|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 12, 2020 2:56:10 GMT 5
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. 1. Precisely-but that does not mean Bucky was. 2. We don't NEED to see all sides of the story. That's the point. Sue vs CH1 is perfectly fine and works as a comparison between T.rex and Giganotosaurus. We don't need to appease your every need to make it "more accurate" because of sample size.
3. All sides don't need to be shown. We don't need to see an inaccurate 13.2 meter Giganotosaurus compared to a young Tyrannosaurus. We need a good comparison that shows 2 well known specimens of each species. Sue vs. Ch1 works as the comparison to use.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2020 3:26:25 GMT 5
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. 1. Precisely-but that does not mean Bucky was. 2. We don't NEED to see all sides of the story. That's the point. Sue vs CH1 is perfectly fine and works as a comparison between T.rex and Giganotosaurus. We don't need to appease your every need to make it "more accurate" because of sample size.
3. All sides don't need to be shown. We don't need to see an inaccurate 13.2 meter Giganotosaurus compared to a young Tyrannosaurus. We need a good comparison that shows 2 well known specimens of each species. Sue vs. Ch1 works as the comparison to use.
1: Doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't. This is a similar principle to the maturity of the 2 Giganotosaurus specimens. 2: By that same logic, should I start using B-rex with the holotype as the whole thing? Again, while comparing different specimens will show a lot of perspectives it can be very misleading to think any 1 comparison fits all. 3: It's not necessarily inaccurate to put 95 at that size, and the Tyrannosaurus specimens in comparison. AMNH 5027 is also well known, as is B-rex for having medullary bone, so I could use either of them for the comp instead of just Sue. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 12, 2020 3:37:18 GMT 5
1. Precisely-but that does not mean Bucky was. 2. We don't NEED to see all sides of the story. That's the point. Sue vs CH1 is perfectly fine and works as a comparison between T.rex and Giganotosaurus. We don't need to appease your every need to make it "more accurate" because of sample size.
3. All sides don't need to be shown. We don't need to see an inaccurate 13.2 meter Giganotosaurus compared to a young Tyrannosaurus. We need a good comparison that shows 2 well known specimens of each species. Sue vs. Ch1 works as the comparison to use.
1: Doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't. This is a similar principle to the maturity of the 2 Giganotosaurus specimens. 2: By that same logic, should I start using B-rex with the holotype as the whole thing? Again, while comparing different specimens will show a lot of perspectives it can be very misleading to think any 1 comparison fits all. 3: It's not necessarily inaccurate to put 95 at that size, and the Tyrannosaurus specimens in comparison. AMNH 5027 is also well known, as is B-rex for having medullary bone, so I could use either of them for the comp instead of just Sue. 1. We can safely assume the 2 specimens of Giganotosaurus we have are adult. 2.No, because as I have stated before we have numerous better and more mature specimens of T.rex that are more suitable for comparisons between adult animals. 3. A size relating to 8.8% is not generally accepted, thus it should not be used in the stead of 2.2% or 6.5%. Sue is the best known T.rex. CH1 is the same for Giganotosaurus. A comparison between the 2 works best.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2020 4:05:07 GMT 5
1: Doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't. This is a similar principle to the maturity of the 2 Giganotosaurus specimens. 2: By that same logic, should I start using B-rex with the holotype as the whole thing? Again, while comparing different specimens will show a lot of perspectives it can be very misleading to think any 1 comparison fits all. 3: It's not necessarily inaccurate to put 95 at that size, and the Tyrannosaurus specimens in comparison. AMNH 5027 is also well known, as is B-rex for having medullary bone, so I could use either of them for the comp instead of just Sue. 1. We can safely assume the 2 specimens of Giganotosaurus we have are adult. 2.No, because as I have stated before we have numerous better and more mature specimens of T.rex that are more suitable for comparisons between adult animals. 3. A size relating to 8.8% is not generally accepted, thus it should not be used in the stead of 2.2% or 6.5%. Sue is the best known T.rex. CH1 is the same for Giganotosaurus. A comparison between the 2 works best.
1: Again, not necessarily as there is zilch data on the maturity. I'm not saying they weren't maximum size, but the 2 situations do mirror each other. 2: But Sue is much larger than many other Tyrannosaurus. Using only it would be very misleading. 3: For most complete specimens, sure. But that's pretty much all it shows. And I wouldn't dismiss the 8% MUCPv-95, but would use something like 6.5 as there is no way to tell if MUCPv-95 was 9+. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 12, 2020 4:12:05 GMT 5
1. We can safely assume the 2 specimens of Giganotosaurus we have are adult. 2.No, because as I have stated before we have numerous better and more mature specimens of T.rex that are more suitable for comparisons between adult animals. 3. A size relating to 8.8% is not generally accepted, thus it should not be used in the stead of 2.2% or 6.5%. Sue is the best known T.rex. CH1 is the same for Giganotosaurus. A comparison between the 2 works best.
1: Again, not necessarily as there is zilch data on the maturity. I'm not saying they weren't maximum size, but the 2 situations do mirror each other. 2: But Sue is much larger than many other Tyrannosaurus. Using only it would be very misleading. 3: For most complete specimens, sure. But that's pretty much all it shows. And I wouldn't dismiss the 8% MUCPv-95, but would use something like 6.5 as there is no way to tell if MUCPv-95 was 9+. 1.No, it's not. We are assuming aged adult sizes.
