| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Giganotosaurus carolinii v Tyrannosaurus rex | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 31 2012, 05:48 PM (110,334 Views) | |
| Taipan | Jan 31 2012, 05:48 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Giganotosaurus carolinii Giganotosaurus ("giant southern lizard"), was a carcharodontosaurid dinosaur that lived 93 to 89 million years ago during the Turonian stage of the Late Cretaceous period. It is one of the longest known terrestrial carnivores, bigger than Tyrannosaurus, but in length and weight, smaller than Spinosaurus. Although longer than T. rex, G. carolinii was lighter and had a much smaller braincase that was the size and shape of a banana. A well-developed olfactory region means it probably had a good sense of smell. Titanosaur fossils have been recovered near the remains of Giganotosaurus, leading to speculation that these carnivores may have preyed on the giant herbivores. Fossils of related carcharodontosaurid fossils grouped closely together may indicate pack hunting, a behavior that could possibly extend to Giganotosaurus itself. he holotype specimen's (MUCPv-Ch1) skeleton was about 70% complete and included parts of the skull, a lower jaw, pelvis, hindlimbs and most of the backbone. The premaxillae, jugals, quadratojugals, the back of the lower jaws and the forelimbs are missing. Various estimates find that it measured somewhere between 12.2 and 13 m (40 and 43 ft) in length, and between 6.5 and 13.3 tons in weight. A second, more fragmentary, specimen (MUCPv-95) has also been identified, found in 1987 by Jorge Calvo. It is only known from the front part of the left dentary which is 8% larger than the equivalent bone from the holotype. This largest Giganotosaurus specimen is estimated to represent an individual with a skull length of 195 cm (6.40 ft), compared to the holotype's estimated at 1.80 m (5.9 ft) skull, making it likely that Giganotosaurus had the largest skull of any known theropod. Giganotosaurus surpassed Tyrannosaurus in mass by at least half a ton (the upper size estimate for T. rex is 9.1 t). Additionally several single teeth, discovered from 1987 onwards, have been referred to the species. ![]() Tyrannosaurus rex Tyrannosaurus is a genus of coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur. The species Tyrannosaurus rex (rex meaning "king" in Latin), commonly abbreviated to T. rex, is a fixture in popular culture. It lived throughout what is now western North America, with a much wider range than other tyrannosaurids. Fossils are found in a variety of rock formations dating to the Maastrichtian age of the upper Cretaceous Period, 67 to 65.5 million years ago. It was among the last non-avian dinosaurs to exist before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Like other tyrannosaurids, Tyrannosaurus was a bipedal carnivore with a massive skull balanced by a long, heavy tail. Relative to the large and powerful hindlimbs, Tyrannosaurus forelimbs were small, though unusually powerful for their size, and bore two clawed digits. Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it was the largest known tyrannosaurid and one of the largest known land predators. By far the largest carnivore in its environment, Tyrannosaurus rex may have been an apex predator, preying upon hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, although some experts have suggested it was primarily a scavenger. The debate over Tyrannosaurus as apex predator or scavenger is among the longest running in paleontology. Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time; the largest complete specimen, FMNH PR2081 ("Sue"), measured 12.8 metres (42 ft) long, and was 4.0 metres (13.1 ft) tall at the hips. Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7.2 metric tons (7.9 short tons), to less than 4.5 metric tons (5.0 short tons), with most modern estimates ranging between 5.4 and 6.8 metric tons (6.0 and 7.5 short tons). Packard et al. (2009) tested dinosaur mass estimation procedures on elephants and concluded that dinosaur estimations are flawed and produce over-estimations; thus, the weight of Tyrannosaurus could be much less than usually estimated. Other estimations have concluded that the largest known Tyrannosaurus specimens had a weight exceeding 9 tonnes. ![]() ______________________________________________________________________________
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| bone crusher | Jun 10 2015, 04:16 PM Post #316 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So theropod, since you can't provide the average weight of Giga through two specimens, maybe it's time we compare them case by case. In order to have both consistency and accuracy, we should use Hartman's figure yes? Now I don't think he's done weight estimate for T Rexes other than Sue so far, so it's hard to determine how would the other Rexes fair against the type Giga. But looking at the difference of length to weight ratio from comparing Sue to Giga, one can safely say at least the CM 9380 type specimen and Mor 008 should be heavier than Giga type. Regardless, it's definitely a T rex or three that wins this fight so far. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 10 2015, 05:16 PM Post #317 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
