|
Post by theropod on Oct 12, 2015 20:04:49 GMT 5
Grey: I have responded in detail to a very similar post on Deviantart: comments.deviantart.com/1/562409318/3963146177Of course I couldn’t possibly expect you to know about it, since to use your own words: I don't have multiple DA accounts. But: It's true you were rather reasonnable about the alleged plio. Yes that's my comment, what's the problem with it ? Please be sure to read my comment, as it happens to address the points you made here and the point your totally-not-a-sockpuppet lookalike made there, in a rather elaborate fashion. I don’t wanna give the impression that I always have to have the last word by repeating myself here, people could think my ego is too big… So before this gets any more embarrassing than you already made it, let’s stop this now. EDIT: But let’s just say your remarkably pronounced tendency to blatantly lie about and misrepresent yourself and others, here and elsewhere (to the point were you have apparently now stopped being able to count) makes your arrogant tendency to question my honesty all the more funny, though not in a wholly unexpected manner.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 12, 2015 21:16:12 GMT 5
We stop now, I'm done discussing with you. I have enough contacts, both amateur and professionals, to be able to reach a realistic view of these animals, I have no more time to waste. In the meantime you can suggest your new reconstructions of the gracilish Carcharocles and the tank-like Livyatan for publication since you're such an objective genius. EDIT: But let’s just say your remarkably pronounced tendency to blatantly lie about and misrepresent yourself and others, here and elsewhere (to the point were you have apparently now stopped being able to count) makes your arrogant tendency to question my honesty all the more funny, though not in a wholly unexpected manner. When I say you're biased, I'm not lying. You make your own reconstruction of Carcharocles, with features in total contradictions with the main points suggested by Gottfried et al. and B.K.( as the suggestions of the later don't imply updates for the massive jaws/head, the deep body depth or the caudal peduncle suggested by Gottfried et aL) and you clearly don't want to check further the viability of your über- Livyatan model, despite here again the contradiction showed by the skeletal mounts of living related taxa (not even mentioning the assumption "this holotype was an average-sized individual !"). And you insist to present it under a "trustworthy scientific-like style" to your followers as the master of jumping to conclusions you are. So, I'm not lying about you, you're biased with an oversized ego. And for once I'd really, REALLY LOVE to discuss this with other members raher than you, always you, everywhere... Your place is on carnivora IMO, you know the board where you claimed that even 16 m was conservative for Livyatan...
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 13, 2015 0:01:32 GMT 5
You’re the guy who has been calling 18m conservative for Carcharocles, not 2 years ago, but 2 weeks ago, so you had better shut up. You claimed I was using "three regressions" for Carcharocles (and you did that three times today by my count!)…lie! You claimed I was excluding or ignoring Gottfried et al.’s formula in doing so…lie! theworldofanimals.proboards.com/attachment/download/174I count six. It is true that at one point I merely used two–back then I both explained why, and subsequently added more. Also note how those two were precisely the one giving the second-highest and the one giving the second-lowest results. In any case, I have fully accounted for that now, and even back then there was ZERO reason to prefer any single one of those regressions. And yet you repeatedly used this to imply I am biased…another lie! You claimed that I was estimating Livyatan at a larger size than the published estimates…lie! You claimed I was downsizing C. megalodon…lie! You claimed I was claiming to know that the Livyatan holotype is an average-sized individual…lie! You claim I was posing myself as an expert…lie! After you accused me of arrogance due to purportedly "having the last word everywhere", and I pointed out your use of sockpuppets for randomly stating the likes of "megalodon is the biggest predator of all time" in comments, you claimed you didn’t have multiple deviantart accounts and didn’t actually make those statements…lie! Actually funny how one of those accounts is called liej. Some of your lies are so obvious that I can’t even tell what the hell it was you were trying to achieve with them, even though their repetitiveness (e.g. the first and second one in this little compilation) makes it hard to believe them to be simple errors. And yet you of all people are calling me dishonest… If you want to discuss this with other members, not me, stop replying to me, stop annoying me, and stop lying! But no, you yourself can’t even keep yourself from commenting on my work when I haven’t posted it here, yet you expect me to not react to your stupid attacks?
