Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusMar-19-2014 8:49 AMi decided to tackle this because there seems to be a lot of misconceptions and under estimations.
Acrocanthosaurus is a genus of Carcharodontosaurid theropod from the early cretacious. It was the apex predator of its time frame; the largest of the time.
But, how big was it exactly?
The name Acrocanthosaurus atokensis was first assigned to two very incomplete skeletons excavated from Atoka County in Oklahoma which were described in 1950. Many trackways have been found with what have been described as the footprints of this, extremely elusive killer dinosaur. One well known trackway discovered near Glen Rose Texas shows what appears to be an attack upon a much larger sauropod. Other trackways could belong to other well known theropods, or large ones just waiting to be unearthed.
As we all know, foot prints can be a terrible way to estimate an animals size.
now onto the actual remains..
In 1983, excavation on a theropod dinosaur began, with Paul sereno at the head. They didn't know what it was, but it was huge, around the length of Tyrannosaurus. The dig took around three years to complete, and yielded a monster.
NCSM-14345, Fran for short. Her skull alone measured 1.3 meters(4.3 feet) long. Estimations put ole' Fran at 11 meters long(35 feet), and around 5 tons.
However....
Being a Carcharodontosaurid, she might have been even heavier. Also, keep in mind that Fran is only the largest discovered, much like Sue in the world of Tyrannosaurus. Two other fragmentary specimens have been unearthed, but estimates have not been put out on them.
Considering the fact Acrocanthosaurus was a sauropod slayer, it would indeed need to be massive. Also, It is unclear if 'Fran' is male or female.
My estimations(based off of fran, and other Carcharodontosaurids) put the average Acrocanthosaurus at 12 meters long and 6 tons. With an absolute max of 14 meters and 7.5 tons.
The truth of the matter is we need more Acrocanthosaurus remains to be dug up, or we will never know for sure.
Acrocanthosaurus remains one of the largest land based predatory animals of all time, and one that deserves the spot light for a while.
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
UCMP 118742
MemberCompsognathusMar-19-2014 9:33 AMI personally like to put Acrocanthosaurus at 3-5 tons with 7 being the maximum. Because Carcharodontosaurids were fairly light-weight in general and another thing is that Sauropod Killers are more light-weight than other predators, because they relied on speed to avoid the attacks of Sauropods (it doesn't matter if you weigh 5 tons or 7 tons when a 50 ton Sauropod comes crashing down on you) and Tyrannosaurids, for example, which hunted Ceratopsians, Hadrosaurids and Ankylosaurids for the most part, didn't have to be very fast, but tough. But anyway you put it, Acrocanthosaurus was gigantic and certainly one of the largest theropods.
Keep in mind that many people have died for their beliefs; it's actually quite common. The real courage is in living and suffering for what you believe in. -Brom-
Lord Vader
MemberTyrannosaurus RexMar-19-2014 2:48 PMIngeresting, but I agree with UCMP more on this.
Jack of all trades. Master of none
Jezza
MemberCompsognathusMar-19-2014 11:54 PMI think Acro was about 5.5-7 tons, just my personal opion.
And here is a bonus, I was gonig to post these another time, but now seemed appropriate.
I drew these myself. Enjoy!
Hope you appreciate that I used JP Lost World font for the lettering.
Youre fat, and I'm not sugarcoating it cause you'd probably eat that too.
UCMP 118742
MemberCompsognathusMar-20-2014 5:15 AMThat's really good. Great job. The legs seem a bit short, but otherwise it's extraordinarily good.
Keep in mind that many people have died for their beliefs; it's actually quite common. The real courage is in living and suffering for what you believe in. -Brom-
GODZILLA HIMSELF
MemberCompsognathusMar-20-2014 9:42 AMi honestly think that a lot of dinos are somewhat underestimated in weight, especially sauropods( they almost always look imasculated in illlustrations and stuff) and tyrannosaurs.
king of the monsters
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusMar-20-2014 3:23 PMthe only problem, is we have one good specimen. And i highly doubt they unearthed just a immensly huge animal. There could be sexual dimophrism, in which the male is signficantly larger then the female. Fran might have been a small individual as well.....i stick to my claims.
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
