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
Saurophaganax maximus v Tyrannosaurus rex
Topic Started: Dec 15 2012, 10:02 PM (59,200 Views)
DinosaurMichael
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Saurophaganax maximus
Saurophaganax ("lizard-eating master") is a genus of allosaurid dinosaur from the Morrison Formation of Late Jurassic Oklahoma (latest Kimmeridgian age, about 151 million years ago). Some paleontologists consider it to be a species of Allosaurus (A. maximus). Saurophaganax represents a very large (13 metres (43 ft) long). Saurophaganax was one of the largest carnivores of Late Jurassic North America. Ray even gave an estimate of the body length of fifteen metres and Chure of fourteen, though later estimations have been lower. The fossils known of Saurophaganax (both the possible New Mexican material and the Oklahoma material) are known from the latest part of the Morrison formation, suggesting that they were either always uncommon or appeared rather late in the fossil record. Saurophaganax was large for an allosaurid, and bigger than both its contemporaries Torvosaurus tanneri and Allosaurus fragilis. Being much rarer than its contemporaries, making up one percent or less of the Morrison theropod fauna, not much about its behavior is known. Stovall in Oklahoma also unearthed a considerable number of Apatosaurus specimens, a possible prey for a large theropod.

Posted Image

Tyrannosaurus rex
Tyrannosaurus is a genus of coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur. The species Tyrannosaurus rex (rex meaning "king" in Latin), commonly abbreviated to T. rex, is a fixture in popular culture. It lived throughout what is now western North America, with a much wider range than other tyrannosaurids. Fossils are found in a variety of rock formations dating to the Maastrichtian age of the upper Cretaceous Period, 67 to 65.5 million years ago.[1] It was among the last non-avian dinosaurs to exist before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Like other tyrannosaurids, Tyrannosaurus was a bipedal carnivore with a massive skull balanced by a long, heavy tail. Relative to the large and powerful hindlimbs, Tyrannosaurus forelimbs were small, though unusually powerful for their size, and bore two clawed digits. Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it was the largest known tyrannosaurid and one of the largest known land predators. By far the largest carnivore in its environment, Tyrannosaurus rex may have been an apex predator, preying upon hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, although some experts have suggested it was primarily a scavenger. The debate over Tyrannosaurus as apex predator or scavenger is among the longest running in paleontology. Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time; the largest complete specimen, FMNH PR2081 ("Sue"), measured 12.8 metres (42 ft) long, and was 4.0 metres (13.1 ft) tall at the hips. Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7.2 metric tons (7.9 short tons), to less than 4.5 metric tons (5.0 short tons), with most modern estimates ranging between 5.4 and 6.8 metric tons (6.0 and 7.5 short tons). Packard et al. (2009) tested dinosaur mass estimation procedures on elephants and concluded that dinosaur estimations are flawed and produce over-estimations; thus, the weight of Tyrannosaurus could be much less than usually estimated. Other estimations have concluded that the largest known Tyrannosaurus specimens had a weight exceeding 9 tonnes.

Posted Image
Edited by DinosaurMichael, Dec 15 2012, 10:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 5 2013, 11:51 PM
there is nothing wrong with using that figure-if you assume theropods in general had chests and tails like this:

Quote:
 


AND of course this is not anything like consensual, as it is doubted by several scientists, and would apply to all theropods, because it would naturally mean not jsut T. rey had to be recosnturcted with this amount of tissue. Respective weights would thus remain exactly the same. This estimate is by no means mroe accurate than previous ones, duem to the mere fact that it does assume lots of tissue that is mere guess based.