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Oct 13, 2015 0:19:33 GMT 5
Grey/Theropod, I obviously post much less than you guys on here, but I am still considered a moderator. You are both great contributors with a plethora of useful information, posts, and insights to your name. All of which is a credit to WoA. However, the personal animosity going on in the last few weeks is not helpful to useful scientific discussion here. Let's hold ourselves to a higher standard than what you would see from someone like Taipan on carnivora. I know how easy it can be to get into heated debates over strongly held positions; I've done so myself from time to time. But consider this possibility. Neither of you are liars, both of you are respected and longstanding members of this forum. You can disagree on these fascinating questions about Livyatan v Megalodon. I have my own opinions on the matter too, and have learned much from both of you. But why don't you both simply stick to the facts/theories and analyze each others position in a more neutral (but not less strongly held) fashion. Please don't come back and tell me "who started it." It just needs to end. Analyze, critique, debate. Don't attack. Thanks to you both for all your stellar contributions.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 13, 2015 0:20:50 GMT 5
That's not me, that's apparently the data which says this (i.e. the thread about size) and don't imply what I've not said, if this megalodon was 18.5 m rather than 18 m it was still a very large specimen.
Okay let's have some fun despite I told I didn't want to discuss with you anymore...
It's a lie because I've confused three with four ? No, you use mean weight results for megatooth while you use a single volumetric figure from your inflated Livyatan.
No you started to use it after I remarked you prefered to use the other regressions rather this one. This was a long ago but during a long time, you certainly didn't use Gottfried's data.
How convenient is it... The only published weight estimate for Liv is 57 tonnes at 17.5 m, based on Physeter. So yes your 56 tonnes Liv more than two meters shorter is technically larger.
You downsize its body mass by using other regressions. Whatever the results being interesting or not, that's downsizing. On the contrary, Livyatan's weight is upsizing, thanks to your model.
You repeat since years that the holotype has to be considered an average-sized individual.
A number of authors indeed consider C. megalodon as the largest marine macro-hunter known, I don't have a problem with repeating that (even if I keep digging about the odontocete and the big marine reptiles). I have two accounts on deviant but I use mainly one. And I don't see the relevance with the discussion, especially since you know it's me.
But you are !
Yes I won't respond to your biased research comments from now but again since you're everywhere posing as the expert and posting your so trustworthy homework everywhere, it's rather difficult to avoid you.
But you can keep posting you balloon-like Livyatan everywhere, you're so proud of it I'm not gonna interfer.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 13, 2015 0:23:06 GMT 5
elosha11You're probably the most wise of us but I prefer for now to ignore the guy.
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on Oct 13, 2015 0:48:12 GMT 5
I don't mean to butt in, and I am far less invested in this discussion than you two are... but if the only published weight estimate for Livyatan is indeed 57 tonnes then you cannot claim Theropod's estimate is larger, because it isn't. 57 tonnes is greater than 56 tonnes.
The two length estimates provided in Lambert et al. (2010) average out to 15.5 meters, which is also fractionally larger than Theropod's estimate of 15.4 meters.
Interestingly, if you scale Theropod's reconstruction up to 15.5 meters you get an estimated weight of... 57 tonnes.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 13, 2015 0:55:18 GMT 5
I don't mean to butt in, and I am far less invested in this discussion than you two are... but if the only published weight estimate for Livyatan is indeed 57 tonnes then you cannot claim Theropod's estimate is larger, because it isn't. 57 tonnes is greater than 56 tonnes. The two length estimates provided in Lambert et al. (2010) average out to 15.5 meters, which is also fractionally larger than Theropod's estimate of 15.4 meters. Interestingly, if you scale Theropod's reconstruction up to 15.5 meters you get an estimated weight of... 57 tonnes. You've read wrong. The only published source is 57 tonnes at 17.5 m. Theropod suggests 56 tonnes at 15.4 m, so that's upsizing. His Livyatan would weigh 82 tonnes at 17.5 m... While based on the published figure, the 15.4 m Liv would weigh 31 tonnes. I've not complained about the body length estimate but the mass. But it seems like 17.5 m is unlikely for this specimen...
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 13, 2015 0:58:30 GMT 5
Well, that would still make theropod's Livytan quite a bit bulkier than the one based upon published weights which was probably Grey's main point. That being said, I don't know more than you concerning these matters, so I could be very well wrong.
P.S. I really hope this does not heat up the debate again somehow.
EDIT: Forget me, Grey already replied.
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on Oct 13, 2015 1:10:30 GMT 5
But 56 tonnes is less than 57 tonnes. It is not up-sizing if the given estimate is lower than the original one. What you are comparing is not mass, but mass relative to length. Those are not the same thing.
