|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 16, 2020 12:37:47 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? ...Because the specimen at hand is not B.rex? B.rex's larger size can simply be explained as having entered her growth spurt earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 16, 2020 18:01:49 GMT 5
I don’t know what you are getting at here. I’m not talking about "explaining" B-rex’ larger size.
You are arguing it is appropriate to compare Sue to specimens like the holotype of Giganotosaurus, correct?
While ignoring smaller T. rex specimens, on the ground that you claim the latter are not mature, correct?
However this seems to be entirely based on Bucky (that we don’t know the status of maturity of, hence why I am wondering why you two are so focused on that specimen) and is ignoring that B-rex, while being way smaller and younger than sue, is demonstrably mature (that is actually more than can be said for the Giganotosaurus holotype, although as I’ve said before, I am not getting into speculations as to it being immature without histological evidence, but neither am I getting into speculations as to it being a very rare skeletally mature or even senescent individual).
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 20, 2020 1:38:59 GMT 5
I don’t know what you are getting at here. I’m not talking about "explaining" B-rex’ larger size. No, because MUCPV-CH1 and SUe are the most complete large specimens of their kind. Because Dinosauria posted Bucky vs MUCPV-95 using the 8.8% larger estimate (because it is "possible", not because the actual fossil supports it) and said it was fair because "hurr durr MUCPV-CH1 is noticeable smaller than -95 and comparing it to the largest T.rex is unfair". Nevermind the reason they are compared is because both are the most complete and well known specimens of each species and both are of similar size. He did this to combat "overzealous T.rex fanboys" while spamming the dinosaur reddit with comparisons of T.rex to giant sauropods (sometimes with obnoxious captions). That is why we are discussing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Feb 20, 2020 4:09:04 GMT 5
He reminds me of a very young broly, and it gets kind of gross tbh
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 20, 2020 5:03:08 GMT 5
Nonexistent T.rex fanboys, might I add.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Feb 20, 2020 5:37:36 GMT 5
Well, i think he takes youtube comments and some of reddit comments more seriously than he's really supposed to; where he faults is where he takes it to the polar extreme of what he's vocally disproving of, which isn't any better at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 20, 2020 20:45:34 GMT 5
He reminds me of a very young broly, and it gets kind of gross tbh Well he uses broly's size charts because they're "possible" (Read: Give the highest possible weight for giant carnosaurs) and insists that they're just as accurate as anyone else's are. |
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193 
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Apr 26, 2020 18:06:40 GMT 5
Sure MUCPv-Ch1 is likely smaller in mass than FMNH PR 2081, RSM P2523.8, but roughly similar sized to some Tyrannosaurus specimens like CM 9380, AMNH 5027 and larger than others including MOR 1125, Wyrex and RTMP 81.6.1. Secondly while Giganotosaurus holotype was likely mature, however there are still no estimates how old it could. On the other hand i don't support Giganotosaurus was larger or smaller than Tyrannosaurus, we need at least several adult specimens to compare, yet we have only holotype (MUCPv-Ch1), part of dentary (MUCPv-95) and some tooths. I am not type of dreamer thinking there must be 14 m and over 10 tonnes equivalent of FMNH PR 2081 or something like that.
Young Broly was biased without doubt, but to be honest i have found much worse fanboys/dino-nazists than him, even on CF *cough* raptor *cough*. Too bad old CF was removed again, i still remember his (s**t)posts about Tyrannosaurus being pure scavenger with very bad arguments and calling people an motherf******, just because they disagree with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Apr 26, 2020 19:13:58 GMT 5
I don't remember this raptor-guy. Are you talking about the really old Carnivora or the one we had from 2012 onwards?
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Apr 26, 2020 19:48:26 GMT 5
I remember "Raptor". I never actually met him (as in, talked with him) but I've seen his past posts on the really old Carnivora from like, 2012 (or 2011). I do remember his posts about T. rex being a scavenger, but I don't remember him actually insulting people.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jul 9, 2020 12:36:38 GMT 5
The giant squid is a more powerful animal than Megalodon and would kill it. Yes, the 150-250KG, 30-45 foot long boneless, inactive drifter that cannot fight off a sperm whale is more powerful than the 33-60 foot, 30-55 ton whale eating shark. Specifically because Megalodon's teeth were designed for killing whales, therefore they would not be effective on the squid.
Oh, and Megalodon would lose to leedsichthys because it hunted whales whose tails moved up and down not side to side, therefore confusing the Megalodon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jul 9, 2020 21:36:51 GMT 5
But...but...Megalodon's teeth were designed to bite into whales and not squid! Because squid are a lot tougher than whales, apparently.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jul 10, 2020 2:41:14 GMT 5
But...but...Megalodon's teeth were designed to bite into whales and not squid! Because squid are a lot tougher than whales, apparently. Evidently. As evidenced by that immaculate list, Megalodon was truly the weakest of sea creatures. Because sharks don't go after big prey or fight. |
|
|
|
Post by sharkboy101 on Jul 15, 2020 22:36:23 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jul 16, 2020 1:20:40 GMT 5
My god. That answer got a few more upvotes than I've ever received on all of my answers combined (as of today).
|
|