Hartman: 6-6,4t
Paul: 6,1t
Brochu: 6-7t
Mortimer: 5,7t

It´s not as if there where no other estimates, it is definitely not an unchallenged replacement for the other figures, it is definitely everyones choice which estimate to favour, and if 9,5t turns out to be true this means T. rex and all other theropods as well had such a huge amount of muscle mass and fat below their ribcages, meaning they all would equally get heavier. This would include Saurophaganax; if T. rex is not 6-7t but 9-10, Saurophaganax wasn´t 5-6t either, but correspondingly heavier because then the respective tissue would also have to be added to it. I have once posted some image manipulations demonstrating this-of course they where mostly ignored under the pretex of some excuses...
I overlaid the model silhouette on top of the skeleton.

Take a look:
Posted Image

What the hell is this "amount of muscle mass and fat below their ribcages" you are talking about?? It follows the pubis and ischia perfectly. The small amount of room under the rib cage is reserved for gastralia, this poor thing still needs a damn gastralia to complete the rib cage.

Even if you get rid of all that under the ribcage, it does not decrease its weight by 2.5 tonnes!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hopefully the final version, but I´m not sure. I´ve yet to find out whether the measurement for DINO that I based saurophaganax on was really maximum skull lenght:

Posted ImagePosted Image

Please note that the dorsal view of sue is probably not 100% accurate, as I had only a photo of the crushed version in a not-so-perfect dorsal view. It could be that the posterior cranium got a bit too narrow, and some of the anatomical details might be wrong but I have no way to check it. Anyway, I think this gives a pretty good idea of their respective shapes.


While Saurophaganax cranium is much narrower, it is more than obvious it is by no means a "joke" when compared to T. rex, and the narrower skull does basically only reflect a different biting metod.

This is not a mismatch, even tough I favour Sue over a 13m Saurophaganax for ovious (body mass related) reasons.


BTW here why I scaled up the skull from DINO: The cranium/postcranium-proportions (at Mortimers estimate, Hartmans reconstruction might be too long tailed) are simialr to those seen in big al and big al two, the two by far most complete specimens. I could also use big al of course, wouldn´t change much.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Jan 6 2013, 04:57 AM
theropod
Jan 5 2013, 11:51 PM
there is nothing wrong with using that figure-if you assume theropods in general had chests and tails like this:

Quote:
 


AND of course this is not anything like consensual, as it is doubted by several scientists, and would apply to all theropods, because it would naturally mean not jsut T. rey had to be recosnturcted with this amount of tissue. Respective weights would thus remain exactly the same. This estimate is by no means mroe accurate than previous ones, duem to the mere fact that it does assume lots of tissue that is mere guess based.

Hartman: 6-6,4t
Paul: 6,1t
Brochu: 6-7t
Mortimer: 5,7t

It´s not as if there where no other estimates, it is definitely not an unchallenged replacement for the other figures, it is definitely everyones choice which estimate to favour, and if 9,5t turns out to be true this means T. rex and all other theropods as well had such a huge amount of muscle mass and fat below their ribcages, meaning they all would equally get heavier. This would include Saurophaganax; if T. rex is not 6-7t but 9-10, Saurophaganax wasn´t 5-6t either, but correspondingly heavier because then the respective tissue would also have to be added to it. I have once posted some image manipulations demonstrating this-of course they where mostly ignored under the pretex of some excuses...
I overlaid the model silhouette on top of the skeleton.

Take a look:
Posted Image

What the hell is this "amount of muscle mass and fat below their ribcages" you are talking about?? It follows the pubis and ischia perfectly. The small amount of room under the rib cage is reserved for gastralia, this poor thing still needs a damn gastralia to complete the rib cage.