Lambert et al. gave two length estimates, 13.5 meters and 17.5 meters, that's why I averaged it out to 15.5 meters. If the 57 tonne estimate is only for the upper length estimate, then your point stands about Theropod's reconstruction being proportionally bulkier, although that doesn't make it larger.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Oct 13, 2015 1:22:43 GMT 5
I don't mean to butt in, and I am far less invested in this discussion than you two are... but if the only published weight estimate for Livyatan is indeed 57 tonnes then you cannot claim Theropod's estimate is larger, because it isn't. 57 tonnes is greater than 56 tonnes. The two length estimates provided in Lambert et al. (2010) average out to 15.5 meters, which is also fractionally larger than Theropod's estimate of 15.4 meters. Interestingly, if you scale Theropod's reconstruction up to 15.5 meters you get an estimated weight of... 57 tonnes. I think Grey stated that the 57 ton figure was for the upper end at 17.5 meter, but he would need to verify his source for that.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 13, 2015 1:31:31 GMT 5
But 56 tonnes is less than 57 tonnes. It is not up-sizing if the given estimate is lower than the original one. What you are comparing is not mass, but mass relative to length. Those are not the same thing. Lambert et al. gave two length estimates, 13.5 meters and 17.5 meters, that's why I averaged it out to 15.5 meters. If the 57 tonne estimate is only for the upper length estimate, then your point stands about Theropod's reconstruction being proportionally bulkier, although that doesn't make it larger. Of course I meant relative to length. Bulkier means larger to me since the holotype would be 15.4 m, an hypothetical individual measuring truly 17.5 m would be much heavier than 57 tonnes. If theropod accepts that some individuals teally reached 17.5 m at some points, then that means a 17.5 m Livyatan would weigh more than 82 tonnes. He bases this on a volumetric estimate of the (suspiciously) mounted Brygmophyseter skeleton.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Oct 13, 2015 1:35:04 GMT 5
But 56 tonnes is less than 57 tonnes. It is not up-sizing if the given estimate is lower than the original one. What you are comparing is not mass, but mass relative to length. Those are not the same thing. Lambert et al. gave two length estimates, 13.5 meters and 17.5 meters, that's why I averaged it out to 15.5 meters. If the 57 tonne estimate is only for the upper length estimate, then your point stands about Theropod's reconstruction being proportionally bulkier, although that doesn't make it larger. But if Grey is correct that the "official" estimate would only be approximately 31 tons for 15.4 meter holotype, then Theropod's increase to 57 tons at the same length would be a very substantial increase. Not taking sides here, per se, and not exactly sure where the 57 tons and 31 tons comes from, but if those are estimates from the official reported estimate, then Theropod's estimate would be a significant deviation.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 13, 2015 1:48:31 GMT 5
But 56 tonnes is less than 57 tonnes. It is not up-sizing if the given estimate is lower than the original one. What you are comparing is not mass, but mass relative to length. Those are not the same thing. Lambert et al. gave two length estimates, 13.5 meters and 17.5 meters, that's why I averaged it out to 15.5 meters. If the 57 tonne estimate is only for the upper length estimate, then your point stands about Theropod's reconstruction being proportionally bulkier, although that doesn't make it larger. But if Grey is correct that the "official" estimate would only be approximately 31 tons for 15.4 meter holotype, then Theropod's increase to 57 tons at the same length would be a very substantial increase. Not taking sides here, per se, and not exactly sure where the 57 tons and 31 tons comes from, but if those are estimates from the official reported estimate, then Theropod's estimate would be a significant deviation. This figure comes from the appendix here : paleolab.cl/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Villafa%C3%B1a-Rivadeneira-2014.pdfThat's simply based on Physeter since 57 tonnes is the usual large weight for it in the literature but that's certainly the most reasonnable. And it is published.
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on Oct 13, 2015 2:30:06 GMT 5
Of course I meant relative to length. Bulkier means larger to me since the holotype would be 15.4 m, an hypothetical individual measuring truly 17.5 m would be much heavier than 57 tonnes. But Theropod's reconstruction of the type specimen is not 17.5 meters long, so it doesn't really matter. What matters is how large it actually is, not how large it would be when scaled up to match a completely different total length estimate. Otherwise I'm sure we could find dozens of animals 'larger' than Livyatan by virtue of weighing more relative to their total lengths, like a Polar Bear for instance. Or a European Rabbit. Also I'm not sure what your source bases it's weight estimate on, as it doesn't appear to be explained anywhere.
|
|