently accepted as the maximum for known Triceratops specimen. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 12, 2019 22:43:10 GMT 5
spartan I used a different skeletal than the one there. Hartman's skeletal gives 11 tonnes while GetAwayTrike's would give 14. jdangerousdinosaur AFAIK the consensus was that it was not off the table, but they're just estimates and as such are not guaranteed. Franoys even agreed on that IIRC. Just for the record, if this wasn't already clear, I fully, acknowledge the biggest Trikes could be anywhere for 11-14 tonnes. It all depends on what skeletal is used, and I did say in the posts with the size comparisons that different skeletals get different masses. 1: I have no idea who GetAwayTrike is. Show in detail how he or you arrived at a this mass estimate. "I used a different skelet on" isn't a valid answer. 2: Even 11t is larger than what is currently accepted as the maximum for known Triceratops specimen. 1: Here: www.deviantart.com/getawaytrikeAs for the skeletal, I scaled a 2.5 meter-long skull length Triceratops (at 10527 kg, by this GDI by SpinoInWonderland of GAT's skeletal (which would have been more accurate than the underestimated one done a while later): www.deviantart.com/spinoinwonderland/journal/Some-GDI-s-for-a-few-folks-648811067UCMP 128561 is indicative of an animal with a 2.7 meter skull, which would be 26 percent more massive via isometric scaling. This gets us an animal of ~13.26 tonnes, which would likely be closer to 14 given that bigger animals tend to be bulkier than smaller ones. 2: Yes, I know it's 10.8 tonnes. Not functionally different from 11, it's easier to round, and most people know what I mean. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 22:46:24 GMT 5
size comparison between dire wolf and snow leopard?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 12, 2019 22:49:00 GMT 5
On it. Should be ready in about 30 min max.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 12, 2019 22:52:42 GMT 5
spartan:"What is currently accepted" is a bit of vague wording though. Accepted by whom, on what grounds? I demonstrated how almost 11 t could be possible for an individual with a 2.7 m skull, as per EoFauna’s estimated skull length. There are caveats to that (it depends on the proportions we assume, the skeletal by Scott Hartman is in support of this whereas the one by Greg Paul ends up over 1 ton lighter, and it is also a very fragmentary specimen), but nothing I have been shown so far conclusively invalidates this figure. Although as I have pointed out too, the 9.5 t estimate is more tenable. Also "skelet al", as in "skeletal drawing", not "skelet on", as in an "original skeleton". jdangerousdinosaur: What is the information you are referring to regarding Triceratops’ maximum size being around 7 t? I don’t know where and on what discord it was posted, so I would very much appreciate it you could post it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 12, 2019 22:59:46 GMT 5
@ophiophagushannah Here it is. Credit to Melbourne Museum and Prehistoric Fauna for the images  |
|
|
|
Post by spartan on Dec 13, 2019 0:09:21 GMT 5
spartan :"What is currently accepted" is a bit of vague wording though. Accepted by whom, on what grounds? I demonstrated how almost 11 t could be possible for an individual with a 2.7 m skull, as per EoFauna’s estimated skull length. There are caveats to that (it depends on the proportions we assume, the skeletal by Scott Hartman is in support of this whereas the one by Greg Paul ends up over 1 ton lighter, and it is also a very fragmentary specimen), but nothing I have been shown so far conclusively invalidates this figure. Although as I have pointed out too, the 9.5 t estimate is more tenable. "What is currently accepted" in the (admittedly vague) sense of being an upper estimate that most paleontologists would say is neither much too low nor much too high. What I don't understand is where dinosauria101 gets the impression that "all the best skeletals we have" imply a maximum size of 11-14t instead of 9-11t. That's a pretty big gap. I'm genuinely curious. Is this based on wishful thinking or is there an actual reason to believe a Triceratops with a 2.7m skull would weigh that much? I see, my bad. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 13, 2019 0:14:54 GMT 5
spartan :"What is currently accepted" is a bit of vague wording though. Accepted by whom, on what grounds? I demonstrated how almost 11 t could be possible for an individual with a 2.7 m skull, as per EoFauna’s estimated skull length. There are caveats to that (it depends on the proportions we assume, the skeletal by Scott Hartman is in support of this whereas the one by Greg Paul ends up over 1 ton lighter, and it is also a very fragmentary specimen), but nothing I have been shown so far conclusively invalidates this figure. Although as I have pointed out too, the 9.5 t estimate is more tenable. "What is currently accepted" in the (admittedly vague) sense of being an upper estimate that most paleontologists would say is neither much too low nor much too high. What I don't understand is where dinosauria101 gets the impression that "all the best skeletals we have" imply a maximum size of 11-14t instead of 9-11t. That's a pretty big gap. I'm genuinely curious. Is this based on wishful thinking or is there an actual reason to believe a Triceratops with a 2.7m skull would weigh that much? It's just the mass range that scaling Hartman's and GAT's skeletals to UCMP 128561 gives. I do not trust GSP's Trikes all that much for previously stated reasons (they are often composites with little, if any, cross scaling and a mystery composition) Nothing's guaranteed of course, but 14 tonnes certainly isn't off the table. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 13, 2019 0:28:44 GMT 5
Well, I would say reasonable estimates for the biggest Triceratops specimens are 9.5-10.8 t, because those are the ones I have personally verified. This is also fairly close to Greg Paul’s estimate (unsurprising, since they base on the same skeletal, among others) of 9.3 t. However as I did explain, the lower end is the saver bet, since the 2.7 m skull itself is not set in stone, while the lower end of that range would also be supported by the 1.3 m femur Paul lists.
Me neither. That is among a great many things I do not understand about him.
14 t is pure fantasy, he based that on scaling up an outdated estimate and then guessing a more robust body shape on top of that. However, the skeletal in question does appear to produce greater body masses for a given skull length than Greg Paul’s or Scott Hartman’s, at least if Broly’s GDI is trustworthy. Why this is the case remains to be determined, though saying this skeletal is preferable to Paul’s or Hartman’s is quite a leap. It would help if someone could actually uncover the methods behind the skeletal.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 13, 2019 0:34:41 GMT 5
From what I could tell in the comments, it wasn't untrustworthy or fantasy, but like most estimates just one of many that can be regarded with due skepticism. EDIT: theropod, 14 tonnes is AFTER a ~6% bulk increase. Scaling the GDI to UCMP 128561 without assuming additional bulk gets ~13.26 tonnes |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 13, 2019 0:48:36 GMT 5
EDIT: theropod, 14 tonnes is AFTER a ~6% bulk increase. exactly my point! Scaling the GDI to UCMP 128561 without assuming additional bulk gets ~13.26 tonnes 12.6 t, unless you use the outdated figure. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 13, 2019 1:23:00 GMT 5
1: I thought you were referring to when I thought UCMP 128561 was 10 percent larger as opposed to 8 percent, and scaled to that.
2: That new one was underestimated. From what I could glean from the comments, the older one's mass is probably better
|
|
