Comments (Page 427)

Copy the link in your adress bar, it works.

MUPCv-ch1 was likely outsized by MUPCv-95, wich is 7-8 t (as it's 2,2-6,5 % larger), so it ouweighted some T.rex specimens.

Where have I said something about anaconda's chest ?

I say that Spinosaurus is more slender built theropod than Tyrannosaurus and large carcharodontosaurids. The lifestyle has nothing to do here.

Cau is in close relation with Ibrahim et al. mos of the team is Italian like him and he has long time hinted about the material and data in the new study. Plus, I've given you the statement of Maganuco about their body mass estimate for Spinosaurus. So give me a break.

http://zupimages.net/viewer.php?id=14/46/lu9r.png

My word is not very good ? I'm not a native English speaker, thanks.

how does the lion/croc not work, huh explain that and don't be a jerk. Stop beating around the bush and give me some legit evidence go once.

Guys, lets not get agressive here, ok?

Does it work ?

http://www.zupimages.net/viewer.php?id=14/46/lu9r.png

Link to the Screenshot.

*Links fixed by Svanya. 

Insults ? No, sarcasm. I deeply dislike to have my honesty and objectivity put in question in that way. 

How do I post a pic on this forum, i've tried in the other thread and it doesn't work.

Gigadino, yes, and how much are estimated to weigh each of these individuals ?

http://carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8704127&t=9327489

CM9380 is heavier than Giga's holotype.

Note that MUCPv-95 is not listed, presumably because it's a small fragmentary based specimen.

Agreed with the remaining part, that's why I don't say Tyrannosaurus is the biggest, I give it a slight edge given the available data. But several specimens appear heavier than the larger Giga specimen and even more are heaver than Giga's holotype.

You like it?

Sounds interesting.

Carnosaur, you genius, I don't take Chicago tribune as evidence, but the quote from Nizar Ibrahim as evidence. Wake up.

They've not published the early manuscript and they'll use it in another paper about Spinosaurus. 

Spinosaurus rex, genius, are you aware of Facebook ? I've precised that I had contacted him through FB. Can you at least properly read my messages ?

You need a screenshot of the conversation maybe ? Incredible, just incredible...

All the 30 specimens are all estimated to be between 10 (B-rex) and 12 (Stan) meters long. Only large specimens exceeded 12 m.

It's the fourth (fifth?) time that you repeat that Scotty is larger; I've understood, but you are giving a slighty edge based on a few specimens, wich are the biggest. Based on know specimens, both the taxa reached a equal size. We can say that T.rex has the largest confirmed size, even by a slighty margin, but only a few specimens reached that size - most of them are actually as big or smaller.

Therrien data is regarded as fairly outdated since a while, they used a carnosaurian-shaped Spinosaurus for their model and using the length of the skull only ! So much for the more reliable method compared to the 3 D models.

The semiaquatic nature changes nothing in that Spinosaurus is slender built, with a shallow torso and that the authors of the new reconstructions have estimated a body mass of 6 to 7 metric tons. That's irrelevant. Because an anaconda is semiaquatic it has to be necessarily heavier than any land animal ?

I've rarely read an analogy as poor as lion/croc to explain the body mass dynamics of Spinosaurus and T. rex...

Stop feeling insecure because I threaten your biased positions and if anything you ask directly to the Ibrahim et al. You guys are incredible. I give you the estimates of the guys working on Spinosaurus material since years but you keep arguing.

Another large T.rex specimen is one nicknamed King Kong. It's an estimated 12 meters in length.

It is wrong to ignore larger the due specimens just because they are not trusted. P.s carnosaur, kom, and giga Go check the largest theropod thread.

Gigadino, yes MUCPv-95, being more documented, is naturally taken into account more than the fragmentary, not yet pubished Tyrannosaurus specimens.

But that's not always the case : http://carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8704127&t=9327489

You see that Scotty here is stated bigger than Sue and CM9380 is bigger than Giga's holotype. 

This clearly suggests a slight edge for Tyrannosaurus.

How do you know that only 2-3 specimens on 30 specimens are larger ? Have you all the data about the 30 specimens individually ?

Carnosaur is not biased. And I would like you to provide legit evidence as to why you say spino and rex are Raquel in weight when clearly spino is heavier due to its semiquatic nature which means the water would support the weight. Think of it as a crocodile and lion. The spino is the croc and rex is the lion. The lion is bulkier than the croc but the croc is a lot heavier due to its aquatic nature. rex and spino would be no different. Tabs don't trust only 3d models because they are highly unreliable, just like media sources.

Actually, ghe only point against MUPCv-95 being larger is a proportionally larger jaw. T.rex's large specimens are even less reliable, for the motivations I've already stated. 

Kom, most of the paleontologist - like Holtz - usually take in account MUPCv-95, while ignoring larger-than-Sue specimens. That slight edge you're talking about is the size of largest Tyrannosaurus, wich are 2-3; most of the specimens aren't bigger at all, so, if only 2-3 specimens of over 30 specimens are larger, the size must be about the same. 

Any fool can type out a paragraph and put it in italics, which would be very foolish.

Where the hell do you get the notion that we are supposed to believe you actually talked to this guy, let alone even having his email address? It seems youve came here to cause trouble and call people out, so i suggest you stop what your doing or suffer the consequences.

Yeah, that makes no sense.

After looking through the specimen list for T.rex on the Theropod Database, I've concluded that they give ridiculously strange sizes. For example...

Stan is listed at 12.4 meters long and 3.7 tons

Sue is listed at 12.8 meters long and 5.654 tons

AMNH 5027 is listed at 12.4 meters long and 5.7 tons

MOR 008 is listed at 13.8 meters long and no weight is given

Here's the link...

http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Tyrannosauroidea.html#Tyrannosaurusrex

Yeah, uh, I don't get it.

Peter Larson told me in an email that Stan was quite large actually(at over 12 meters long), while Wikipedia says it was much smaller(10.9 meters). Stan seems hard to read(if that makes sense). The holotype was 11.9 meters long, Scotty is 12 meters long, MOR 008 was 12 meters(according to Carnosaur), and AMNH 5027/Wankel Rex are both about 11.6 meters long.

From Campione et al. 2014,

RSM P2523.8 is Scotty.

http://zupimages.net/up/14/46/73n5.png

Compared with other large theropods body mass data :

http://zupimages.net/up/14/46/vlbb.png

You understand why I give a slight edge to Tyrannosaurus, even if it's more a matter of specimens compared with specimens rather than species with species.

Note that MUCPv-95 has not been used in that least, presumably because it's a very fragmentary specimen, so less reliable.

Scotty was certainly a big one(at least comparable to Sue)...

That's why I think UCMP is something possibly similar to Sue, not necessarily larger, nor smaller.

Scotty is possibly bigger than Sue.

I agree with Carnosaur. It's not that it's impossible, but a more complete skeleton would certainly be nice. Only one specimen in my opinion has a good chance of being bigger than Sue and that's Celeste(even that one has some mystery around it).

Huu man, I don't have the manuscript, this is Ibrahim et al. property and I'm not gonna ask them, especially if they use it for a new paper as said by Maganuco.