|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 19, 2014 11:15:18 GMT 5
I'd like to see the original source indicating mosasaurines to be more heavily built than tylosaurines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Feb 19, 2014 11:24:08 GMT 5
I'd like to see the original source indicating mosasaurines to be more heavily built than tylosaurines. I could have sworn mosisaurs were the more heavily built. Then I remembered Kronosaurus was a pliosaur..... |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Feb 19, 2014 16:18:15 GMT 5
I'd like to see the original source indicating mosasaurines to be more heavily built than tylosaurines. i do not think there is any such source. However we know that the bpreserved body outlie was more whale like in platecarpus indicatig that mosasaurs where not eel like. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 19, 2014 18:38:19 GMT 5
Do note that this reconstruction looks somewhat aorexic. I know that Prognathodon was one of the bulkiest mosasaurs, I posted that reconstruction for the length and not for some volumetric estimates. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 20, 2014 3:16:00 GMT 5
It’s 10.8m in axial lenght, 10.55 in tip-to-tip straight-line lenght. The scalebar seems consistent with the skull lenght.
A volumetric estimate would be very interesting to see.
I had tried measuring a rough Blender model, but the measure-functionality doesn’t work properly (sometimes it simply doesn’t output a volume!). I’ll see what else I can come up with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 5, 2014 17:02:54 GMT 5
I remember reading that a 12 meter mosasaur would be more than 3 tonnes, even going by the most conservative weight estimate for a shorter mosasaur. Do you guys think this is too small?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 6, 2014 22:31:47 GMT 5
Reliable weight estimates for mosasaurs seem to be very hard to find.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Mar 6, 2014 23:50:32 GMT 5
Reliable weight estimates for mosasaurs seem to be very hard to find. I think I will try something. In the meanwhile Alexander estimated a 9m Tylosaurus to weigh 1 tonne, based on water displacement. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 7, 2014 1:41:17 GMT 5
I’m looking forward to it!
The question is, how accurate was the scale model that he used? There is often quite a variation, take for example Brachiosaurus.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 7, 2014 19:16:40 GMT 5
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Mar 8, 2014 0:31:16 GMT 5
I must say that my Tylosaurus ended up a little over the known range of head/body ratio known for Tylosaurus, it's 7.9 when it should be up to 7.7 based on a complete 8.8m long specimen, also, in comparison to your previous scaling, all the section of the tail fluke is the only thing new because the old, overly straight backed drawing has a very short tail.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 8, 2014 2:09:12 GMT 5
The ratio of 7.7 would still suggest a lenght on excess of 14.5m if my scaling for the skull based on that dentary was correct. I didn’t really have the overview to how much of that drawing was based on real evidence.
So it does actually appear as if Tylosaurus was the longest mosasaur we know of, doesn’t it?
Now, is there some more data on Mosasaurus hoffmani?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 8, 2014 2:50:38 GMT 5
Blaze, I'd be interested if you proposed your reconstruction of Tylosaurus as such to Mike Everhart, I don't know if Tylosaurus is itself described with that body.
Anyway, 15 m for some mosasaurs has to be expected. What's interesting is that plausible increase in bulk.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 8, 2014 14:31:49 GMT 5
The ratio of 7.7 would still suggest a lenght on excess of 14.5m if my scaling for the skull based on that dentary was correct. Really? Isn't 1.8*7.7 more like 13.9 m (that's also what blaze wrote in the Orca v Tylosaurus thread)? |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 8, 2014 15:36:01 GMT 5
Yes, but the dentary from here? (the one that’s more complete, the other looks even bigger actually) could belong to a skull in excess of 1.9m?. But I admit the resolution is terrible. Perhaps blaze could verify it with his skull restoration? |
|
