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
Dinosaur Size Comparison Thread
Topic Started: Aug 25 2012, 10:51 PM (220,813 Views)
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Post them here...

here's one, Megaraptor and Tyrannosaurus

Posted Image
(click image for a larger version)

Tyrannosaurus = 12.1 meters
Megaraptor = 8 meters
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Gecko
Jun 7 2013, 05:53 AM
theropod
Jun 7 2013, 04:08 AM
Short note on Mapusaurus roseae: there are at least 3-5 elements that approach or exceed MUCPv-Ch1 in size, the largest is probably 10% bigger than it. Not a small animal on average, and 9 specimens is far less than 31, especially noting we are including at least some subadults in Mapusaurus (eg. the 5m one).
The paper said that there is 3 elements that approach the Giganotosaurus holotype in size (That is including the pubic shaft that is 10% bigger than the Giga holotype); from the paper:
Quote:
 
Fifteen metatarsals had been recovered from the Cañadón del Gato bonebed. A right and a left second metatarsal (MCF-PVPH-108.34, -108.36), a right Metatarsal III (-108.32), and a right Metatarsal IV (-108.35) are the correct size and morphology to be from a single individual. The right metatarsals articulate well (Fig. 33), and came from the same part of the quarry (excavated in 1998). Metatarsals can be used to show that there was a minimum of seven individuals represented in the quarry (Table 3). Using equations of allometric size relationships for all theropods (Currie 2003a), the smallest metatarsal, when compared with those of other theropods, probably came from an animal that was approximately 6 m long. The largest suggests an individual that was 7.3 m in length (Table 1). Although the largest metatarsals are only about 25% longer than the smallest, there is a massive increase in robustness. For example, the shafts of MCF-PVPH-108.32 and -108.34 are 50 mm wide, whereas that of -108.33 is 77 mm (a 17% increase in length and a 54% increase in shaft width). It is well known that metatarsals undergo negative allometry during growth in theropod species (Currie 2003a), and that the overall effect is to produce more massive metatarsals in the adults (Madsen 1976a). In addition to the metatarsals, there is a dentary small enough to represent an eighth individual of about 5.5 m in total length. Several more bones show the presence of additional, even larger individuals than the minimum number of seven represented by the metatarsals. MCF-PVPH-108.68 is a 1040 mm long tibia, which is 7% smaller than the tibia of Giganotosaurus, and represents an animal 9.8 m in length (Table 1). 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, whose estimated length reaches the 12.2 m. These bones suggest the presence of at least one individual that is larger than the animal represented by the largest metatarsals, and increase the minimum number of individuals to nine.
MCF-PVPH-108.145 (which is the 10% bigger specimen everyone likes to mention) is said to "have similar dimensions to the same regions in the holotype of Giganotosaurus" the same is said for MCF-PVPH-108.185. Then there is MCF-PVPH-108.202's fibula that is a whopping 2 cm longer than the Giganotosaurus holotype, on an animal of this size that can come down to individual variation or even measurement inconsistences between the two animals. Of the 9 specimens only 3 specimens possibly come close to the size of the Giga holotype.
The specimen's size is not further specified there, just outlined very roughly, but it is later given:
Quote:
 
The mini-
mum shaft dimensions of MCF-PVPH-108.145 are
7.5 by 10 cm, which is 10% greater than those in
the holotype of Giganotosaurus. This suggests that
the specimen represents the largest individual of
Mapusaurus n. gen. from the bonebed.


The fibula is 3% larger.

The scapular shaft is said to be comparable. And there are two cranial remains (MCF-PVPH-108.2 and MCF-PVPH-108.169, the latter one basing on your own reconstruction btw).

