| 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: |
| Visual Comparisons Thread | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 01:17 AM (507,276 Views) | |
| SameerPrehistorica | Jun 13 2012, 02:27 PM Post #466 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
  ![]](http://b2.ifrm.com/28122/87/0/p701956/pipright.png)
|
Woolly Mammoth
Edited by SameerPrehistorica, Feb 1 2013, 09:42 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| Fishfreak | Jun 14 2012, 12:12 AM Post #467 |
Friend of the fish
|
i know it's VERY small but this is my first size comparison. it's between wild boar and dire wolf. 
|
|
|
|
| DinosaurMichael | Jun 14 2012, 12:13 AM Post #468 |
Apex Predator
|
I'll admit dinofreak337. For your first scale. It's really accurate and good. 
|
|
|
|
| Fishfreak | Jun 14 2012, 12:24 AM Post #469 |
|
Friend of the fish
|
Thank you! JaM taught me most of it (I figured some parts of it out) |
|
|
|
| DinosaurMichael | Jun 14 2012, 12:27 AM Post #470 |
|
Apex Predator
|
You're welcome. |
|
|
|
| Megafelis Fatalis | Jun 14 2012, 07:16 PM Post #471 |
|
Carnivore
|
 The song and dance around "Biggest, Baddest - Revised" (Link) convinced me to make these versions of the same scale. Preamble 1 - I drew these animals with the maximum possible accuracy, using as refs mainly skeletons photos (some made by me) and anatomical drawings from specific publications, assisted by some of the best available skeletals (this means that i didn't use skeletals as my main ref). I checked proportions a lot of times (the essential proportion is skull/femur) and they're all correct: you might find a "human" error margin of some millimeters, not so big to invalidate the results. Preamble 2 - This plate is only a provocation. I whant to make you think about sizes and numbers, to show you that you must to read very well articles and books, and to show you that about paleontology the main thing is your good sense, not numbers. I'm not a scientist, I'm an artist, so I hope you'll be able to give the right importance to this scale. Moreover I recommend you to be careful about proportions in paintings, drawings and skeletals you find around the web, because they're often wrong: don't trust in skeletals and paintings with one's life but try to verify in first person, if you can, with the help of other material. In Figure 1 you can see (from left to right) Tyrannosaurus rex, Spinosaurus aegyptiacus e Giganotosaurus carolinii scaled according to the maximum published overall lenght (source Theropod Database). The thing you will note immediately is that to obtain such lenght, skull size must be different from what they should be. According to published maximum sizes, Tyrannosaurus rex (FMNH PR2081, a.k.a. Sue) is 50ft/12.8m long (but you must have a 162cm skull, and not 150cm as published); Spinosaurus (MNSM V4047) is 56ft/17m long (but with a 200cm skull and not 175cm as published); Giganotosaurus (MUCPv-95) is 43ft/13.2m long (with a 162cm skull and not 195 as published. In Figure 2 you can see them scaled according to the maximum published skull size. Tyrannosaurus (FMNH PR2081) has a 150cm skull and then "shrinks" to 39ft/11.9m; Spinosaurus (MNSM V4047) should have a 175cm skull and then "shrinks" to 49ft/14.9m; Giganotosaurus (MUCPv-95) should have a 195cm skull and then "grows" to 49ft/15m. What have we learned? We learned that there's something "wrong" with the published sizes. Perhaps because maximum lenght is published as a simple addition of skull lenght plus vertebrae lenght, without taking account of the natural spinal curvy shape... bah. I'll let you decide where's the truth. If you whant you can try a scale by yourself: look for a side view photo of a skeleton (the most complete skeleton you can find, don't use casts or sculptures) and do what I've done with a grid like this. You can do this even with skeletals. The results will surprise you for sure. In Figure 3 you can see a "parade" of Spinosaurs, scaled according to different estimations. In white the estimation made by Therrien & Henderson for MNSM V4047, that shrinks the skull to 150cm and the body to 41ft/12.5m; in orange as in Fig.2; in blue as in Fig.1; in green the very unlikely estimation published for the Tucson Rock Show specimen, which should be 84ft/25.5m long with a 10ft/3m long skull. In Figure 4 a Tyrannosaurus parade. In white scaled according to the 139cm skull of the FMNH PR2081, which should be 36ft/10.9m long; in orange as in Fig.2; in blue as in "Biggest, Baddest - Revised" (Link) ; in red as in Fig.1; in green scaled up according to another very unlikely estimation published for FMNH PR2081, which should be 51ft/15.5m long... ~ Kronosaurus82 Edited by Megafelis Fatalis, Jun 14 2012, 07:22 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Fishfreak | Jun 14 2012, 08:35 PM Post #472 |
|
Friend of the fish
|
 1. average orca size 2. max. orca size. 3. sarcosuchus. Edited by Fishfreak, Jun 14 2012, 08:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Elosha11 | Jun 14 2012, 08:47 PM Post #473 |
|
Herbivore
|
Even as bulky as orcas can get, these images are way too bulky. These are creatures that are supposed to be comparable weight, yet your image makes the large orca look two to three times heavier than the croc. |
|
|
|
| Fishfreak | Jun 14 2012, 08:52 PM Post #474 |
|
Friend of the fish
|
yeah sorry it's only my 2nd scale here's a more accurate one: 
Edited by Fishfreak, Jun 14 2012, 09:22 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Sam1 | Jun 14 2012, 09:27 PM Post #475 |
|
Herbivore
|
Prehistoric cat, that was a brilliant effort - the exact thing that needed to be visualized like this! I think many paleontologists would have quite a bit to learn from this too. Dinofreak, you need a way better orca depictions than that one. At max length, overall height would be close to 5m-I did a detailed visualization one on the old forum and it turned out 4.8m |
|
|
|
| Fishfreak | Jun 14 2012, 09:33 PM Post #476 |
|
Friend of the fish
|
ok sorry i'm new to this and i couldn't find the orca's height. so sorry but thank you for the imfo on the height (i assume it's including dorsal fin)  is this correct? Edited by Fishfreak, Jun 14 2012, 09:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Megafelis Fatalis | Jun 14 2012, 10:06 PM Post #477 |
|
Carnivore
|
Styracosaurus by unlobogris
|
|
|
|
| Sam1 | Jun 14 2012, 10:36 PM Post #478 |
|
Herbivore
|
Yeah, that's about it. Although it's still a pretty poor orca depiction, silhouette is too simply outlined and wrong on some proportions in the front part so it gives a deceiving impression. Anyway, I'd say it could be anywhere from 4.2-4.8m including the dorsal fin. It depends on the proportions of the individual. Edited by Sam1, Jun 14 2012, 10:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Fishfreak | Jun 14 2012, 10:41 PM Post #479 |
|
Friend of the fish
|
[/quote]ok so the picture is wrong? my scale is correct now? if so thanks for the info |
|
|
|
| Sam1 | Jun 14 2012, 10:46 PM Post #480 |
|
Herbivore
|
Yeah. Orca should be a bit leaner and more accurately drawn, but the scale is okay |
|
|
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Video & Image Gallery · Next Topic » |
6:06 PM Jul 13
