| 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 (507,272 Views) | |
| Bandog | Jul 3 2012, 06:16 AM Post #526 |
Everything else is just a dog.
  ![]](http://b2.ifrm.com/28122/87/0/p701956/pipright.png)
|
What about bahariasaurus? Seems that the type specimen that was lost belonged to quite a biggun. |
 |
 
|
| blaze | Jul 3 2012, 09:00 AM Post #527 |
|
Carnivore
|
My quote is from Mortimer's own post on the Dinosaur Mailing List, I don't trust dinodata, is very bare on info and it barely seems to be updated, better to go for the actual papers and posts from the paleontologists. 10.9m is what Mortimer said and is based on his estimate of UUVP600 as 7.9m long which I think is on the short side. Scott Hartmans reconstruction of UUVP600 is actually longer as though it might be ~8 from tip of the skull to tip of the tail, that isn't how dinosaurs (or living animals) are measured, they're measured along the curves of the body, the one in my comparison might appear to be 11m but is not, if we go by the curves it'll end up around 12 or higher, just like you said, most of it is the tail though as Allosaurus seem to have longer tails proportionately and even at lenght parity with Sue (which was 12.3m along the curves) it is much smaller, I mean, just look at it. I'm not sure where the 15m estimate comes but it seems just another case of going too crazy with scaling from small pieces of bone (specially if it indeed comes from a neural arch). The material we have suggest it was smaller than Epanterias, which is estimated at 12 going from UUPV600 being 8m, it seems UUVP600 has a longer tail so Epanterias (like my 12m Saurophaganx) might be longer but what if they didn't had such a long tail as Allosaurus? then the 11m and 12m estimates might be correct, anyway, if Epanterias isn't 15m, and it was never claimed to be that big, then there's no way an estimate for Saurophaganax at 15 is accurate. I've looked at the video you posted of George Blasing, he says, he has an skeleton (I'm guessing a mount?) and says it's 42ft and is not fully grown but is based on what specimen? how accurate is the mount? specially when we do have very little of the animal, what if the mount is nothing but an scaled up big Al (which was a juvenile), all the lenghts he gives are what is floating on popular books and shows, he was behind Jurassic Fight Club and let them present dinosaurs considerably larger than what we know of them: allosaurus 14ft tall, T. rex 17ft tall and like 45ft in lenght as average when the biggest is only 40ft, I simply can't trust what he has to say. PS: yes, Mortimer does imply that Utahraptor could possibly get that big and is according to this:
Edited by blaze, Jul 3 2012, 09:49 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Sicilianu | Jul 3 2012, 10:09 AM Post #528 |
Omnivore
|
Comparison of members of the genus Meles
|
|
|
|
| linnaeus1758 | Jul 3 2012, 12:11 PM Post #529 |
Omnivore
|
Deleted. Edited by linnaeus1758, Feb 22 2013, 01:17 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Sam1 | Jul 3 2012, 05:09 PM Post #530 |
|
Herbivore
|
Sue is 12.8m long. This one barely reaches 11m Edited by Sam1, Jul 3 2012, 05:11 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JaM | Jul 3 2012, 07:20 PM Post #531 |
Heterotrophic Organism
|
One thing of note there, it's pretty obvious that the allosaurid has a much longer tail - at least in the reconstruction. I think it must have been a good deal longer than a T. rex of equal weight. They're also both more than 11 m if the tail was straightened out. This kind of reminds me of Atlasaurus - that is a large Cretaceous sauropod, which may have been a Brachiosaurus derivative. It's built like a more slender Brachiosaurus, but the neck is really short! I bet if it was found without a neck, it would have been reconstructed with a long brachiosaur like neck, because it seems to be a continuation of the Giraffatitan "theme", with ever longer necks. This shows that you can't just assume an equal build of related dinosaurs, because they may have different proportions than their relatives. Even when a large portion of a skeleton is found, the different reconstructions can be very different. Perhaps this applies more to sauropods in general, but it applies to all dinos where only a fraction of the bones have been found. Nearly all reconstructions of their full skeleton is mostly imagination. So, did they REALLY have a weight of 9 tons? Even in the case of T rex, a lot is left up for interpretation. Nobody here can say that the weight is absolutely this or that, or that one theropod is heavier than another theropod of near equal size. All these 'biggest' theropods are basically the same size. Only the Spinosaurus seems to be bigger (according to some) but it's yet another dino where too much is unknown. There's also those old-school reconstructions which gives the dinos extremely wide rib-cages, while modern reconstructions have more vertical ribs. That creates a huge difference in weight estimates, just the positioning of the ribs! Just for your amusement, the reconstructed Atlasaurus -. where they seem to have put the neck between the coracoids. That's a very strange mount. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jMEp3SIvpek/RRQm77VXABI/AAAAAAAAY7k/xKPABg8cwl0/s640/Atlasaurus%20Marrocos%20Dez%202004%20(2).jpg Edit: Perhaps it's done this way because it couldn't fit into the low ceilings? Heck, even my comparison pic of C. supremus has a femur far bigger than any found femur of any Camarasaurus, so it's probably wrong as well. I can't just assume that a 23 m. dino has the same proportions as a 15 m. dino - of a slightly different species! Just another example: http://svpow.com/2011/05/19/how-long-was-the-neck-of-diplodocus/ Edited by JaM, Jul 3 2012, 09:08 PM.