MOR would actually be about 11.4m when scaled from sue based on skull length, that's clearly smaller than mucpv-ch1. Based on small-skulled specimens it coulld be longer, but also more slender. Peck's rex is presumed to be large, although there are few concrete data that support this, and the holotype is too, so are Samson and the large AMNH specimen (albeit the last is rather gracile and more likely to be just similar to mucpv-ch1 than larger, the same applies to MOR 555). But for every specimen that is likely to be larger than Mucpv-ch1 I can give you one that's smaller (MOR 1125, MOR 009, BHI 3033, Black Beauty, Wyrex...). Edited by theropod, Jun 10 2015, 05:23 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Jun 10 2015, 06:37 PM Post #318 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sure, I'm not disputing there are smaller T rexes than Giga TYPE specimen, btw do we know how old Mucpv-ch1 was when it died? Would be more interesting if we compare them at similar ages. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 10 2015, 07:08 PM Post #319 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nope, unfortunately. It is likely an adult tough, the taxon would be humungous beyond parsimony if that wasn't the case, also I think it would have been noted if it was aa subadult, as is usually done in theropods. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Jun 11 2015, 03:24 AM Post #320 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The two statements above conflict heavily with each other; why take UCMP13758 as evidence of 14 meter tyrannosaurus(much more hypothetical then the Guganotosaurus paratype), but call MUCPv-95 just "hypothetical"? this makes little sense really. If you wanna take one, you've really gotta take the other.
Why must you use Sue as a representative of the 30+ tyrannosaurus individuals we have? the holotype probably represents a far more typical specimen in regards to mass, and at which is nearly parity no? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 11 2015, 05:01 AM Post #321 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^Actually the holotype is still among the larger specimens that I can think of. Also, MUCPv-95 isn’t a paratype (initially got that wrong myself), paratypes are described alongside the holotype (as e.g. in Tyrannotitan). And I don’t really find it comparable to an isolated pedal phalanx in terms of diagnostics or link to body size, but that’s just me. If I were to take that phalanx seriously, I’d point out that it’s not 20% but "only" 17% bigger than sue’s IV-2, of course making the assumption that it actually IS an IV-2 (dentaries are not only much more diagnostic taxonomically, there’s also no danger of it actually corresponding to one in a a dozen other, differently-sized dentaries of the same animal). But if that makes some people more comfortable, I have no problem with not taking it into account either for now. The holotype is still bigger than the average size of T. rex by at least ~400kg, so the point still stands. Edited by theropod, Jun 12 2015, 05:13 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Jun 12 2015, 12:08 AM Post #322 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Keep saying the average size of T.rex 100 times maybe you can actually make it official, but really, it's just the average size of what we've found in a small quantity of 15 with most well under full size potential due to younger age. |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Jun 12 2015, 01:00 AM Post #323 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^Likewise the two specimens of Giganotosaurus we currently have probably didn't have the chance to reach full size either. Sue is one of very few theropod specimens that is fully grown and Tyrannosaurus is, from what I can tell, essentially the only large-bodied theropod known from fully grown adults. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the very large Allosaurus specimens out there also turn out to be fully grown, but the point stands. And yes, the type specimen of Tyrannosaurus is indeed still a large specimen, would be even more so if it didn't have such an abnormally small head, and probably weighed more than the Giganotosaurus type specimen. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 12 2015, 01:54 AM Post #324 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, I will keep repeating it. Simply because it is the most objective comparison that can be made. Your points of criticism are valid, they just aren't relevant. Yes, most of them could indeed have grown larger. That is precisely wha I also assume that by default, for any theropod specimen, unless there is evidence for it to have been particularly old. As spinodontosaurus and myself pointed out several times, it is very unlikely for any given theropod fossil to be from a fully grown individual, and you don't need to be an expert in statistics to realize that. The small chance that it could be is accounted for–by including a very old T.rex in the data. If I wasn't already accounting for that, I'd have excluded sue to begin with. So that these aren't fully grown for the most part is actually preficisely why I took this sample instead of doing what you do, picking the biggest T.rex you can find. I am open to suggestions as to how to improve the sample and reliability of the data within it. But until someone shows me concrete evidence for an external fundamental system in Mucpv-ch1, I'm not going to only compare it to sue. And yes, these are 15 specimens. That's a 7.5 times better chance (15 times if we exclude MUCPv-95) to have found a specimen that is old and fullly grown than in