|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 17, 2016 14:39:53 GMT 5
The human would need to be a subadult as well, as the hadrosaur seems to be around 10 times longer than the human's height.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 17, 2016 17:52:07 GMT 5
Unless the T. rex is just not a fully grown individual. Then wouldn't the comparison be kind of misleading? |
|
|
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Jun 18, 2016 1:36:30 GMT 5
its the saurian model, which is based on stan. not sue.
|
|
|
|
Post by spartan on Jun 18, 2016 17:10:09 GMT 5
That would still make it over 18m long.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Jun 18, 2016 19:22:41 GMT 5
no it doesn't. stan ws only roughly 10.9 meters in length. it wasn't a very large adult tyrannosaur at all.i'm not sure how much merit this will hold, but i have made my own 1:35 scale plans of both stan and a 15 meter anatosaurus due to the fact that i was going to make sculptures of them. anatosaurus absolutely dwarfed a tyrannosaurus specimen like stan the similar way the comparison here shows. its nearly the exact way actually. stan is literally only a head past anatosaurus thigh. the anatosaurus here looks to be 15 meters in length.
until someone could actually go in and measure that comparison and use stan as the reference, i would hold off from saying that the anatosaurus is oversized. to me, the comparison is accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by spartan on Jun 18, 2016 21:15:41 GMT 5
You can easily measure it yourself. The Anatosaurus is about 1.7 times the length of the T. rex. For it to be 15m long the T. rex would need to be barely under 9m long and the human around 1.5m tall.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Jun 18, 2016 21:42:35 GMT 5
didn't feel like measuring it myself  barely have the time or the means to do so.though, i did make a mistake in my observation. the tyrannosaurus doesn't extend to the back of anatosaurus tail like my comparison. strange that i just notice that. but yes, that anatosaurus does seem a bit too big. |
|
Cross
Junior Member
The biggest geek this side of the galaxy. Avatar is Dakotaraptor steini from Saurian.
Posts: 266 
|
Post by Cross on Jun 20, 2016 11:18:34 GMT 5
It appears you guys were right. The _Edmontosaurus_ in the comparison was scaled far too large by whoever made it. A friend of mine measured it an it measured nearly 19 meters long in the comparison. He made a more accurate one :  The T. rex used is Hartman's silhouette of Sue. His username is Apollo 28. That's still a pretty damn big saurolophine either way. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 20, 2016 19:06:47 GMT 5
Why is everybody talking about Anatosaurus? There is no such thing…
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 20, 2016 20:38:27 GMT 5
The link to the size comp. Cross posted (to Saurian) argued that the Hell Creek hadrosaurid and Edmontosaurus regalis are separate enough to be different genera.
Though, perhaps I simply cannot provide a legitimate counterargument to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 21, 2016 1:13:03 GMT 5
He doesn’t actually provide much of an argument for it, does he? The difference in cranial morphometrics between the different Edmontosaurus species certainly seems no larger than it is, to name a few examples, between species of Parasaurolophus or Allosaurus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 21, 2016 1:37:30 GMT 5
Hmm, looking at the differences between (as an example) different Parasaurolophus species (especially between P. cyrtocristatus and the two other species) and the differences between the two species of Edmontosaurus, it seems you're right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 1:53:33 GMT 5
He doesn’t actually provide much of an argument for it, does he? The difference in cranial morphometrics between the different Edmontosaurus species certainly seems no larger than it is, to name a few examples, between species of Parasaurolophus or Allosaurus. The Saurian team splits them based on temporal separation alone. Not anatomical characters. This is very problematic, as they'd lump Torosaurus with Triceratops, but split E. annectens from Edmontosaurus... saurian.maxmediacorp.com/?p=549No. Just no. Torosaurus is not controversial, and it is definitely not Triceratops. That idea has been debunked already.Should we start lumping Supersaurus with Diplodocus now? And split Coelophysis rhodesiensis from Coelophysis while we're at it? Even the most scientifically-accurate media have goof-ups from time to time, and this one is just as big of a mess-up as WWD putting Utahraptor in Europe... The game still takes the throne for scientific accuracy in spite of this though. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 21, 2016 2:21:36 GMT 5
He doesn’t actually provide much of an argument for it, does he? The difference in cranial morphometrics between the different Edmontosaurus species certainly seems no larger than it is, to name a few examples, between species of Parasaurolophus or Allosaurus. The Saurian team splits them based on temporal separation alone. Not anatomical characters. This is very problematic, as they'd lump Torosaurus with Triceratops, but split E. annectens from Edmontosaurus... saurian.maxmediacorp.com/?p=549Well that’s just plain ridiculous. Torosaurus and Triceratops are two entirely different animals, very different despite similar sizes one should add. Regarding them as congeneric species is one thing–I’d call it lumping, but that’s subjective. But there’s just no way you can lump Torosaurus latus into Triceratops despite their major anatomical differences but at the same time split Edmontosaurus into a couple of long-abadoned genera because some have a more elongated head than others. |
|
Cross
Junior Member
The biggest geek this side of the galaxy. Avatar is Dakotaraptor steini from Saurian.
Posts: 266
|
Post by Cross on Jun 21, 2016 7:33:49 GMT 5
The Saurian team splits them based on temporal separation alone. Not anatomical characters. This is very problematic, as they'd lump Torosaurus with Triceratops, but split E. annectens from Edmontosaurus... saurian.maxmediacorp.com/?p=549Well that’s just plain ridiculous. Torosaurus and Triceratops are two entirely different animals, very different despite similar sizes one should add. Regarding them as congeneric species is one thing–I’d call it lumping, but that’s subjective. But there’s just no way you can lump Torosaurus latus into Triceratops despite their major anatomical differences but at the same time split Edmontosaurus into a couple of long-abadoned genera because some have a more elongated head than others. That, and we have Triceratops skulls with highly ossified craniofacial sutures that indicate really old individuals and they are clearly not Torosaurus.  svpow.com/2016/05/06/sv-pow-endorses-triceratops/ |
|