Even if you get rid of all that under the ribcage, it does not decrease its weight by 2.5 tonnes!
Have I mentioned the ribs where not mounted in an accurate position? Have a try comparing it to skeletals!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 6 2013, 04:51 AM
Maybe it would, keep in mind the musculature doesn´t have airsacks and is thus probably a more relevant part than it looks like. What this is about is that the model, despite basing on the scanned skeleton (which isn´t 100% accurate especially in the ribcage), still adds an awful amount of tissue below its ribs. The added musculature certainly adds a considerable amount of additional bulk. As long as there is a part that is mere reconsturction, this is not simply a "more accurate metod", because the difference in the results is probably caused (at least to a large extend) by the parts that where reconstructed bulkier.
No it would not.
In the same study, Sue's hind limb min estimates is 1817 kg!
You are telling me that "extra layer of muscle and fat", which I don't agree even exist in the min reconstruction has more mass that both of its legs combined? Absurd.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
tell that to Greg Paul
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=10311
Quote:
 
Hutchinson contends that a caudal sweep of the ribs in tyrannosaurs is an assumption based on a presumption of minimal mass rather than anatomical fact. This posture has been well documented as standard for archosaurs and most other diapsids (2,3,5,10), being essentially universal in living crocodilians and birds, and the same in countless articulated fossil skeletons (as per Fig. 19 in [11], figs. 1,2,5 in [12]; fig. 1 in [13], Pls. 2-4,8,14B,15B,17-19 in [8], Pl. 24 in [14], figs. 14-1, 14-2 in [1]; occasional lack of caudal sweep is probably due to bloating of the carcass inflating its volume). So restoring Tyrannosaurus with the vertical or especially cranially swept ribs that will inflate the volume of the trunk is a markedly inferior hypothesis that lacks substantiation.


this is exactly what can be seen in hartmans skeletal:
Posted Image

Don´t tell me the model isn´t significantly bulkier than the skeletal reconstruction!

for further reading on the subject: http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=16371

Quote:
 
The far higher 9500 kg minimum for Sue is highly anomalous. It is at best very unusual for mass to vary by 50% in wild individuals whose dimensions differ by just a few percent. A comparison of their computer generated minimum volumetric model profile to my skeletal/muscle profile of Sue (see figure link below) shows that the volume of the trunk in their version is far greater than that of mine at least in part because of the incorrectly mounted ribs, and their tail is multiple times larger partly because of the enlarged caudal series. The overall impression is much too bloated for a predator that should be lithe compared to its prey.


Somehow it seems to me like the rib position does indeed make a significant difference...
Edited by theropod, Jan 6 2013, 05:44 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 6 2013, 05:35 AM
http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=10311
Quote:
 
Hutchinson contends that a caudal sweep of the ribs in tyrannosaurs is an assumption based on a presumption of minimal mass rather than anatomical fact. This posture has been well documented as standard for archosaurs and most other diapsids (2,3,5,10), being essentially universal in living crocodilians and birds, and the same in countless articulated fossil skeletons (as per Fig. 19 in [11], figs. 1,2,5 in [12]; fig. 1 in [13], Pls. 2-4,8,14B,15B,17-19 in [8], Pl. 24 in [14], figs. 14-1, 14-2 in [1]; occasional lack of caudal sweep is probably due to bloating of the carcass inflating its volume). So restoring Tyrannosaurus with the vertical or especially cranially swept ribs that will inflate the volume of the trunk is a markedly inferior hypothesis that lacks substantiation.


this is exactly what can be seen in hartmans skeletal:
Posted Image

Don´t tell me the model isn´t significantly bulkier than the skeletal reconstruction!

for further reading on the subject: http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=16371

Quote:
 
The far higher 9500 kg minimum for Sue is highly anomalous. It is at best very unusual for mass to vary by 50% in wild individuals whose dimensions differ by just a few percent. A comparison of their computer generated minimum volumetric model profile to my skeletal/muscle profile of Sue (see figure link below) shows that the volume of the trunk in their version is far greater than that of mine at least in part because of the incorrectly mounted ribs, and their tail is multiple times larger partly because of the enlarged caudal series. The overall impression is much too bloated for a predator that should be lithe compared to its prey.


Somehow it seems to me like the rib position does indeed make a significant difference...
Makes sense.
Hartman's drawing has a smaller ribcase volume. Due to the rib position.
It also has a shorter torso than the mount, I cannot tell whether it's more accurate or not.

