Comments (Page 428)
Latest comments by Jurassic World fans on news, forum discussions and images!
The evidence ? The manuscript they wrote for the first version of the paper, and the fact they're going to publish it. You're really not honest there. Damn, I ask to the authors and the guy is still arguing... Unless "carnosaur from jurassicworldnews" suggests that Andrea Cau and Simone Maganuco are idiotic douchebags and liars ?
The two were certainly comparable. On average, I'd say they reached comparable adult weights(Giga may have been slightly longer on average). Both probably averaged around 12-13 meters long and 6-8 tons with some giants exceeding that size. I'd say T.rex was slightly heavier, but Giga was slightly longer.
Smaller than Sue with a single toebone so much larger ? I know that we hve to be cautious while using small body parts as basis, but smaller than Sue with a such massive bone is just as extreme as the isometric estimates you see everywhere on the internet.
The first specimen is almost as large as Sue and is larger than Giganotosaurus holotype.
MUCPv-95 size estimate is also subject to the same problematics than the one you suggest for the fragmentary large T. rex individuals and 13 m or so is not a necessary figure either. it could be also similar in size to Giga's holotype.
So all in all, both a quite similar but Tyrannosaurus, yes due to a sampling bias, has sligth edge.
Sue does not represent an exceptionnal specimen, Scotty is very large too and Holtz said that larger T. rex may very well have existed. That's just a large T. rex as far as we can tell.
Yes irrelevant in that it contradicts yourself, the shorter beast around is the heaviest (anaconda/T. rex). There's no hole here.
I don't see what the semi-aquatic statement does here, let the data speaks : Spinosaurus is estimated no heavier and likely lighter than the largest Tyrannosaurus specimens.
Cau's expertise is not the problem, only he mentionned his conversation with Maganuco.
Maganuco just responded me this morning through FB. You just have to ask him.
And he told that the figure was in the early manuscript and will be used and discussed in further papers. So you stop crying at me and you ask yourself to the guys.
My point about P. funkei is that I was aware of the downsizing one year before the publication, because I had discussed with the describers (Knutsen and Druckenmiller).
Now I know what estimate Ibrahim et al. have found for Spinosaurus before it is even properly published.
Why I call you biased ? But because you keep insisting despite that I give you quotes from the guys working on Spinosaurus material themselves, and that you keep using a 11 tons estimate that isn't even published nowhere. So much for someone asking for peer-reviewed data all the time.
Sue-sized isn't the worst. It may have also been smaller than Sue. I see Sue as a very large specimen. We first discovered T.rex over 100 years ago, and the largest we found in a such quantity of years - Sue - must be considered very large.
MOR008 is smaller than Sue, its skull was actually 1.39 m long.
However, you missed my point. Only one or two T.rex exceeded Giganotosaurus size, while the other are just as big or smaller. It's likely that both the taxon reached a similar size.
Huu Amphicoelias is a long lost bone known by an old incomplete drawing.
UCMP is an actual bone in collection researchers have access too.
If UCMP at worst suggested a Sue-sized beast it means :
-bigger than MUCPv-95
-that Sue does not represent an exceptionnal individual (Scotty is considered bigger by Campione 2014 and Carnegie is almost as large).
For MOR008 it depends if you consider the size of the skull accurate but even at a lower 1.4 m, it suggests something bigger than the Giga holotype.
MOR008 is smaller than Sue.
The famous UCMP is even more fragmentary than MUPCv-95. By a comparison, Amphicoelias is know from better remains. When you scale UCMP from Stan, it would end up not bigger than Sue.
I dont use the mediatic estimates.
All the figures for these unpublished or not totally published specimens (Celeste is cited in Peter Larson's book) come from the paleontologists words and from the actual measurements of the material.
The giant toebone is real and a published measurement is known, there's no mediatic speculation in that.
Also, I refer to other quite complete T. rex specimens other than Sue, which are larger than Giga's holotype and for some as large or larger than Sue (Scotty, perhaps MOR 008) so larger than MUCPv-95 (weight wise of course).
