Comments (Page 729)

I prefer the movie. The book was pretty good though.

Interesting, i didn't know the rex holotype was that large...

And guys, i think if we keep cool, and don't flip shit on what others post, we can have a pretty calm and collected debate. Ain't no need for the hostility!

I'm alsow with Paden on this one.

Nice find.

I know, you always seize your oppurtunity to use that picture. I wouldn't be surprised if it was your desktop picture...

You got that right, haha

You really like that picture, don't you?

Good start so far.

Not Again...

that method would make all of them look fat though, i've read the paper extensively. A lot of unnecessary tissue going on there..

Though Greg Paul's estimations and skeletals are shrinkwrapped; these two estimation methods are at ends of two extremes. From that, is where i get my estimations and what not.

Yep. That's why I can't even look at a Rex vs Spino without cringing, wondering if something is going to happen, but damn I'm ready of it does. 

Forgot to say this earlier, but it is an interesting method. 

I'm with Paden on this one, though it would be cool to see him.

Nice start. Looking forward to seeing what else happens.

BTW, just because a method is new, does not mean it's bad. If that's how T.rex was built, with more musle and fat than first realized, then that's how it was built. 

MrHappy, believe me, I try to stay calm. It's not necessarily Acro. It's just that I(and you too) have put up with a lot of crap because of "other members." When I see someone start to go down that same path, I get worried. Hope that makes sense.

No need to argue over this. Everyone has different ways of thinking when it comes to theropod size, so don't get all pissy just because someone disagrees with you. This is for both of you as I prefer to not be one sided.

I don't care what you stick to just as long as you don't care what I stick to.

(82 ft here)

In this day and age...

No. 

Because of our Soceity and such, Which is a can of worms for another day, We wont be seeing Mr.Dna, As Cel-Animation has become, Say Redundant? I doubt they'll do anything close to it. 

They'll most likely explain it throgh characters... Or not explain it at all. Seeing how we live in the 21st Generation, Were not the Brightest, meaning, Like with the first Explanation in JP, They can throw some BS Explanation down, And We'll believe it. 

that paper you just put up was the one i was talking about.

that is just a calculation method that is new. it hasnt been applied to other dinosaurs yet. 

if T.Rex weigh more then so would other dinosaurs under this new method of calculating weight. So far they have not calculated the weights of Spino, Giga, Carcha, or any other dino. Using also square cubes law, it is all pointing to a very large Spino which this new Calculating weight method is saying as well that the dinos were somewhat heavier. I still hold my position on the fact too much unbalanced tissue being used.

My question for you is: those new methods give T rex a brand new weight class, it make T rex become much heavier than earlier methods. So how reliable those new methods really are? Do you think 9,5 tonnes for Sue and 8 tonnes for Stan are possible? Do you think it is quite liberal or very accurate ?

 Those new estimates give us quite "fat" models for T rex:

 The 2009 method for Stan model:

_ The 2011 method for Sue model:

I hope you know animals aren't truly all muscle, it would be a mixture of fat and muscle. More fat then anything else.

 And between the 2009 method and the 2011 method, which is likely to be the more accurate method?

I will conceit this;

All animals have quite a range of "normal" adult weights -- for example, I weight nearly twice as much as my sister, and neither of us is considered "fat" It's perfectly possible that BOTH these estimates are correct, for different individuals. I just have my doubts on some of these estimates, if you could provide some evidence(besides that paper) to clarify Tyrannosaurus actually got that large, it would be appreciated!

Until then, i stick by what i've stated in this and previous posts.

Bigger =/= longer.

No, they weren't that long. Obviously taller though, so yes, they are 'bigger' in that sense.

Can't speak for Sue, but considering I've seen the holotype, I can tell you it's the original skeleton(the skull is a replica, the real one is in the lab, but the rest of it isn't).

Here's another source for a 9 ton esitmate for Sue...

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0026037

In this PLOS ONE article, it mentions her weighing ~9500 kg or 9-10 tons. How bout that?!

While doing some digging(no pun intended), I found something else. Wankel Rex(also known as Devil Rex and MOR 555) is 38 ft long and an estimated 5-6 tons. The holotype is only a foot longer and weighes 1-2 tons more.