Still, you are advocating a 2500-3500kg weight decrease. That's 50% to 63% of the torso mass, gone.
I think that's too extreme.
I don't have a problem with a average value of 8000kg or so. Although I believe it's more like 8000-9000kg range.
I agree with your assessment on relative weight, except I reserve my judgment on exactly how big MUCPv-95 and SGM Din-1.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Creed
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Tyrannosaurus wins in terms of size, Brain size, and it's weapons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Jan 6 2013, 06:15 AM
theropod
Jan 6 2013, 05:35 AM
http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=10311
Quote:
 
Hutchinson contends that a caudal sweep of the ribs in tyrannosaurs is an assumption based on a presumption of minimal mass rather than anatomical fact. This posture has been well documented as standard for archosaurs and most other diapsids (2,3,5,10), being essentially universal in living crocodilians and birds, and the same in countless articulated fossil skeletons (as per Fig. 19 in [11], figs. 1,2,5 in [12]; fig. 1 in [13], Pls. 2-4,8,14B,15B,17-19 in [8], Pl. 24 in [14], figs. 14-1, 14-2 in [1]; occasional lack of caudal sweep is probably due to bloating of the carcass inflating its volume). So restoring Tyrannosaurus with the vertical or especially cranially swept ribs that will inflate the volume of the trunk is a markedly inferior hypothesis that lacks substantiation.


this is exactly what can be seen in hartmans skeletal:
Posted Image

Don´t tell me the model isn´t significantly bulkier than the skeletal reconstruction!

for further reading on the subject: http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=16371

Quote:
 
The far higher 9500 kg minimum for Sue is highly anomalous. It is at best very unusual for mass to vary by 50% in wild individuals whose dimensions differ by just a few percent. A comparison of their computer generated minimum volumetric model profile to my skeletal/muscle profile of Sue (see figure link below) shows that the volume of the trunk in their version is far greater than that of mine at least in part because of the incorrectly mounted ribs, and their tail is multiple times larger partly because of the enlarged caudal series. The overall impression is much too bloated for a predator that should be lithe compared to its prey.


Somehow it seems to me like the rib position does indeed make a significant difference...
Makes sense.
Hartman's drawing has a smaller ribcase volume. Due to the rib position.
It also has a shorter torso than the mount, I cannot tell whether it's more accurate or not.

Still, you are advocating a 2500-3500kg weight decrease. That's 50% to 63% of the torso mass, gone.
I think that's too extreme.
I don't have a problem with a average value of 8000kg or so. Although I believe it's more like 8000-9000kg range.
I agree with your assessment on relative weight, except I reserve my judgment on exactly how big MUCPv-95 and SGM Din-1.
OK

Greg Pauls models that he used to compare it too yielded very considerable weight decreases (even tough to extreme for me, I favour Hartmans estimate), and it is possible that due to the lungs and airsacks the downsized parts really constitute such a tremendous part of its weight. You are of course free to favour any weight estimate, you are also free to argue your opinion on the respective sizes of other theropods. It is just important to be informed about this and keep it in mind, which unfortunately isn´t the case with many people who have jsut read the newspaper articles without even knowing that Plos or its comment section exists.
Edited by theropod, Jan 6 2013, 06:38 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
LionTiger
Jan 6 2013, 06:31 AM
Tyrannosaurus wins in terms of size, Brain size, and it's weapons.
It probably has the size, weaponery is debatable and brain size is pretty irrelevant as long as the differences are not like, say, primate vs actinoperygian
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@theropod,
Mortimer estimate for DINO 2560 is the shortest there is, Hartman is not alone on the longish tail, Greg Paul also restores it that way and given how much of the tail is preserved I don't get Mortimers estimate if this is true:
Quote:
 
nearly complete skeleton (lacking caudal vertebra 1, chevrons, forearms, several pedal phalanges)
then I can't see how Hartman and Paul added 70cm out of nowhere to DINO's tail. I understand that you don't trust graphical scaling but "real" scaling from DINO will yield a skull only 1.12m long (probably to the occipital) for Saurophaganax. Big Al preserves almost nothing of the caudal vertebrae and Big Al two is currently undescribed (I could be wrong though), so them being the most complete doesn't matter in this if we can't know their length.

