|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 11, 2020 23:44:08 GMT 5
Horner and Padian, 2004
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 11, 2020 23:59:46 GMT 5
Anything from AFTER 2004? Y'know, given advancements in T.rex ontological study? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2020 0:01:50 GMT 5
Nothing that I am aware of that either continues to support or disprove this.
Having said that, it's kind of pointless to refer to these as not full grown (same goes for big, relatively young specimens), as they may have been either slow or fast growers but wouldn't necessarily grow a lot larger had they lived longer, and in the end keep in mind they did not.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 12, 2020 0:20:59 GMT 5
Nothing that I am aware of that either continues to support or disprove this. Having said that, it's kind of pointless to refer to these as not full grown (same goes for big, relatively young specimens), as they may have been either slow or fast growers but wouldn't necessarily grow a lot larger had they lived longer, and in the end keep in mind they did not. The point being that your comparison between a young T.rex and a probably fully grown Giganotosaurus is not very good nor equivalent to Comparing Sue and MucpV-ch1. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2020 0:24:39 GMT 5
It is equivalent - if we can use what is likely the smallest Giganotosaurus with the largest Tyrannosaurus, we can also do the reverse.
In the end, though, the best comparison is 2 similar sized animals. Extremes are not always the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 12, 2020 0:30:38 GMT 5
It is equivalent - if we can use what is likely Which is already unreliable because we only have one specimen that gives us a good idea of how large Giganotosaurus was. On the other hand, T.rex has no ushc problem. The comparison is not euqivalent. Which would be Sue vs MucPV-CH1. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2020 0:33:23 GMT 5
1: It is equivalent - if we can use what is likely 2: Which is already unreliable because we only have one specimen that gives us a good idea of how large Giganotosaurus was. On the other hand, T.rex has no ushc problem. The comparison is not euqivalent. 3: Which would be Sue vs MucPV-CH1. 1: Not necessarily. It's adults compared to adults, and the same criteria as Sue vs MUCPv-Ch1 2: I could still do Bucky/B-rex/USNM 6183 vs MUCPv-Ch1. That works more or less. 3: I think it's most likely MUCPv-Ch1 vs AMNH 5027. They have very similar masses (7.1 and 6.9 tonnes), and thus it's very fair. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 12, 2020 0:44:25 GMT 5
1: Not necessarily. It's adults compared to adults, and the same criteria as Sue vs MUCPv-Ch1 2: I could still do Bucky/B-rex/USNM 6183 vs MUCPv-Ch1. That works more or less. 3: I think it's most likely MUCPv-Ch1 vs AMNH 5027. They have very similar masses (7.1 and 6.9 tonnes), and thus it's very fair. 1: Adults of vastly different size and probably maturity, that is.
2. Not really, because, again, they are not similarly sized.
3. Sue is a better analogue for MUCPv-Ch1 than AMNH 5027- it is closer in size to it in terms of length. The comparison between sue and MUCPV-Ch1 is fair, no matter how you try to spin it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2020 1:19:56 GMT 5
1: Adults, nonetheless. And what's more, Sue could end up a lot older than MUCPv-Ch1, so there is another possible age mismatch.
2: Same extremes, so it is valid. It's just not a debatable fight which is handy for those who insist on 100% Sue vs the holotype.
3: No, it is fairest to use AMNH 5027 as the weight is closest. It's about mass, not length.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 12, 2020 1:33:01 GMT 5
1: Adults, nonetheless. And what's more, Sue could end up a lot older than MUCPv-Ch1, so there is another possible age mismatch. 2: Same extremes, so it is valid. It's just not a debatable fight which is handy for those who insist on 100% Sue vs the holotype. 3: No, it is fairest to use AMNH 5027 as the weight is closest. It's about mass, not length. 1. Sexually mature=/=adult. 2.No, it is not. There is no guarantee that MUCPV-95 is larger than CH1. Sue vs. The Holotype is comparable to Sue, these 2 are not. 3. And? Sue is far more complete than AMNH 5027, nearer to the level of CH1. CH1 is also closer in length and height to Sue. Sue and the Holotype work perfectly fine. It's not my problem if you cannot accept that fact. Franoys also gives 7722KG for Stan, who is smaller than AMNH 5027.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2020 1:45:58 GMT 5
1: Sexually mature is an adult. A better way to put it may be 'adult=\=full grown'.