If you think that we should consider even undescribed animals, well, let's take in account Das Monster Von Minden, wich is considered to be 15 m long. Most the information about undescribed animals come from media, wich aren't reliable.
I have no problem with MUPCv-95 at 13 m or slightly more.
Parcimony would exclude however than this specimen was smaller-jawed.
Scotty is considered bigger than Sue by Campione et al. 2014.
Carnegie is almost as big as Sue and slightly larger than the holotype Giga.
I dont think that it is fair to ignore the several not (yet) published T. rex individuals. The without a doubt exist and exhibit for some large features.
The uncertainties in them for size estimates are just the same than for MUCPv-95. Even including the huge toebone (I dont see why it would be something else than a very large or big-footed T. rex).
Fragmentary, Sue-sized or bigger T.rex are definitely more doubtful than MUPCv-95, for the motivations I stated above. MUPCv-95 may simply had a proportionally bigger jaw, but what about a proportionally smaller jaw? Assuming that its jaw was proportionally bigger is as likely as assuming that it was proportionally smaller. Given that it's fragmentary, a good rough figure would be 12-13 m.
Now I say the two super predators were the sane size. Though the giga specimens are not complete at all so we can't compare it to a mostly complete t.rex.
Gigadino,
Yes but if you exclude the fragmentary possibly Sue-sized or larger T. rex individuals, my point is that you can exclude too the dentary from the second Gigantosaurus which is a small fragment suggesting various possible estimates.
We can found new larger individuals but we can found new larger T. rex individuals too, Tom Holtz explains it well here :
But really if we take all the optimistic possibilities as of now, Sue is slightly larger than the largest Giganotosaurus and there are several compkete T. rex individuals as heavy as the second Giganotosaurus and several T. rex specimens as large as Sue and possibly larger.
Unless we found tomorrow a 14 m Giga, T. rex seems slightly the bigger guy.
I would say they were around the same size too, but I think Giganotosaurus was slightly bigger.
My point was that max. size isn't the only one wich must be take in account.
Larger than Sue thing isn't what I call a likely and verified thing. MOR008 isn't even larger, UMCP 137538, if scaled from Sue, is 47 feet long, but the answer is - is that a T.rex? Even if it was, when scaled from Stan, it's around as big as Sue. It looks like that C-rex's size was just guessed by Horner, and UCMP 118742 is already an adult, according to Theropod Database.
We do not have nearly enough giga specimens to assume which is bigger. And as others have previously stated, Waldo is not. Good example since he is an outlier compared to the rest of the world. While large t.rex specimens are only a bit larger.
Robert Wadlow is a bad example as his height was due to a bone disease. You should more likely use Angus McCaskill as example who was a normal, healthy, giant Homo sapiens.
For now, comparing T. rex and Giga is a matter of specimens to specimens but some points :
- the dentary from the second Giga is a small fragment which suggests, or does not suggest, a larger individual than the holotype. Depending of the intraspecific proportions.
- if we take into account this small dentary from Giganotosaurus, we can take into accounts the fragmentary T. rex remains which suggests individuals as large or maybe larger than Sue.
- Sue might be the biggest T. rex, but several quite complete specimens are almost as big. The holotype Carnegie specimen is estimated almost as large as Sue. Campione et al. 2014 considers Scotty to be slightly larger (heavier) than Sue.
So, using parcimony, I think the edge is still for Tyrannosaurus, for now.
You've made good points. Although I see your line of thinking, I wouldn't think the last comparition very reliable. The biggest specimens of T.rex aren't giants compared to the others, but they're simply bigger. A fitter comparison would be between normal persons: some can be skinny, fat, taller, shorter... of course not all of the individuals are the same size. And I get it. A reasonable medium estimate for Tyrannosaurus would be 6.5-7 tons, based on the many, many specimens we have discovered. But as you stated, it's a totally different thing when it comes to Giganotosaurus. The skeletons we have are not complete enough to give us a better estimation like in Tyrannosaurus. I think it's just not the best thing to compare these two, exactly because of the fragmentary state of the latter's founds.
