| 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: |
| Giganotosaurus carolinii v Mapusaurus roseae | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 1 2013, 04:14 PM (8,361 Views) | |
| Taipan | Apr 1 2013, 04:14 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Giganotosaurus carolinii Giganotosaurus ("giant southern lizard"), was a carcharodontosaurid dinosaur that lived 93 to 89 million years ago during the Turonian stage of the Late Cretaceous period. It is one of the longest known terrestrial carnivores, bigger than Tyrannosaurus, but in length and weight, smaller than Spinosaurus. Although longer than T. rex, G. carolinii was lighter and had a much smaller braincase that was the size and shape of a banana. A well-developed olfactory region means it probably had a good sense of smell. Titanosaur fossils have been recovered near the remains of Giganotosaurus, leading to speculation that these carnivores may have preyed on the giant herbivores. Fossils of related carcharodontosaurid fossils grouped closely together may indicate pack hunting, a behavior that could possibly extend to Giganotosaurus itself. he holotype specimen's (MUCPv-Ch1) skeleton was about 70% complete and included parts of the skull, a lower jaw, pelvis, hindlimbs and most of the backbone. The premaxillae, jugals, quadratojugals, the back of the lower jaws and the forelimbs are missing. Various estimates find that it measured somewhere between 12.2 and 13 m (40 and 43 ft) in length, and between 6.5 and 13.3 tons in weight. A second, more fragmentary, specimen (MUCPv-95) has also been identified, found in 1987 by Jorge Calvo. It is only known from the front part of the left dentary which is 8% larger than the equivalent bone from the holotype. This largest Giganotosaurus specimen is estimated to represent an individual with a skull length of 195 cm (6.40 ft), compared to the holotype's estimated at 1.80 m (5.9 ft) skull, making it likely that Giganotosaurus had the largest skull of any known theropod. Giganotosaurus surpassed Tyrannosaurus in mass by at least half a ton (the upper size estimate for T. rex is 9.1 t). Additionally several single teeth, discovered from 1987 onwards, have been referred to the species. ![]() Mapusaurus roseae Mapusaurus ('earth lizard') was a giant carnosaurian dinosaur from the early Late Cretaceous (Cenomanian stage) of what is now Argentina. It was similar in size to its close relative Giganotosaurus, with the largest known individuals estimated as over 12.6 metres (41 ft) in length* and weight estimates of approximately 3 metric tons to 5.5 metric tons. Mapusaurus was excavated between 1997 and 2001, by the Argentinian-Canadian Dinosaur Project, from an exposure of the Huincul Formation (Rio Limay Group, Cenomanian) at Canadon de Gato. It was described and named by paleontologists Rodolfo Coria and Phil Currie in 2006. The fossil remains of Mapusaurus were discovered in a bone bed containing at least seven individuals of various growth stages. Coria and Currie speculated that this may represent a long term, possibly coincidental accumulation of carcasses (some sort of predator trap) and may provide clues about Mapusaurus behavior. Other known theropod bone beds include the Allosaurus-dominated Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry of Utah, an Albertosaurus bone bed from Alberta and a Daspletosaurus bone bed from Montana. ![]() ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Edited by Taipan, Dec 31 2016, 12:22 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 7Alx | Apr 1 2013, 06:06 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Like i said earlier 50/50. Either would win. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 1 2013, 06:18 PM Post #3 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^I agree, it appears they were very similar in most regards. I'd say we should use the lower range because we don't know how elongate the 10,2m estimate is. SECOND EDIT: confused the specimens, but 3t for an animal with a 1,3m femur is far too low by any measure, especially if it is not underestimated in terms of lenght. That's like stating T. rex was that weight... Edited by theropod, Apr 1 2013, 11:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 7Alx | Apr 1 2013, 06:31 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nope. 130 cm femur is for MCF-PVPH-108.234 and the 10.2 m is estimate for MCF-PVPH-108.203. I doubt that these specimens were one individual.
Edited by 7Alx, Apr 1 2013, 06:34 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 1 2013, 07:48 PM Post #5 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I tought the weigth estimate was for the same individual, thanks for correcting me. Anyway, if this is meant to be a larger individual it is an extremely low weight figure... |
![]() |
|
| 7Alx | Apr 2 2013, 12:45 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Femur circumference, that's why the weight estimate is that low. |
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Apr 2 2013, 01:40 AM Post #7 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In the paper, they mentioned the largest individual was represented by a partial pubis that is about 10% larger than Giga holotype. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 2 2013, 02:48 AM Post #8 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The femur circumference is only 16% smaller than in FMNH PR 2080 , not to mention its unlikely to be as pneumatised as sue... |
![]() |
|
| DarkGricer | Apr 2 2013, 03:48 AM Post #9 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hmmm... I've heard that Mapusaurus, while around the same length, was a more gracile creature. If that is the case, I think Giganotosaurus should take this 60% of the time. |
![]() |
|
| 7Alx | Apr 2 2013, 05:13 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
FMNH PR 2081 580 mm; 5600 kg MCF-PVPH-108.234 455 mm; 3000 kg Anyway i don't trust this method. Based on this method MOR 980 a.k.a Peck's rex (490 mm) would be barely 3.5 tonnes. Same with Acrocanthosaurus weighting only 2.4 tonnes. This method really underestimates animals with proportionally thinner femur compared to body, even specimens from the same genus. eeehh... I don't image Sue being >60 % heavier than MOR 980. |
![]() |
|
| Carcharadon | Apr 2 2013, 06:06 AM Post #11 |
![]()
Shark Toothed Reptile
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's practically a 50/50.
Edited by Carcharadon, Mar 8 2014, 12:53 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Big G | Apr 3 2013, 05:40 AM Post #12 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, my request! Giganotosaurus=13 m Mapusaurus=12.5 m My choose=I do not know. The two animals had virtually the same size and the same weight. Perhaps the Giganotosaurus would win, but I'm not sure. I would say a 55/100 in favor of the Giganotosaurus. |
![]() |
|
| Temnospondyl | Apr 3 2013, 09:30 PM Post #13 |
|
Stegocephalia specialist.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Draw!?
|
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Apr 4 2013, 02:09 AM Post #14 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, Mapusaurus is just as big, if not larger than Giga. The second dentary of giga is slightly larger than holotype, while Mapusaurus has pubic elements 10% larger. So if you think MUCPv-95 is larger, then by same logic, you should regard Mapusaurus to be 10% larger. Slight advantage Mapusaurus? |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Apr 4 2013, 03:01 AM Post #15 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Is that a good measure to compare? minimum pubis shaft dimensions that are 10% larger than in Giganotosaurus, how much of that couldn't be attributed to generic variation? or even intraspecific variation? we're talking about 7.5 by 10cm compared to 6.8 x 9cm. We don't know much about Mapusaurus built, but it might be more slender, for example, the big Mapusaurus fibula, 103% the length of Giganotosaurus is only 81% and 89% its size in shaft and distal width respectively. And I said might because some individuals show comparable or bigger differences between the length/width of the right and left limb bones. The safer thing will be to say they're equal in size. Edited by blaze, Apr 4 2013, 03:02 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 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 |
2:27 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)










![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)

2:27 AM Jul 14