Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusJul-12-2014 11:24 PMA new series i've just hatched, if it goes over well i'll continue it i think..
But, that's not the reason i decided to do this. There is so much overexaggeration, and misconceptions i've decided to take a good hard look at some Dinosaurs and their respective sizes.
Today, we cover...
Giganotosaurus Carolinii; the Giant southern lizard
Alot of hype surrounds this creature. When it was first discovered in the 90's, the press was over it. Another giant theropod that exceeded the size of the mighty tyrannosaurus. But...was it really?
The short answer? nope.
The holotype, (MUCPv-Ch1) is about 70% complete and includes parts of the skull, a lower jaw, pelvis, hindlimbs and most of the backbone missing only the premaxillae, jugals, quadratojugals, the back of the lower jaws and the forelimbs. Initial estimates put this thing at around 12.8 meters long and around 7 or so tons. Then, news hit of a second Giganotosaurus being unearthed; (MUCPv-95) consisted of a fragment of a lower jaw. The corresponding bone said to be 8% larger than that of the holotype. However, for the sake of this article, it will not be accounted for much...though i will provide an estimate on it later on. Bone variation between individual theropods is too great for it to get an estimate off of imo.
The skull of Giganotosaurus is huge, but not as large as it was previously thought to be. Why you may be asking? overestimations and exaggerations. that of the holotype was estimated at roughly five feet in length. Even though the original authors briefly claimed the length of six feet—leading to an estimate nearly six and a half feet for the skull length of MUCPv-95. This claim was not repeated by subsequent studies. Original authors have stated a measurement of 1.6 meters( 5.2 feet) is more plausible.
I myself decided to do the math on this one...
So, following the "8ths rule" as i like to call it, we can get a rough estimate for the size of Giganotosaurus. To be fair, i will use the 1.95 m skull and the now widely accepted 1.65 m skull.
1,95X8 yields roughly~ 15.6 meters TBL
1,65X8 yields roughly~ 13.2 meters TBL
But...
In 2006 or maybe a little earlier, the initial estimate was brought down to 12.2m (making the best-case scenario of the other specimen go down to 13.2).
As we do not have very many Giganotosaurus individuals, There are factors that will most certainly determine how large these things got like the actual length of the tail. It maybe had a longer tail or a shorter one, the best we can estimate the size of the two specimens of Giganotosaurus, accounting for possibility of tail variation, dentary size variation, things variable between individuals; is 12-13m.
14m is pushing it and going by the literature, impossible to make.
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Primal King
MemberCompsognathusJul-13-2014 12:10 AMFascinating post. I agree with all the information. I vote for a series.
"If you can't see it... It's already too late."
-Jurassic Apocalypse (by Paden)
Something Real
MemberTyrannosaurus RexJul-13-2014 3:03 AMCARNOSAUR - Very compelling! I greatly enjoyed this topic. Please keep it up, and thank you so much for sharing this with us! :)
Lord Vader
MemberTyrannosaurus RexJul-13-2014 3:12 AMNice job, I like this series.
Jack of all trades. Master of none
Alphadino65
MemberTriceratopsJul-13-2014 6:48 AMYou did a decent job breaking it down considering what is available.
One thing though, when a length/height is estimated for a dinosaur, is it only for the fossilized skeleton, or the actual body of the dinosaur when it was alive, with all the skin and other soft tissues layers? That would certainly increase the perceived size of the animal when it was alive.
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusJul-13-2014 7:07 AMTotal body length is based on the skeleton. Body mass though, tissue layers and skin are accounted for. Some skeletals, like those of greg paul, are "Shrink-wrapped" That is, tissue and skin really isn't accounted for, making the animal look painfully skinny.
Those of Scott Hartman though, do. They look more modernized as well
I prefer his skeletals honestly, whenever i do size comparisons on other forums, or for this one, i use his.
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Dynamosaurus Imperiosus/ Raptorexxx 700
MemberCompsognathusJul-13-2014 8:14 AMAT LAST, that topic right there is something i have been trying to say ever since i came on this forum, so thanks Carnosaurfor your research you can see mine if you go to my Comparasion of the Big 4 Re-do. I honestly see Carcharodontosaurus as being the larger of the duo as using the same measurements Carcharodontosaurus would measure a slightly longer 13.7 m and a slightly heavier 9.2 tons.
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusJul-13-2014 9:18 AMExacly. Giga was hyped up to be this enormous monster, but the science behind it clearly states otherwise. I too believe Carchy was larger, and i'll be taking a look at him rather soon.
Don't think i've seen that topic yet, i'll go take a look!
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
UCMP 118742
MemberCompsognathusJul-13-2014 1:38 PMThis is certainly very interesting and accurate. Great job, I'm looking forward to the next one.
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-
Gigadino
MemberCompsognathusNov-22-2014 4:35 PMActually Carch doesn't look any bigger - both were extremely similar-sized. SMG din-1 was ~12.6~12.9 m long and ~7~7.6 t in weight when we use G.carolinii's holotype as a basis. I usually round it up to ~13 m and ~8 t (precise estimates aren't safe, as it's fragmentary). G.carolinii's largest specimen was ~13.2 m lobg and ~8.2 t according to Hartman, but again that specimen is fragmentary, so I usually round it to ~13 m and ~8 t. So they're around the same size, ~14 m is bloated for both those animals. By going by precise estimates, however, G.carolinii seems to be little larger - but as I already said, precise estimates aren't safe, so I'd say that they're essentially the same size.
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusNov-22-2014 6:06 PMNature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Gigadino
MemberCompsognathusNov-23-2014 2:08 AMMy bad, I didn't see when it was made. That's true, but the difference between ~7.6 t and ~8 t is very small, at least in a 6 t + animals. You can perfectly round it up.