I also doubt that Big Al skull is 79cm long, Allosaurus supposedly has a femur/skull ratio of ~1.0, measuring Hartman's DINO and Big Al, both have a ratio of 1.01 (or 0.99, I don't know which comes first haha):

DINO = 88cm femur and 87cm skull
Big Al = 74cm femur and 73cm skull

The lengths of the femora match those from the Theropod Database, the skull doesn't but that might be because of different measurement method. If Big Al does have a 79cm skull, it would be a big headed individual but this claims that 79cm skull / 8m total length is for Big Al two. It seems this also supports DINO's total length at ~8.5m.

EDIT: Big Al does preserve caudal vertebrae, but only like the first and second.
EDIT 2: I think this is the source of the 7.5m for "Big Al" it's again for Big Al 2, which to my understanding its larger than Big Al.
Edited by blaze, Jan 6 2013, 08:20 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
very confusing

according to the museum it is housed at big al two is 7,6m long. it appearantly isn't as long tailed as DINO, you yourself provided a link with some nice pictures and I saw the specimen in person.

the skull/femur lenght thing might be due to inconsistent measurements. I have problems imagining the figures from the theropod database and the 2006 nasal paper to be made up. I'm also wondering why hartman is reconstructing big als tail differently when so little of it is known...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hartman's Big Al

It's based on Allosaurus specimens from the Cleveland-Loyd quarry and is evident if you scale his DINO and Big Al to the same head body length, or femur length that the tails are almost equal, which I didn't did when I used to claim that his Big Al had a shorter tail and I have to apologize for that, I went by looks and spread misinformation... So yeah, his Big Al could have a tail that's a bit too long, but even then is "only" ~7.2m long, head body length was some 3.5m.

I think from the Arizonasaurus case we can't confide in what Museums say, or even with Sue, making a 12.3m long mount but claiming it was 12.8m, even now that they've updated it they have 12.9m as the conversion of 40.5ft...

About Big Al two, the skeletal in the link I provided and the page which provides the link are actually conflicting, in the page it says 8m long and 2.4m tall at the hips, on the PDF it says 2.5m tall at the hips (but is supposed to be a conversion from 8ft which is ~2.4m) and it does say 7.6m long but by the looks of it it's from tip to tip which doesn't make it impossible that it was 7.9m along the curves (I just noticed that 8m was rounded up in the page), then again... I'm not fond of the skeletal... the skull does seem to scale to ~80cm roughly the claimed figure but the femur is ~97cm mmm, I think I spoke to soon, this is complicated!  :'(

Posted Image
Hartman's Big Al skull superimposed with the skull in "Rayfield et al. (2001) Cranial design and function in a large theropod dinosaur" to the same scale, because it says they based it on Big Al, said skull is ~79cm in greatest length but I think I saw that same reconstruction in Madsen (1976).

Also, I found something that might interest you for your skull reconstructions.
Edited by blaze, May 27 2015, 11:23 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
LionTiger
Jan 6 2013, 06:31 AM
Tyrannosaurus wins in terms of size, Brain size, and it's weapons.
Saurophaganax is the same size as Tyrannosaurus, and possibly even larger

Brain size is a non-factor

Saurophaganax has better weapons like the axe head mechanism and the slicing dentition, a crushing bite is not everything, and Saurophaganax has a high bite force as well. Saurophaganax has better weapons in overall
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
An axehead being better than a crushing bite is pure subjective opinion. Everyone has different tastes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.