Giganotosaurus. And as we happen to know, sue is actually the biggest and oldest in a much bigger sample of T. rexes than that. The sample size means there is some room for errror, but what gives you your inssight whether this is an over- or an underestimate? And if you don't know, why aren't you content to go with the middle ground? So if you absolutely have to make your comparisons of specimens, don't use Sue, because that would give a very biased comparison. Or best don't do them at all, they have no real relevance to the topic. If you think we have too few data to decide this, then don't decide it, but don't decide it the opposite way that is indicated by the data you criticise. Btw spinodontosaurus, in case I gave that impression, I don't think there aren't any fully grown Allosaurus specimens somewhere. Many individuals have probably never been studied. I just took the fact that studies on its growth explicitely stated that they found no unambiguous evidence for such specimens as a nice example of their rarity. I think since other giant theropods and relatives both show a clear pattern, there's no reason to assume Giganotosaurus would be any different. Edited by theropod, Jun 12 2015, 02:03 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Jun 12 2015, 03:23 AM Post #325 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, you're quite right -- i can never seem to get the terminology down
|
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Jun 12 2015, 11:49 PM Post #326 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Despite how old Sue was, it could also just be a normal sized or even a lower than average sized T rex among its species at that age, whereas Giga type specimen could be even older than Sue was while at the upper bound of the size range. See there's just too much variables and we simply can't tell without sufficient samples. I think everyone's on equal ground here, that's why I'm somewhat against species vs species in a dinosaur fight, just the individuals VS. In fact individual VS is more relevant here since we can narrow down the specifics without taking too much guesses. It's as simple as saying some t rex specimens could win against Giga TYPE specimen while some might lose, but unless you find a larger Giga with enough bones, the result would remain the same. |
![]() |
|
| DarkGricer | Jun 13 2015, 12:20 PM Post #327 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Bone crusher, you don't get the point, do you? The smaller-then-Sue rexes ARE STILL adults. From the sample size, we can make a vague estimate of the average size for an adult T.rex. And it just happens that Sue is far above that average size. Even if it's a normal size for her age (Which we don't know if it is or not), that doesn't mean that it's an average sized adult. And what is the probability of the Giganotosaurus holotype being a max sized individual? Even if we ignore the fact that the remains of MUCPv-95 indicate it was probably a larger specimen, the chances are very low. The fact remains, the Giganotosaurus holotype seems to be slightly larger then the average T.rex at the very least. |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Jun 13 2015, 02:08 PM Post #328 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Like I said Dark, you don't know for sure and neither do I. Therefore labeling an average figure is as un-scientifc as it gets and not helpful to this debate at all. We must go into specifics, you can pit a smaller "not average sized" T Rex specimen like Stan for all I care but as long as you refer as such. One can simply say Sue>MUCPv CH1>Stan but not Sue>MUCPv CH1>average T Rex. If you're so hell bent on insisting giving a false impression of the average T Rex size then just say the average of what we've found or the average of 20 yr old T Rex, most definitely not the average of fully grown full weight potential T rex. |
![]() |
|
| Grimace | Jun 13 2015, 02:35 PM Post #329 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You could make pretty much the exact same argument for gigantosaurus, so I'm not really sure how saying that is helpful. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 13 2015, 04:22 PM Post #330 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
On an individuaal basis, tha majority of adult T. rex speximens would lose, because the majority were smaller. Content now? And nobody is givibg a "false impression" of the aaverage size here. It's simply that, even if Sue was normal for its age, its age itself is what is exceptional. It is reallyy not objective to compare any theropod only known from 1 or 2 specimens to sue. All the time you are making speculations on what MUCPv-ch1 could have been, how it could actually be particularly large etc. You are never considering how unlikely this is, or considering that the opposite could also just as easily be case. It's just as posssible that it's a small individual. Heck, it's even possible that it is a subadult, but am I assuming these things just because they are possible? I am assuming what is most likely in most ways a population can be distributed, and what is.most objective even if it isn't (but that would be a near impossible population anyway)-that it is aa typical, i.e. average-sized specimen. Edited by theropod, Jun 13 2015, 04:25 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:24 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)









![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
2:24 AM Jul 14