|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 8, 2014 15:47:11 GMT 5
Even then, remember that the 1:7.7 ratio is the upper limit:Christiansen & Bonde (2002) "A New Species of Gigantic Mosasaur from the Late Cretaceous of Israel"
So, the total range would be 12.8 to over 14.6 m, depending on the ratio and skull length you take.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Mar 8, 2014 20:47:12 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. I didn't, I thought the body of Platecarpus was fine, at similar girdle to girdle length the only thing that makes deeper the body of Platecarpus compared to Williston's Tylosaurus drawing was the latter's apparent lack of coracoid and abdominal ribs, after I update it I'll send him an email. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 17, 2014 0:37:54 GMT 5
This is very interesting, it seems perhaps the biggest known specimen (and species?) of Mosasaurus: theropoda.blogspot.it/2014/03/il-piu-grande-rettile-fossile-italiano.html#moreFrom the reconstruction is seems the preserved portion’s maximum length (and that’s not necessarily how it was measured at the 66cm) is less than 38% the whole skull lenght (and the mandible is even longer of course). credit for finding it goes to vobby on CF |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Mar 17, 2014 4:27:06 GMT 5
 The ew guy compared to the orcas in blaze previous pic. Skull length approximately 175cm. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 17, 2014 4:35:38 GMT 5
The mosasaur's build, I likey. I think theropod said that the mosasaur would be 13 or maybe even 15 meters long.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Mar 17, 2014 13:26:31 GMT 5
About the size of the new Mosasaur find:
"The preserved upper right dentigerous margin of MGGC 21876 includes seven consecutive tooth positions (two premaxillary and five maxillary) and is about 40 cm long. In an articulated Mosasaurus hoffmanni skull about 145 cm long ( Lingham-Soliar, 1995, fig. 5) the same region is about 36 cm long. Assuming the skull of MGGC 21876 closely followed the skull proportions of M. hoffmanni ( Lingham-Soliar, 1995, fig. 4), we estimate that it was of comparable size when complete. In articulated mosasaurid skeletons, the total body length is about 7–10 times the skull length although it is more likely that a mosasaurine body length was about seven times skull length, based on a nearly complete specimen of Prognathodon overtoni ( Russell, 1967 and Konishi et al., 2011). Therefore, we estimate that at the time of death the complete body length of the animal that the new Italian specimen belonged to was at least 11 m long and possibly greater, comparable to the largest known mosasaurids ( Christiansen and Bonde, 2002; Tylosaurus proriger KU 5033, Konishi pers. comm., 2012). Using the mass estimate method in Motani (2001), such a mosasaur would weigh close to 10^4 kg."
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Mar 21, 2014 0:50:31 GMT 5
Can someone please scale the Mosasaurus hoffmani quadrate NHMM 603092. Lingham- Soliar cited it as evidence of extraordinary size, and I tried to estimate pm-cb skull length and gout a value aproaching 2m. Since I do not trust this result, can someone please double check? Here is a pic  |
|
|
|
Post by Life on Apr 20, 2014 12:15:59 GMT 5
About the size of the new Mosasaur find: "The preserved upper right dentigerous margin of MGGC 21876 includes seven consecutive tooth positions (two premaxillary and five maxillary) and is about 40 cm long. In an articulated Mosasaurus hoffmanni skull about 145 cm long ( Lingham-Soliar, 1995, fig. 5) the same region is about 36 cm long. Assuming the skull of MGGC 21876 closely followed the skull proportions of M. hoffmanni ( Lingham-Soliar, 1995, fig. 4), we estimate that it was of comparable size when complete. In articulated mosasaurid skeletons, the total body length is about 7–10 times the skull length although it is more likely that a mosasaurine body length was about seven times skull length, based on a nearly complete specimen of Prognathodon overtoni ( Russell, 1967 and Konishi et al., 2011). Therefore, we estimate that at the time of death the complete body length of the animal that the new Italian specimen belonged to was at least 11 m long and possibly greater, comparable to the largest known mosasaurids ( Christiansen and Bonde, 2002; Tylosaurus proriger KU 5033, Konishi pers. comm., 2012). Using the mass estimate method in Motani (2001), such a mosasaur would weigh close to 10^4 kg." Published paper here (comprehensive information): www.disva.univpm.it/sites/www.disva.univpm.it/files/disva/news_dipartimento/cretaceus%20research.pdf (PDF Warning) |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 18, 2014 22:33:38 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 19, 2014 17:49:55 GMT 5
That’s good news for giant mosasaurs but it would be helpful to know which ones he is referring to.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 19, 2014 19:26:28 GMT 5
…or maybe if this is something published.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 20, 2014 18:42:17 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 20, 2014 19:30:12 GMT 5
Already shared elsewhere on the forum.
Regarding the figures said by Everhart, he refers to the Mosasaurus described by Lingram-Soliar, seems like he does not reject the ratio used in that paper.
Seeing that this much more recent paper uses too this ratio, I guess that 17 m M. hoffmanni are not ruled out. Thus making them predominantely the largest mosasaurs and in the top of the largest marine reptiles.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Sept 20, 2014 23:30:40 GMT 5
The recent paper on death roll in giant crocodyliforms used 180cm as the DCL of Deinosuchus despite this being the length of the mandibles of the now inaccurate original reconstruction from the 50s but it is indeed the popular figure mentioned in regards to the skull of Deinosuchus (6ft), just because a recent publications uses Lingram-Soliar ratio does not make it ok given how we have no fossil evidence that any mosasaur had such ratio.
The ratios given by Christiansen and Bonde (2002) are for skull length, which is about 95% of the mandible length, so the skull is ~1.6m long and following the 1:7.1-1:8.7 ratios we get 11.5m-14m. The higher ratio in Hainosaurus (1:8.7) also appears to be because of a long tail rather than larger overall body size in proportion to the head).
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 21, 2014 0:10:00 GMT 5
Thanks for posting this theropod, but I am a bit disappointed (not by you, by the paper) that they still had to cite that paper where I think blaze said citing its skull:body ratio is as good as citing Therrien and Henderson's method.
|
|
