| 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 (8,362 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.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| MysteryMeat | Apr 4 2013, 03:45 AM Post #16 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree. I was saying since it's so fragmentary, it is very uncertain. You either take the conservative approach or you regard them equally. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Apr 4 2013, 03:59 AM Post #17 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They're similar in size, but Giganotosaurus is bulkier/more robust, and would have an advantage... |
![]() |
|
| Monitor X | Apr 4 2013, 09:06 PM Post #18 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They are roughly similar, but Giganotosaurus does own some dimensions, bulk advantages. |
![]() |
|
| 7Alx | Apr 6 2013, 12:27 AM Post #19 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If the animal would be slightly bulkier, it doesn't mean that the bulk is its major advantage. People denied about Tyrannosaurus bulk as advantage against any theropod, but agree Giganotosaurus bulk is reason why it win against relatives. That's not fair. Still 50/50 in my opinion though. Edited by 7Alx, Apr 6 2013, 12:27 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 6 2013, 12:55 AM Post #20 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Bulk is not that much of an advantage, it makes you more durable, but also less mobile in exchange, and here both could kill each other with a good bite anyway. So it seems the femur-circumference-metod is BS (and imo the thickness of bones in general has to be regarded more carefully). Not only does it apparently generally give results that are too low, it definitely underestimates some more than others (Sue 5,6t, Acrocanthosaurus 2,4t-the lenght difference is freakin' 2,5-7%!-that's just impossible, same for Peck's Rex). Obviously, as I always remark, pneumaticity plays a major role here and not accounting for it is going to cause major inaccuracies. |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Apr 6 2013, 02:48 AM Post #21 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Bulk implies larger muscle cross section, thus more strength. It is an advantage here, although how much of one I don't know. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 6 2013, 05:14 AM Post #22 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But at equal weight not that much. And as an example, it has been demonstrated here often enough that rather slender, cursorial animals are not inferior to bulkier ones in terms of strenght. The strenght advantage would be minimal, and that is, it there was one. I'm not so sure whether a more slender fibula is evidence for a generally more slender animal. |
![]() |
|
| Taipan | Apr 6 2013, 08:23 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Yes, bulk or weight is a key advantage. Robust animals tend to dominate gracile ones in combat. And just because certain bones of two different species are similar in length it doesnt mean the two animals are close to weight parity. Hence I was not keen on creating this matchup especially given the the consistent lighter weights reported on the internet for Mapusaurus. |
![]() |
|
| 7Alx | Apr 7 2013, 08:15 PM Post #24 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This fight is not like strongman vs anorectic nor like Leopard vs Lion. Maybe Mapusaurus was probably slightly gracile, but not so gracile that Giganotosaurus bulk would determine who will win. &Taipan Giganotosaurus weight estimates like 6.5-8 tonnes and Mapusaurus weight estimates like 3 tonnes were not based on the same method. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Apr 7 2013, 08:38 PM Post #25 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, in the case of Tyrannosaurus vs other theropods, bulk is only one factor, there are many more and there are factors that would have mattered more than it. As for Giganotosaurus vs Mapusaurus, the creatures are so similar that a difference in attributes can tip the scales, even if only slightly. If you pit Giganotosaurus against Mapusaurus, 5000 times, for example, the Giganotosaurus may win slightly more than 2500 battles, and the Mapusaurus may win slightly less than 2500 battles. |
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Apr 9 2013, 03:10 AM Post #26 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Two of the most derived carcharodontosaurines of roughly the same size. Also I personally think Mapusaurus might be slightly larger dimensionally, a bigger mouth might provide minor advantage. Mapu 52/100 Edited by MysteryMeat, Apr 9 2013, 03:12 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 12 2013, 07:01 PM Post #27 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, consistent reported lighter estimates, all cited from the same single estimate, based on an unreliable and very conservative metodology (it underestimates other animals as well, you'd know that if you'd read some of the posts in this thread) AND for a specimen considerably smaller than the maximum size of Mapusaurus roseae. And what is absolutely missing from the whole argument is how much bulkier Giganotosaurus really was, because merely a smaller femur circumference (in a specimen that was also generally smaller) doesn't seem to be good evidence. |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Apr 12 2013, 09:37 PM Post #28 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Would a method that systematically under-estimates theropods not be ok to use anyway so long as you compare to other estimates from that method? E.g. are there estimates for Giganotosaurus or at least a specimen of Tyrannosaurus obtained through that method? If Ville Sinkkonen's skeletal is correct, then Mapusaurus does indeed appear rather gracile. Although it should be noted the scale bar is clearly for a rather small individual, perhaps even for the small specimen that was estimated at 3 tonnes. At equal lengths:
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 12 2013, 11:52 PM Post #29 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
to cite 7Alx:
So sue is about 2 and 1/3 times the weight of the largest Acrocanthosaurus, and that at a weight estimate of only 5,6t? Seems hard to imagine, not to say impossible. |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Apr 13 2013, 08:20 PM Post #30 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ok, so if the figures on the Theropod Database are right, this 3 tonne specimen was ~91.5% the linear dimensions of the Giganotosaurus holotype, or about 11.3 meters long (so yes, 3 tonnes sounds extremely light even if it was built like Ville Sinkkonen portrays). The largest Mapusaurus is 10% larger than the Giganotosaurus holotype, or ~13.6 meters long. So maybe 5.2 tonnes based on this seemingly un-reliable method. Though I wouldn't put any weight on this estimate. There are ribs known from Mapusaurus, so I don't think Sinkkonen would be too far off the mark with his reconstruction. Anyway, I took the liberty of scaling Sinkkonen's Mapusaurus to a length 10% greater than Scott Hartman's Giganotosaurus (well, 9% to account for the differing pose) and did a bit of bodging to get them into the same leg stance. If Mapusaurus was proportioned like the skeletal, I think I would still favour Giganotosaurus myself.
Edited by Spinodontosaurus, Apr 13 2013, 08:21 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 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