|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 16, 2014 3:14:21 GMT 5
Oh, thanks for the clarification.
It appears that at maximum weights at the least, the two animals are at parity, and in that case I favor Shantungosaurus for the reasons I originally stated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Mar 20, 2014 6:07:04 GMT 5
WTF! At first I thought the shantungosaurus in the illustration was trying to eat the crocodile...
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 20, 2014 6:10:32 GMT 5
WTF! At first I thought the shantungosaurus in the illustration was trying to eat the crocodile... Oh no, he's just peering down at it and the theropod who actually is eating it  . |
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Mar 20, 2014 6:11:29 GMT 5
Or maybe he's trying to eat the theropod 0_0
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 20, 2014 6:22:48 GMT 5
Revenge of the hadrosaurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Mar 20, 2014 6:38:33 GMT 5
both of you guys are wrong. it's quite obvious he only wants a hug
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 22:07:06 GMT 5
Paraceratherium was a bit smaller than previously thought.
Shatungosaurus wins.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jan 3, 2015 22:56:28 GMT 5
Indeed, the only 22 tonnes estimate in Seebacher et al. (2001) is for Opisthocoelicaudia, citing Anderson et al. (1985). Don't always take my word for it, Seebacher does estimate Shantungosaurus at 22t, I got the tables confused haha. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 3, 2015 23:33:35 GMT 5
So then how accurate is that ~22t figure?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 3, 2015 23:49:54 GMT 5
Indeed, the only 22 tonnes estimate in Seebacher et al. (2001) is for Opisthocoelicaudia, citing Anderson et al. (1985). Don't always take my word for it, Seebacher does estimate Shantungosaurus at 22t, I got the tables confused haha. There is no 22 t figure for Shantungosaurus in his paper, there's a 22 t figure for a mysterious dinosaur called Shatungosaurus though… Joke aside, while the estimate sounds very high to me, I think we can live with it unless someone debunks it because even though some of Seebacher's figures are dubious, I believe he has a good method. |
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jan 3, 2015 23:51:19 GMT 5
Yes, the method is good but it ultimately depends on how accurate is Brett-Surman (1997) reconstruction and how accurate is 17m in length for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 4, 2015 0:03:35 GMT 5
At least it’s volumetric (albeit imo unnecessarily complicated, where a simple elliptical crossection would work just as well or better). It depends on the accuracy of the data used with the method.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jan 4, 2015 11:16:37 GMT 5
I just got a pdf copy of The Complete Dinosaur first edition, the recontruction is Paul's and since Paul says his recontruction is 15m then the 22t estimate by Seebacher (2001) is an overestimate, downscaling it to 15m results in 15t, much closer to Pauls own estimate of 13t.
|
|
|
|
Post by 0ldgrizz on Jan 4, 2015 15:44:49 GMT 5
The Paraceratherium does have one advantage. On four feet, he is less likely to be knocked down. If Shantungosaurus is knocked off his feet, how quickly could he regain his footing? |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 4, 2015 17:05:30 GMT 5
Shantungosaurus was a facultative quadruped if I’m not mistaken. If anything it has better balance than exclusively quadrupedal mammals, since it is stable on both 2 and 4 limbs.
|
|
.