Actually, Carcharodontosaurus' lenght is a bit off. The largest specimen has never been officially estimated (besides Terrier & Henderson, but that study was criticized a lot), but, if it was big-headed like Giganotosaurus, he was around to 12-13 m. Even assuming that it was small-headed, a thing that I find unlikely, it still won't reach that lenght (at least the upper bound).
KOM - Very interesting! Thank you very much for sharing this with us! It's extremely neat that you received a reply! :)
GIGADINO - I see - how very neat! Thank you ever so much for clarifying that bit of information for me; it helps substantially with a gap in my knowledge! :)
Thank you, Kom. That confirms what I wrote in the OP.
Chilantaisaurus is enigmatic because, besides the fact it's fragmentary, it often changed its family.
I've got a response from Maganuco just this morning through FB :
thanks for your message! I can say that the body mass estimate for the reconstructed adult Spinosaurus is between 6 and 7 tons. It was written and discussed in the first version of the manuscript, but not included in the very trimmed final version. It will be included in the next more detailed papers. Have a nice weekend, Simone
Just confirming what I report.
That was already said on Andrea Cau's blog, that's sad that I have to contact one of the authors of the study.
This puts Spinosaurus third on the list of the heaviest theropods.
Just got a response of Simone Maganuco (thanks Facebook).
thanks for your message! I can say that the body mass estimate for the reconstructed adult Spinosaurus is between 6 and 7 tons. It was written and discussed in the first version of the manuscript, but not included in the very trimmed final version. It will be included in the next more detailed papers. Have a nice weekend, Simone
Fair enough. Your list has to be revised. And that's no problem because the remaining part is perfect with the actual data. You were just wrong with Spinosaurus.
KOM - The information you've provided is quite interesting. I greatly enjoy the depths to which you've gone to support your claims. However, please - I implore you - don't completely discount the theories of others. Stating that something is absolutely not possible with regards to an extinct life form about which we know so very little undercuts the scientific process of hypothesis. We should share our views and collaborate in thought provoking discourse, not attempt to one-up each other and show absolute preclusion of one-another's theories.
Regardless, I greatly look forward to seeing the reply from Ibrahim! That should be quite compelling! :)
Ibrahim said that Spinosaurus was no heavier than Tyrannosaurus.
Ibrahim weighed in, emailing to say, “Weight estimates are very tricky. Spino is longer, but more elongate and slender overall, so weight probably quite similar” to T. rex.
Andrea Cau (one of the world foremost theropod research expert) through a personnal communication with Simone Maganuco, one of the authors, know that they estimated it at 6-7 tons. Indeed that's at best no heavier than Tyrannosaurus.
Tom Holtz agreed through a discussion regarding the publication that Spino was lighter than the largest carcharodontosaurids and tyrannosaurids. He even posted sarcastically and anecdotically that T. rex would have won (on land) against Spino.
But you know what, I'll reach Ibrahim and I'll perform a screenshot of the mail. Prepare to cry.
Cau cites a personal communication with Simone Maganuco (spelling?) for the 6-7 tonnes claim, he is one of the authors of the new paper on Spinosaurus, given how they estimated the center of mass of spinosaurus using their 3d model they also have to have obtained a weight estimate, they didn't decide to include it in the paper for who knows what reasons.
Yes, for some reasons they did not include in it, but still, it's from the author himself, and still Maganuco 3D estimates>guesswork of carnosaur member from jurassicworld.forum.
When I need a data, instead of making my own facts, I ask directly to the authors through email and I often get not yet-published material. I had done it with Predator X/Pliosaurus funkei, after having contacted the guys working on it I knew a long before the publication that this reptile was not 15 m long, but at most 12 m.