As a side note, the specimes known as Stan and Scotty are all estimate to be about 40 ft long(40.1 ft for Stan and 40 ft for Scotty). They'd both weigh in the range of 7.5-8.5 tons.

Oh, and who says the model you say is so fat is actually fat? Could just as easily be muscle and you know what, muscle weighs more than fat!

Oh, yeah, that makes sense. They're bigger than a sauropod that was some 80-90+ ft long. Yeah, I see where your coming from. Oh wait, no I don't.

bigger then D. Carneggi yes, as it was the smaller species. The theropods are smaller then D. Halorrum.

*sigh* really?

Those are the mounted casts of those two specimens. They are not the original fossils, and have been elongated. Most mounted skeletons are...

Sue at 9 tons? That's a bit on the ridiculous side. In the study i believe you got that estimate from, they placed unbalanced tissue, a bit too much of it..Here's a model:

They made Sue overly fat!! how can you argue otherwise?

Also, can you provide evidence(other then this ridiculous study) citing Tyrannosaurus at any more then 7 tons?

So despite only a length increase of 2 ft or so, T.rex can gain nearly 2 tons in weight!

That's wild speculation, individual weights vary animal to animal!.Can you show that this is evident in related taxa? for example...Daspletosaurus or Tarbosaurus? if so, that would make more sense. For just one species though....highly improbable.

Greg Pauls estimates of ~6t for Sue are more accurate. He usually "Shrink wraps" his dinosaurs though, doesn't account for tissue, organs, etc. Some where around 7 tons is more accurate IMO.

Nice fight, but I noticed in the size comparison the theropods were as big as the Diplodocus :/

This is the first chapter of my what could be a new story I'll be working on. Tell me what you think.

-JP Carnotaur

Good dtsart!

Well, I don't like footprints personally. The print could be distorted or changed in some way. Or the animal might just have big/small feet. If someone saw a giraffe print and didn't know what a giraffe looked like, they'd assume it was a small animal. I doubt they'd think it was 16 ft tall and weighed 3,000 pounds, it just has small feet. Same with a white tail deer. A mature buck could be over 150 pounds, but it's tracks are smaller than your hand. To get an actual dinosaur in this, Australovenator's track size would indicate an animal 8 ft tall at the hip, but it's only 5 ft tall at the hip. Long story short, footprints show how an animal moved, if it was alone or in a group, and some other details, but I don't trust them when it comes to size.

Something Real-I think that inherently is would be a very efficient hunter of large prey, but every predator has a weakness.  As for it's speed, I wouldn't say it would be very fast, probably around 20 mph, but I'd imagine each stride would cover more than 10 feet when walking.

thnx and welcome to jurassi... sorry i mean forums, welcome to the forums :)

Cool story I found it, interesting to read, can't wait for the next chapter!

I hope he returns to explain everything.

i hope he retourns to explain why they the D-rex

I think it will be great to see mr dna again 

Holy crap we are. 

I just don't see any reason for Spino to need to reach such massive sizes. The thing was most likely not an active land hunter for the most part, so it didn't need to have supercharged jaws and exceptional strength like Rex, who would be killing Hadrosaurs and possibley Ceratopsians and Ankylosaurs. 

Remember, I'm of the opinion that the one fossil found was from a rather large individual because it was the only one that was durable enough to survive the Sahara.

Like I said, sorry for kinda blowing up on you the other day. It was early in the morning, I wasn't feeling great, it's a stressful time of the year for me, and I'm a bit edgy when it comes to Rex vs Spino.

Massive, I wonder if we find more of it and are having spino vs rex vs torvotitan battles. :D

I was actually expecting the sauropod to win for once, oh well. I thought sizes for epanterias were a bit large (the weight), but a good fight.

Can't wait. I had an idea for you, you could make a new Sammy the Spinosaurus story, like you did with Terrance.

You know what, I just realized something, we're actually carying a spino/rex conversation rationally. 

HOORAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY!!!!! :D

 (I believe that's andrewsarchus in Rex Fan's first chart, the one to the left with the curly tail)