2. Sue is also the most complete and well known specimen. Using her is perfectly fine. 3. It shows the most complete specimens of comparable size.
I would dismiss it. I use 6.5 and 2.2 as 8.8% has no actual basis apart from specimen length (which is caused by being more complete).
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2020 4:44:16 GMT 5
1: By that logic, we can also assume Bucky's growth plateaued the same way B-rexes' did.
2: Using only her, you would not know the Giganotosaurus holotype is larger than many adult Tyrannosaurus and similar size to some of them.
3: It does show the most complete specimens, but again, the size issue. You would not know the holotype was bigger than many.
And 8 plus percent MUCPv-95 assumes an animal with a proportionately smaller head and jaw, which is deffo not impossible.
As with reddit, this is my last post. I'm tired of this topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 12, 2020 6:46:01 GMT 5
1: By that logic, we can also assume Bucky's growth plateaued the same way B-rexes' did. 2: Using only her, you would not know the Giganotosaurus holotype is larger than many adult Tyrannosaurus and similar size to some of them. 3: It does show the most complete specimens, but again, the size issue. You would not know the holotype was bigger than many. And 8 plus percent MUCPv-95 assumes an animal with a proportionately smaller head and jaw, which is deffo not impossible. As with reddit, this is my last post. I'm tired of this topic. 1. For Giganotosaurus, that is. ANd besides, another poster who linked the Woodward study stated why this may not be the case. 2. because it isn't really necessary. They're both comparable in size and completion. 3. The Holotype is also smaller than many. AN 8 percent -95 is not impossible but is also not supported by the current science. Not my problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 14, 2020 20:26:46 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. Sorry, I might have missed something here. But what suggests that any Giganotosaurus individual was "fully grown"? Has its histology been studied without me noticing? Otherwise, this is an exceedingly improbable claim. And yes, what we mean by "adult" in paleontology is typically "sexually mature", I can vouch for that. And I don’t think any studies done on T. rex are "ontological", only PalaeONTOLOGICAL, but of course there have been more recent ontogenetic studies done on it. Actually 14 year old females may well already be close to fully grown. I take it you guys are not discussing whether those T. rex or Giganotosaurus specimens had the intellectual maturity to be allowed to vote, but rather whether they are adult in a physical or an ecological sense. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 14, 2020 21:02:52 GMT 5
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. Occam's razor. Yeh, that But that still does not make them adults. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 14, 2020 21:19:52 GMT 5
Occams razor would suggest that these specimens are not "fully grown", because the majority of all dinosaur specimens are not either.
Yes it does. At least in any sense that word is used in in palaeontology.
14 year olds would have been considered "adult" in many human societies throughout history too, btw. That our current perception differs, because we apply different criteria, doesn’t mean it is necessarily correct. In fact even currently people cannot agree on when a human qualifies as adult. That is because it is not based on any clear-cut biological features (such as sexual maturity, or cessation of skeletal growth). The US for example cannot even decide for itself whether someone is an adult at 16 or at 21.
Biology is, luckily, informed by objective criteria, and not by whether some politician feels morally offended by the thought of a dinosaur below a certain age drinking alcohol.
I think you are also confusing adulthood with senescence. Sue is senescent, not just adult. Not only had it effectively stopped growing, it had done so for several years. B-rex is an adult. Stan is an adult. CM 9380 is an adult. Adult in Palaeontology means "sexually mature". Period.
If you dislike this definition of the term, then don’t use it, and instead rely on actual descriptive terms (sexual/somatic maturity etc.). Saying something "is not adult" is irrelevant if you lack a proper definition of the term "adult".
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 15, 2020 0:30:03 GMT 5
Occams razor would suggest that these specimens are not "fully grown", because the majority of all dinosaur specimens are not either. I think you are also confusing adulthood with senescence. Sue is senescent, not just adult. Not only had it effectively stopped growing, it had done so for several years. B-rex is an adult. Stan is an adult. CM 9380 is an adult. Good to know. And how do we know Bucky was sexually mature aside from age? If you di I've told dinosauria before that Bucky is not mature and therefore not a good representative of "adult". Sue is a mature adult-there is a difference between "adult" and "fully grown". |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 15, 2020 2:31:33 GMT 5
Sue is fully grown and had been for several years, it has an EFS, read Erickson et al. 2006.
Who says Bucky is not mature? I haven’t talked about Bucky at all. I think Bucky is borderline (based on its age), it could be mature or not. Age at sexual maturity for T. rex should be around 16-18 years, but it is hard to be certain without a detailed histological description (or the presence of medullary bone). What I do know is that B-rex is definitely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, mature, because she does have medullary bone, and her femur length is only 115 cm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Feb 15, 2020 6:30:28 GMT 5
I was only gone like 4 days but i see much of the same is still going on. sick
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 15, 2020 9:11:13 GMT 5
Sue is fully grown and had been for several years, it has an EFS, read Erickson et al. 2006. Who says Bucky is not mature? I haven’t talked about Bucky at all. I think Bucky is borderline (based on its age), it could be mature or not. Age at sexual maturity for T. rex should be around 16-18 years, but it is hard to be certain without a detailed histological description (or the presence of medullary bone). What I do know is that B-rex is definitely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, mature, because she does have medullary bone, and her femur length is only 115 cm. Im not...talking...about B.rex? |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 15, 2020 15:41:29 GMT 5
But I am. The question is, why aren't you, if you don't think Bucky is mature enough to be fit for comparison?
|
|