2: Even if that's the case, if we're comparing the biggest Tyrannosaurus to the most complete Giganotosaurus, we can also compare the smallest adults to the most complete Giganotosaurus.
3: Length does not determine a fights' outcome, mass does. What do you think is closer, 6.9 vs 7.1 tonnes, or 7.1 vs 8-8.4?
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 12, 2020 1:54:25 GMT 5
1: Sexually mature is an adult. A better way to put it may be 'adult=\=full grown'. 2: Even if that's the case, if we're comparing the biggest Tyrannosaurus to the most complete Giganotosaurus, we can also compare the smallest adults to the most complete Giganotosaurus. 3: Length does not determine a fights' outcome, mass does. What do you think is closer, 6.9 vs 7.1 tonnes, or 7.1 vs 8-8.4? 1. A 14 year old is not an adult, yet they are sexually mature. 2.Sue is not the largest Tyranosaurus, she is the most well known. It just so happens the most suitable comparable Giganotosaurus is also the most complete.
3. Oh, certainly 6.9 v 7.1. However, we aren't talking about a fight, we are talking about a comparison. Sue is more suitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2020 2:12:00 GMT 5
1: Species to species growth rates do not remain the same. Given what we know on T. rex growth, it is reasonable to suggest a sexually mature specimen is adult even though this may not apply to people.
2: Sue is a very large Tyrannosaurus and one of the largest (possibly largest depending on how big Scotty was but I view them as equals), so it doesn't show the full story.
3: For a comparison it is misleading as well, since it does not show all sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 12, 2020 2:15:38 GMT 5
1: Species to species growth rates do not remain the same. Given what we know on T. rex growth, it is reasonable to suggest a sexually mature specimen is adult even though this may not apply to people. 2: Sue is a very large Tyrannosaurus and one of the largest (possibly largest depending on how big Scotty was but I view them as equals), so it doesn't show the full story. 3: For a comparison it is misleading as well, since it does not show all sides. 1. That does not necessarily mean that Bucky is an adult or at near-full size.
2. It shows the proper story though: the 2 most complete and reasonably well-known specimens of each species. The comparison is fine.
3. The comparison it is perfectly fine. Go ask any person who knows anything about Paleontology. The vast majority will tell you that I am right. It demonstrates what is well known from each species.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2020 2:39:34 GMT 5
1: Species to species growth rates do not remain the same. Given what we know on T. rex growth, it is reasonable to suggest a sexually mature specimen is adult even though this may not apply to people. 2: Sue is a very large Tyrannosaurus and one of the largest (possibly largest depending on how big Scotty was but I view them as equals), so it doesn't show the full story. 3: For a comparison it is misleading as well, since it does not show all sides. 1. That does not necessarily mean that Bucky is an adult or at near-full size.
2. It shows the proper story though: the 2 most complete and reasonably well-known specimens of each species. The comparison is fine.
3. The comparison it is perfectly fine. Go ask any person who knows anything about Paleontology. The vast majority will tell you that I am right. It demonstrates what is well known from each species.
1: Some specimens seem to plateau out earlier than others - B-rex for instance. There's also the matter of whether it is really necessary to extrapolate an adult size for these specimens as I went over earlier. 2: It might show THAT, but it doesn't show all sides of the story and that is why I take issue with it being used as the sole representative. 3: Yes, it does. Just that it does not show all sides, and I don't really take an issue with it as long as all sides are shown via other comparisons as well. |
|