So if Andrea Cau's (one of the most renamed theropod expert in the world) communication with Simone Maganuco, one of the authors of the papers, are saying their estimate is 6-7 tonnes, sorry but that's way more solid than your guessestimate.
Well, that negates your claim it was less heavy then tyrannosaurus. Try again. any way, the chicago tribune isn't what i'd call a credible source. it's a newspaper for cryin' out loud.
That merely negates your claim of Spinosaurus being the heaviest around. A T. rex can still be 6-7 tons and that Tyrannosaurus probably reach larger weights ofmore than 8 tonnes (Hartman 2013, Hutchinson 2011, Campione 2014), the disparity here between Spino and T. rex is less pronunced than your estimates.
We don't care about the source, the quote is from Ibrahim himself, no matter what was the media report. And again if you have doubts, ask directly to Ibrahim. Unless you fear to know the response.
The ribcage of E. mucirinus is shallow and elongated, and yet is the worlds heaviest snake. Heavier, in fact, then the reticulated python and Burmese python at equal lengths.
That's irrelevant.
Spinosaurus here is the reticulated python (longer, more slender) and Tyrannosaurus is the anaconda (shorter, bulkier).
See, the thing is you've said this multiple times. And yet, provide no evidence to support your claims. please present me with a peer reviewed paper supporting the downsizing of S. aegyptiacus. not a newspaper article, not a rambling blog post that doesn't list its sources, a concrete, air-tight scientific paper. until then, your posts are laughable and stink of bias.
Ys and I'll post it again if needed.
Yes, I've provided links and evidences from the authors themselves.
Also, why don't you bring evidences from the authors that Spinosaurus was 11 tons ? Why don't you bring evidences of 11 tons as peer reviewed figure ? That's odd from a person who always want peer-reviewed papers as sources.
Also, I've discussed this Tom Holtz too, he agrees that Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus are most likely heavier than Spinosaurus by 1-2 tons. Once again, just ask directly.
There's no peer reviewed paper yet about it, but unpublished (yet ?) data and personnal. communication. Just damn ask to the authors.
No, you're biased, because you're one of these numerous guys on the internet who improved themselves ultimate specialists and that you reject sources from the paleontologists having studied it themselves. I don't appreciate that kind of people without one ounce of humility.
So if you're rally objective, just ask to the authors. If they tell you, eiter Ibrahim, Maganuco, Dal Sasso, Sereno or even Cau, that Spinosaurus was 11 tons, like you keep arguing, I'll have no problem with that, I'm not biased.
I've a long time considered Spinosaurud being the biggest guy based on the older reconstructions and data (Dal Sasso 2005, Therrien 2007, Hartman 2013), but given the new reconstruction and data shared between Cau and Maganuco (6-7 tons) I don't believe in it anymore, because the experts themselves don't believe this anymore.
So bring up an evidence from them, and we can talk.
Maganuco personnally told to Andre Cau the 3D model of the new reconstruction of Spinosaurus, at adult size, is about 6-7 tonnes.
Cau cites a personal communication with Simone Maganuco (spelling?) for the 6-7 tonnes claim, he is one of the authors of the new paper on Spinosaurus, given how they estimated the center of mass of spinosaurus using their 3d model they also have to have obtained a weight estimate, they didn't decide to include it in the paper for who knows what reasons.
“Weight estimates are very tricky. Spino is longer, but more elongate and slender overall, so weight probably quite similar” to T. rex."
Well, that negates your claim it was less heavy then tyrannosaurus. Try again. any way, the chicago tribune isn't what i'd call a credible source. it's a newspaper for cryin' out loud..
And looking at the skeletal, it is obvious that Spinosaurus is not as heavy as you suggest, the torso is shallow and not especially wide, the skull is long but extremely narrow.
The ribcage of E. mucirinus is shallow and elongated, and yet is the worlds heaviest snake. Heavier, in fact, then the reticulated python and Burmese python at equal lengths.
In anycase, it is HIGHLY unlikely that Spinosaurus was as heavy as you imply. The bone density just change nothing to its slender build.