This is more than "maybe come close to it", at least two are even arguably larger, one significantly. I don't know how often I have to say this, individual variation can go in both directions. It could just as well make the individual even larger as it could make it smaller. Assuming it varies when no indication for that is known is baseless speculation.

btw the 1,04m tibia probably rather belongs to an animal that's around 11,3-11,6m long, even tough it is about 8% smaller than G. carolinii. They made a calculation error, and a rounding error too.
Edited by theropod, Jun 8 2013, 12:52 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Jun 8 2013, 12:31 AM
One brave acro takes a leap of faith
Posted Image
If I measured correctly, that Paluxysaurus would be ~4.9 meters tall at the shoulder, and ~10.4 meters tall in total height
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
That's Brachiosaurus posing as "paluxysaurus", Hartman said so when he posted that size chart in facebook.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gecko
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Scott Hartman put up a comparison between the type rex (CM 9380) and AMNH 5027:
ScottHartman on deviantart
 
Posted Image

Don't mix and match your Tyrannosaurus?
by *ScottHartman

I mentioned awhile back that I was overhauling my specimen-based T. rex comparison chart (and perhaps adding to it). This is a quick update showing the differences between the type specimen (CM 9380) and the famous New York specimen (AMNH 5027). These were the first two specimens (of any completeness) ever found, and because they are fairly similar in size they have been combined to create the traditional T. rex mounts you see in many museums world wide.

With a century of hind-sight available I'm not convinced this was a good idea. While it's obviously hard to compare much between the two animals (the AMNH specimen lacks any limb material, while the Carnegie specimen is missing almost all of the neck and tail) they still show off some interesting differences. The pelvis of the type specimen really does come across as rather robust (the pubis seems to match Sue's in heft), but oddly the skull appears to be slightly shorter (based primarily on the lower jaw),

This could easily be chalked up to individual variation (compare your average NBA player with Jay Leno and you see far greater diversity), but it does emphasize the importance of looking at individual specimens in a species, rather than assuming you can mix and match them at will.

P.S. I know many of you care about size estimates. Hopefully it's clear that we have no way of knowing which of the two specimens was actually larger, given how much is missing. I gave a very slightly longer estimate to the CM specimen because that's what I come up with, but that's assuming a tail that is exactly the same proportions as the AMNH specimen, and as we just discussed that's not necessarily a safe assumption.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jun 13 2013, 12:45 AM
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Megafelis Fatalis
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Thunder Lizard size comparison

Posted Image

Does what it says on the bottle. I did a write up on some details on my Facebook page here: [link]

I assume there will be lots of questions about scaling and which specimens I've used, so I'll see you in the comments section below.

ScottHartman - deviantART
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
^Here's the writeup from his Facebook page:
ScottHartman
 

Ok, it's giant sauropod time. Here is a comparison between some of the largest and some of the best known sauropods. I've included some notes below:

1) Amphicoelias fragillimus isn't here, because there is no way to verify it.

2) Supersaurus is the longest included sauropod at 32m, though it certainly was not the heaviest. The large Diplodocus specimen that was originally named Seismosaurus is also close in the length department (29-30m) but probably even lighter in mass.

3) Puertasaurus really is huge - Filling in the (extensive) missing elements with other lognkosaur relatives leads to a 27 meter long animal that is clearly the heaviest of the group (sorry, no mass estimates today).

4) I haven't done Argentinosaurus yet, but it appears to be a bit under the length and weight of Puertasaurus. Paralititan isn't included here, but was a bit smaller than the big Alamosaurus specimens.

5) The Alamosaurus here is scaled to the size of the specimen on display in Dallas. And the largest specimen described by Fowler & Sullivan (the caudal vert, FWIW). AND the fragmentary tibia from Mexico described by Guzman-Gutierrez & Palomino-Sanchez in 2006. All of them seem to come from animals that are very similar in size.

6) Brachiosaurus should not be so quickly dismissed from discussions of who was the biggest. The very broad-gut of Puertasaurus probably resulted to a larger mass, but the biggest Brachiosaurus specimens are really huge.

7) Likewise, very large Apatosaurus specimens appear to fit comfortably in with the giant titanosaurs. In addition to the Oklahoma specimen, I have personally seen a few additional (unpublished) specimens that at least rival it in size.

And while I have your attention, I'm laying out ideas for an educational poster on sauropod gigantism. What are the sort of things you would like to see in such a poster?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
That giraffatitan is not the largest specimen. The brachiosaurus is scaled to holotype, which is not a fully grown individual either.
It's Puertasaurus came out slightly larger than the one I did:
http://carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8511697&t=9696766
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Megafelis Fatalis
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Clash of the Titans

Posted Image

So trying to figure out who the biggest sauropods are is challenging. It would be hard enough to get reliable data to draw all the bones, but many of the candidates for "largest sauropod" are frustratingly incomplete.

