| 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: |
| Interspecific Conflict Guidelines & Requests | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 25 2012, 08:32 PM (77,609 Views) | |
| Taipan | Aug 25 2012, 08:32 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Leave them here. |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| theropod | Feb 23 2013, 08:11 PM Post #406 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I didn't find seebachers estimate for barosaurus by simply searching for "barosaurus in his paper" The question is, was the diplodocus mount incorrect and too bulky just because it was old? Because if we are talking about the carnegii specimen whose casts you can see mounted in the natural history museum in london, it is not. I have wondered why barosaurus got higher weight estimates in some sources, but when looking at these figures (not the ones from wikipedia which are usually pretty one sided) there isn't that much of a difference. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 23 2013, 08:52 PM Post #407 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() (Source can be seen by clicking on it) Here is the estimate for Barosaurus, 26m/20t. Also, the Diplodocus in London has changed in time, for example its head has been raised and its tail lifted off the ground. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 23 2013, 09:01 PM Post #408 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
thanks! I guess these changes will neither affect weight, nor will they have played any role here, as the seebachers metod has been done fairly recently. The fossils don't get outdated, no matter how old they are, so a specimen found a hundred years ago can still be accurate today if its mount has been revised. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 23 2013, 09:13 PM Post #409 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You maybe right, but I don't know anything about Holland's Diplodocus, I don't know if it was a mount or a graphical reconstruction. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 23 2013, 09:18 PM Post #410 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
probably a graphical reconstruction, but I guess Seebacher was probably smart enough to check whether there are discrepancies between it and the other sauropods he estimated, after all he had apatosaurus and barosaurus to compare it to. As long as the difference in weight isn't considerable, I doubt there would be a point in making a matchup with barosaurus instead. I think seebachers weights in this regard are probably too high, the majority of estimates are much lower. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 23 2013, 09:31 PM Post #411 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
For Barosaurus or Diplodocus? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 25 2013, 02:24 AM Post #412 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
primarily Diplodocus, but consequently Barosaurus as well. There haven't been other estimates for the latter by the seem of it, everybody is quoting Seebachers estimate for it but not the one he gave for diplodocus Edited by theropod, Feb 25 2013, 02:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 25 2013, 03:09 AM Post #413 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I guess we first should look at how accurate the mount he used is… |
![]() |
|
| Carcharadon | Feb 28 2013, 07:18 AM Post #414 |
![]()
Shark Toothed Reptile
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Carnotaurus vs ouranosaurus |
![]() |
|
| Taipan | Feb 28 2013, 07:27 PM Post #415 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
1. Ouranosaurus v Carnotaurus |
![]() |
|
| Big G | Mar 23 2013, 04:34 AM Post #416 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Mapusaurus vs Giganotosaurus |
![]() |
|
| Taipan | Mar 23 2013, 08:24 PM Post #417 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
The weight difference is too large : Giganotosaurus may have surpassed Tyrannosaurus in mass by at least half a ton (the upper size estimate for T. rex is 9.5 t).[6] Various estimates find that it measured somewhere between 12.2 and 13 m (40 and 43 ft) in length, and between 6.5[7] and 13.8[8] tons in weight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giganotosaurus It was similar in size to its close relative Giganotosaurus, with the largest known individuals estimated as over 10.2 metres (33 ft) in length* and weighing approximately 3 metric tons (3.3 short tons). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapusaurus |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Mar 24 2013, 07:10 AM Post #418 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Taipan, you realize it sais "similar in size to Giganotosaurus" even before mentioning the other specimen? The 10,2m thing in the same sentence is a very unfortunate phrasing which leads to the whole world believing they where talking about an Allosaurus fragilis-sized whimp while in fact there are at least three specimens as large to about 10% larger than the giganotosaurus holotype. If you don't believe me:
From Coria&Currie, 2006 Furthermore there are two individuals known from cranial remains that reach skull dimensions in the general area of the Carcharodontosaurus saharicus neotype (MCF-PVPH-108.2, a dentary and judging by MysteryMeat's skull reconstruction also MCF-PVPH-108.169) in sum: MCF-PVPH-108.202: 103% the size of giga holotype MCF-PVPH-108.185: ?same size as giga holotype MCF-PVPH-108.145: 110% the size of giga holotype MCF-PVPH-108.2&MCF-PVPH-108.169: subequal to the Giganotosaurus holotype Here you have a whole 5 specimens far larger than your supposed 10,2m maximum. I hope this settles the widespread misquotation. The problem wiki has is that there never was a precise size figure given for any of the large individuals, only that they where, at least in linear terms, larger than the giganotosaurus holotype. However the 10,2m was never, ever, meant to be maximum size or even close to it, that's a misunderstanding and that's what happens if one only relies on the second half of a confusing sentence from a mediocre wikipedia article. |
![]() |
|
| Big G | Mar 24 2013, 07:20 AM Post #419 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The Mapusaurus went well beyond the 10.5 meters. The Giganotosaurus and the Mapusaurus were practically the same size, equal to the weight. In fact: Giganotosaurus = 13 metres, 6-8 tons Mapusaurus = 12 metres (?14 metres?), 6 tons Edited by Big G, Mar 24 2013, 07:38 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Mar 25 2013, 09:55 PM Post #420 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Also, the 13,8t estimate for Giga is quite unlikely, same with the "at least half a ton heavier than a 9,5t T-rex". thing. Giganotosaurus minimum was rather 6t than 10t. An average Tyrannosaurus is believed to weigh between 6-7t, what matches with the weight of the Giganotosaurus Holotype. Here the source: http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/papers/Mazzetta-et-al_04_SA-dino-body-size.pdf |
![]() |
|
| 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