See, the thing is you've said this multiple times. And yet, provide no evidence to support your claims. please present me with a peer reviewed paper supporting the downsizing of S. aegyptiacus. not a newspaper article, not a rambling blog post that doesn't list its sources, a concrete, air-tight scientific paper. until then, your posts are laughable and stink of bias.
for Spinosaurus since the authors of the publication THEMSELVES reject this, and have estimated Spinosaurus at 6-7 tonnes using digital model
Hey Kom, do us a favor and post this? ibrahim et. al never stated a weight reduction, nor does hartman. If you have some info none of are known to possess, i'd love to see it.
True, but Old Spino could do the same. Old Spino, being more similar to T-Rex, could deal more damage quicker. New Spino's claws being on the ground, helping him, and Old Spino's claws being in the air, ready to strike could deal faster. As New Spino is dragging him in the water, he could slash him and, again, making him let go.
most likely they would have occupied different niches, hunted different prey. Gorgosaurus is more albertosaurine in build, its legs are elongated and its teeth are less "railroad spike- esque" then the dentition of Das.(and in turn tyrannosaurus)
Albertosaurus is thought to have hunted hadrosaurs and the like in its environment, and an animal like gorgosaurusis safely assumed to do the same.
Daspletosaurus is a more heavily built creature, possibly the predessescor of T. rex. This can be seen in its overall body morphology and dentition -- which is more of the characteristic "D shape" in its crossections. with this, we can assume that it went after the ceratopsians and ankylosaurs.
But, there surely would have been a cross over in dietary preferences. Just because an animal is specialized in feeding on one particular group of animals, doesns't mean they're limited to them
Actually there is no true evidence to say it was 6 to 7 tons and if you could show some evidence to, that would be great. And I say it was about 10 tons on average.
CARNOSAUR - Thank you ever so much! That information is exactly what I was looking for! :)
GIGADINO - Excellent! Out of curiosity, why do you call the animal enigmatic? :)
Damn, why there are still people keeping with their 11 tonnes estimate for Spinosaurus since the authors of the publication THEMSELVES reject this, and have estimated Spinosaurus at 6-7 tonnes using digital model ?
People are really unable to perform a slight research and display humility rather than always playing the ultimate experts ?
Found one paleo-authority who at now agrees on a 11 tons Spino. You'll search for a while...
True, but New Spino is smaller, and could ambush (slightly) better, and it could swim faster. It could swim up and attack the Old Spino like a crocodile. (I understand the sail would've been a disdvantage, but Old Spino could be angered by this if it was Old Spino's territory)
Daspletosaurus is also my second favorite tyrannosaur(and forth favorite dinosaur overall).
Anyways, I see the sleeker/faster Gorgosaurus running down the nimble hadrosaurs while Daspletosaurus took on heavily armed ceratopsians and ankylosaurs. Of course the two would crossover from time to time, but not too much.
Carnosaur, no, you need probably to revise your list.
Maganuco personnally told to Andre Cau the 3D model of the new reconstruction of Spinosaurus, at adult size, is about 6-7 tonnes.
Here : http://theropoda.blogspot.fr/2014/09/spinosaurus-revolution-final-episode.html
Nizar Ibrahim told that Spinosaurus was longer but just as heavy as Tyrannosaurus.
"Ibrahim weighed in, emailing to say, “Weight estimates are very tricky. Spino is longer, but more elongate and slender overall, so weight probably quite similar” to T. rex."
Please, pay attention to all the data and paleo-blog informations.
And looking at the skeletal, it is obvious that Spinosaurus is not as heavy as you suggest, the torso is shallow and not especially wide, the skull is long but extremely narrow.
T. rex is much more barrel-chested, with very large hindlimbs, the largest of any theropod, a much heavier head and neck...
In anycase, it is HIGHLY unlikely that Spinosaurus was as heavy as you imply. The bone density just change nothing to its slender build.