Case in point: Puertasaurus.

Often cited as being the largest known sauropod because it appears to basically tie Argentinosaurus in length and height but has wider back vertebrae (so presumably a more rotund torso), the chart above shows how tenuous our knowledge or Puertasaurus is.

Alamosaurus, on the other hand, is known from quite a few specimens. None of them are complete, so there is some debate over the proportions, but I feel reasonably good in the composite I've come up with. The very large specimen on display in Dallas, and a fragmentary specimen described by Fowler & Sullivan (2010) both point to a large animal (shown in gray) that is in the giant titanosaur size range, but falls short of Argentinosaurus/Puertasaurus size.

Enter a fragmentary tibia from Mexico described by Guzman-Gutierrez & Palomino-Sanchez (2006). It was tentatively referred to Alamosaurus, but it's titanic, suggesting that a North American titanosaur approached or even equalled Puertasaurus in size.

All of this is fascinating, but sadly the options are somewhat limited when comparing four vertebrae to a broken tibia.

P.S. Eventually Argentinosaurus will be added to this image. I'll be sure to send out an edit notice when it does. Props must go to ~Stuchlik for urging me to reconsider the Guzman-Gutierrez & Palomino-Sanchez specimen.

ScottHartman - deviantART
Edited by Megafelis Fatalis, Jun 16 2013, 12:14 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus size comparison

Posted Image

MSNM V4047 is scaled to be ~20% larger dimensionally than Scott Hartman's IPHG 1912 skeletal.

The total body length once more ends up well within the range Dal Sasso suggested(16-18 meters).

I also had to increase the mass I give to Spinosaurus, since when I started to believe in the ~12-tonne mass for MSNM V4047, I believed Suchomimus(from which I roughly scaled Spinosaurus' mass from) to be only ~3-4 tonnes in mass, which I don't do anymore.

References:

Dal Sasso(2005): New information on the skull of the enigmatic theropod Spinosaurus, with remarks on it's size and affinities
"Spinosaurus specimen MSNM V4047 is roughly 20% bigger than the holotype (Stromer, 1915); therefore, it represents potentially the largest known theropod dinosaur."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big G
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
Giganotosaurus (high)

Length: ~ 14 meters
Skull: ~ 1.68 meters
Carcharodontosaurus (down)

Length: ~ 14 meters
Skull: ~ 1.60 meters

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Allosaurus fragilis size comparison

Posted Image

References:
Theropod database

UUVP 6000 - complete skull (845 mm)
AMNH 680 - femur (1.008 m)
AMNH 5767 - coracoid (328 mm long)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Megafelis Fatalis
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Triassic dinosauromorphs

Posted Image

Some of the earliest dinosaurs and dinosaur relatives.

Typothorax - deviantART
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
^I'm so happy to see them fuzzy at last!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
ScottHartman
 

Posted Image
Puertasaurus reuili

When I released my Thunder Lizards size comparison I was asked why a few of the largest animals were rendered in gray, and when I would be making the actual skeletal available. Using gray silhouettes solved an aesthetic concern (the image was threatening to get too busy), but it turns out that those critters have another problem: they are not known from very incomplete remains.

So here is the skeletal of Puertasaurus in all its "glory". I have a fully restored version as well, but it's not going to be making a public appearance, as frankly I don't want it to be separated from the rigorous version, as that could give off the impression that the animal is better known. In fact even this version is somewhat misleading, as the two tail vertebrae were reported but not figured or described - I don't actually know how big they were!

That's not to say the reconstruction is a fantasy - it's status as a lognkosaur seems secure, and we have very good remains of some of its relatives. And the neck and back vertebrae actually provide a pretty reasonable basis for scaling the largest parts of Puertasaurus. That said, I feel it's important for scientists (and scientific illustrators) not to inadvertently mislead people about the level of inference involved.

So enjoy the skeletal, but please do so responsibly!

SkeletalDrawing.com
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosaur Video & Image Gallery · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.