|
|
|
|
| theropod | Jul 3 2012, 09:09 PM Post #532 |
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
|
Not every palaeotologist is aware of the whole situation. Just not being mentioned doesn´t mean that something necessarily isn´t the case. If the 9t estimate is correct, I wonder why at the aproximate same lenght an allosaur after the current estimates would be less than half that weight. By the way, what do you think about hartman´s estimate? It seems far more realistic to me, the animal isn´t reconstructed with any unbased tissue just to make it heavier. |
|
|
|
| theropod | Jul 3 2012, 09:23 PM Post #533 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
|
All those scaling mistakes should at least make clear how different size estimates for the same animal can be, and that´s probably also the reason for the varying estiamtes. Not all animals have the same proportions. What JaM wrote about his camarasaurus comparison could be a reason for such estimates. But whether or not the referred specimens actually indicate animals that large, there are a lot of indications for an animal like it (monster of minden, footprints >70cm, sauropods needing a predator). So far, Blasing is the only one claiming something about his specimen being not fully grown, but it hasn´t debunked either. I hope that if he makes such statements, he also has the qualification to do so. But being a selftaught scientist doesn´t necessarily mean being less knowledgable about the subject. I know many selftaught scientists personally, and I guarantee you, that they aren´t less reliable than people who have graduated from a university. Edited by theropod, Jul 3 2012, 09:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Grey | Jul 3 2012, 10:44 PM Post #534 |
|
Kleptoparasite
|
Yeah but I follow the indications of the guys working on the field. There's no reason to suspect this at now. Until more material comes, reste my case. |
|
|
|
| Fist of the North Shrimp | Jul 3 2012, 11:42 PM Post #535 |
|
vá á orminum
|
Actually, the 11-12 meter Utahraptor seems to be real, the fossils are there, but not described yet. |
|
|
|
| theropod | Jul 4 2012, 12:28 AM Post #536 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
|
Well, let´s stop the discussion for now, untill we get new material. in the meantime, just asume my scale chart as a speculation what would be if Blasing and the other estimates are right or what would be if the monster of minden´s ribs really belonged to an allosaur.
Edited by theropod, Jul 4 2012, 01:52 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Grey | Jul 4 2012, 12:33 AM Post #537 |
|
Kleptoparasite
|
Fair enough. |
|
|
|
| theropod | Jul 4 2012, 01:55 AM Post #538 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
|
Sometimes it´s the best to stop a debate and continue it if there is new material, as everybody is convinced of his or her points. I may be convinced of the arguments and indicates and you aren´t, and if this does´t change over a long time, why waste this time and continue debating? Let´s just hope that new fossils of this animal are unearthed. |
|
|
|
| Grey | Jul 4 2012, 02:00 AM Post #539 |
|
Kleptoparasite
|
This is for that reason I prefer use negation, only vestigial remains can talk. Without them, anybody can argue anything he wants. |
|
|
|
| blaze | Jul 4 2012, 03:52 AM Post #540 |
|
Carnivore
|
Read my post above  the femur is right, the skull is right, the difference is that Hartmans reconstruction has a shorter tail, Sue at 12.8 was based on how we thought the proportions of T. rex were before, but the cast made for Sue is 12.3, which is more accurate since Sue has the most caudals preserved, it ends up having a shorter tail than past reconstructions based on 20 something or 0 caudals. Also like JaM said, you also need to straightened out the tail and the neck.
Exactly, there's a lot of uncertainty specially with fragmentary animals, for example if I scale up the Allosaurus reconstruction to 15m (forgeting that the neck and tail are not straightened out) it ends up having a 1.6m femur and a 1.65m skull; twice the size in linear terms than UUVP600; but we know that the largest femur is 40% smaller than that so it'll be wrong. I like the part at the end: we don’t know as much as we think we do.
But he has no specimen, there's no complete skeleton of S. maximus found, and if he has, he should of have described it and published it by now (given how he made himself a cast) then, others could debunked what he said, which hasn't happened yet because others don't take him seriously? I don't know, the way he talked and all those exaggerated sizes he gave (or let them present) on JFC made me thought of him as some actor rather than a serious researcher, even if he isn't a paleontologist if he is serious he should be conservative and show restrain in the way he talks about them, but he doesn't not even on the "ask dinosaur george" videos. I'm with Therapod in letting this end, until we have more material, I heard they've found something about Saurphaganax and is waiting to be described but I haven't actually reaserched if it's true (it was on wikipedia, and without a source). |
|
|
|
| 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
