Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Interspecific Conflict Guidelines & Requests
Topic Started: Aug 25 2012, 08:32 PM (77,609 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Leave them here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Feb 22 2013, 06:26 AM
theropod
Feb 22 2013, 05:26 AM
seebacher also estimates diplodocus at nearly 20t. I've searched for barosaurus in the paper, but I didn't get any results...
1. The Diplodocus mount he used was from 1910! The one for Barosaurus was far newer (I'm not one of these newer=better guys, but there's a huge difference between a mount from 1910 and one from 1997!).
What do you mean with you found nothing?
The papers Seebacher cites don't have to give weight estimates. He just uses their mounts or given lengths, to estimate the weight of dinosaurs.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
(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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Feb 23 2013, 09:18 PM
the majority of estimates are much lower.
For Barosaurus or Diplodocus?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I guess we first should look at how accurate the mount he used is…
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carcharadon
Member Avatar
Shark Toothed Reptile
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Carnotaurus vs ouranosaurus
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Dark allosaurus
Feb 28 2013, 07:18 AM
Carnotaurus vs ouranosaurus


1. Ouranosaurus v Carnotaurus
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big G
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Mapusaurus vs Giganotosaurus
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

MrGiganotosaurus
Mar 23 2013, 04:34 AM
Mapusaurus vs Giganotosaurus


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
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:
Quote:
 
MCF-PVPH-108.202 is an
860 mm long fibula that is actually 2 cm longer
than the fibula of the 12.2 m long Giganotosaurus
(MUCPv-CH-1; Coria & Salgado 1995). The shafts
of a scapula (MCF-PVPH-108.185) and a pubis
(-108.145) have similar dimensions to the same
regions in the holotype of Giganotosaurus


Quote:
 
The minimum shaft dimensions of MCF-PVPH-108.145 are
7.5 by 10 cm, which is 10% greater than those in
the holotype of Giganotosaurus.

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.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big G
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Taipan
Mar 23 2013, 08:24 PM
MrGiganotosaurus
Mar 23 2013, 04:34 AM
Mapusaurus vs Giganotosaurus


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
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.