| 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 (507,273 Views) | |
| theropod | Jul 2 2012, 01:55 AM Post #511 |
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
  ![]](http://b2.ifrm.com/28122/87/0/p701956/pipright.png)
|
 Diplodocus carnegii (normal size, 27m), D. hallorum (including banddisks, 40m), Amphicoelias (upper estimate including banddisks, 70m) ---- Allosaurus maximus and Monster of Minden (assuming that it had a Torvosaurus´ proportions) |
 |
 
|
| Sam1 | Jul 2 2012, 06:38 PM Post #512 |
|
Herbivore
|
Allosaurus is too large here. Look at the hip height, I really doubt it was that tall, given that large tyrannosaurs were up to 4m. Edit : I'm referring to the length which is a little above 13m for the monster of minden here-comparable with Sue. But again, at 15m, who knows, so the depiction might be right after all. Edited by Sam1, Jul 2 2012, 06:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
| blaze | Jul 3 2012, 02:19 AM Post #513 |
|
Carnivore
|
Therapod: can you source the 13-15m Allosaurus (Saurophaganax) maximus? the biggest individual on the refered material is represented by a femur just shy of 1.14m long, compare that to 1.43m of Giganotosaurus and 1.31 for Sue, so, or Saurophaganax has incredibly short legs or it is not over 11m in lenght. Also, here is what Mickey Mortimer has to say about the Monster of minden
Don't run by what the media says about dinosaurs, they like to blow things out of proportion. Sam1: 4m to the hips for Sue is more likely from the floor to the hips of the mount, the complete limbs of Sue are 3.3m so unless the pelvis can provide that extra 70cm (which is extremely unlikely) Sue wasn't even close. Edited by blaze, Jul 3 2012, 02:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
| theropod | Jul 3 2012, 02:27 AM Post #514 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
|
Look at the predators of amphicoelias fragilimus treat. |
|
|
|
| blaze | Jul 3 2012, 02:34 AM Post #515 |
|
Carnivore
|
I've updated my post, I'm just starting reading that threat and I've read this from you.
I'm not putting the burden on you, but my point is that one doesn't have to go by upper estimates when we do have a decent limb bone of it, the fact that the biggest individual on the material has a 1.14m femur tells us that said upper estimate is BS and came from thin air. |
|
|
|
| theropod | Jul 3 2012, 02:40 AM Post #516 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
|
George Blasing stated that the specimen doesn´t look like an adult to him. And the femur indicates an animal that is more than 12m in lenght in any case after my calculations. Maybe proportions vary, or I based it on wrong data. |
|
|
|
| blaze | Jul 3 2012, 02:54 AM Post #517 |
|
Carnivore
|
He's no paleotologist, or is he? I trust Mickey Mortimer much more and this is what he has to say about it
George Blasing could be talking about the 10m individual or the other smaller specimens, and maybe all saurophaganax material is of inmmature/ young adults of Epanterias (at 12m) but that is only my guess. |
|
|
|
| blaze | Jul 3 2012, 04:19 AM Post #518 |
|
Carnivore
|
 Tyrannosaurus rex specimen Sue vs largest individual known of Saurophaganax maximus OMNH 1708 (femur 1.135m.) Reconstructions by Scott Hartman. OMNH 1708 is scaled up from Scott Hartmans reconstruction of UUVP600 specimen of Allosaurus fragilis. Edited by blaze, Jul 3 2012, 04:32 AM.
|
|
|
|
| theropod | Jul 3 2012, 05:37 AM Post #519 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
|
The estimates vary, this shows a 11m individual, while it should be at least 12m when scaling up from the femur. The quote above is from Dino data, isn´t it? Then note that the site still cites 15m as well. It´s your choice which one you trust more. But I don´t think he has even examined it whether it is fully grown or not. |
|
|
|
| theropod | Jul 3 2012, 05:55 AM Post #520 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
|
There are also several other indications of Allosaurs that size by the way. Apart from the need for a really huge theropod as a counterpart for all those really huge sauropods, there is also the monster of minden and some gigantic footprints from europe (maybe Torvosaurus, maybe Saurophaganax- who knows). somewhere I read that the size estimates for saurophaganax were based on a neural arch. Maybe it had different proportions from smaller allosaurs, that would explain why it´s size estimates are that variable. But I guess there has to be found more material than what we have of this animal to solve this debate. |
|
|
|
| theropod | Jul 3 2012, 06:02 AM Post #521 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
|
I think the source form were that is gave some other eally strange estimates, for example 12m Utahraptor, didn´t it? Anyway, the monster of minden seems to consist of two different animals. unfortunately more information than the lenght of the skull and the state that the ribs were 1,5 times as long as the ones of allosaurus is harde to get. But the animal to wich the ribs belong, be it an Allosaurus or a Torvosaurus, must have been huge. A 10m skull indeed wouldn´t belong to a very large animal, probably something smaller than the american Torvosaurus and the maximum size of A.fragilis. The term basal tetanurine could mean that the whole thing is referring to the Megalosaurine. I guess all those factors probably influenced the sources, and that´s the reason why 15m for Saurophaganax is that widely distributed also on reliable sites. |
|
|
|
| Grey | Jul 3 2012, 06:02 AM Post #522 |
|
Kleptoparasite
|
To Dr Tom Holtz : I wondered if you can list the few theropods which exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in length and weight ? Is Saurophaganax among them ? Answer : "Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus, and Spinosaurus are almost certainly all heavier and longer than Tyrannosaurus. After that, it is unclear if any of the remaining theropods were. Saurophaganax seems to be bigger than Tarbosaurus, but what is known does not show it to be bigger than the biggest T. rex specimens." |
|
|
|
| theropod | Jul 3 2012, 06:07 AM Post #523 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
|
If he refers to the 9t estimate, it wasn´t heavier, even at 15m. as he is obviously speaking about weight, we can only a´speculate e´what exact weights he used, or do you know which ones he used? A 15m saurophaganax ought to be 8t in weight, as Allosaurs were much more slender than tyrannosaurs (but if we use the max weight for T rex, we had to do the same with other theropods as well, as you yourself stated). you know what i think about the upper estimate for T rex, so no need to repaet that. A weight estimate that´s accurate imo was made by scott hartman: http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/psgallery/images/tyrannosaurs.jpg |
|
|
|
| theropod | Jul 3 2012, 06:08 AM Post #524 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
|
Also, I´m not even saying that the referred specimens were larger than T rex, but what about all the indications of far larger ones? |
|
|
|
| Grey | Jul 3 2012, 06:13 AM Post #525 |
|
Kleptoparasite
|
He was not referring to numbering datas, just listing the theropods which were longer and heavier than Rex. Be sure that if the 9 tons estimate is used, it may be applied as well to other theropods. So far, this is the actual animals really above Rex. |
|
|
|
| 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
