The size of Alamosaurus sanjuanensis

I can agree with those estimates. I always found those 110 foot long and 100 ton estimates, blown out of proportions. 

http://svpow.com/2009/09/02/how-big-was-alamosaurus/

Did you use this during your research? Looks similar.

I certainly think Alamosaurus could be bigger than the usual 15-18 meter, 15-30 ton estimates you see out there. Perhaps as big as 24 meters and 50 tons, maybe even bigger...

i came across it, yes. The paper is what interested me more so then his numbers, though

Lehman, T.M. & Coulson, A.B. 2002. A juvenile specimen of the sauropod Alamosaurus sanjuanensis from the Upper Cretaceous of Big Bend National Park, Texas. Journal of Paleontology 76(1): 156-172.

Alamosaurus was most likely argentinosaurus' size, if not smaller. I think Argentinosaurus represents close to the size limit for a terrestrial creature

I can't click on what you just put :/

Me neither.

Oh, almost forgot. Alamosaurus is my favorite sauropod with Camarasaurus and Titanosaurus right behind it.

Cool, I personally like Aregentinosaurus and Saltosaurus The most.

i always had a soft spot for saltasaurus. Omeisaurus is up there as well

Here's my thinking. Hasn't really changed much...

http://www.jurassicworld-movie.com/community/forums/topic/28464

Omeisaurus, is cool as well. I don't kno where my love for Saltosaurus comes from. to me it seems like a combination between a ankylosaur and a titnosaur.

Did you ever see the episode of Dinosaur Planet, Alpha's Egg? Something tells me it'd appeal to you Hipho ;)

Yeah, I've seen it. The one thing I didn't get is why they called the gigas/mapus Carcharadontosaurus. Otherwise I really enjoyed it.

Same. I'd assume it was supposed to be Giganotosaurus.

Yeah, your  probably right. Seemed a bit big for a mapu.

I always thought they meant "Carcharodontosaurs"

Mapu was probably larger then Giga, actually. Quite interesting

Also, Mapusaurus lived after Saltosaurus and Aucasaurus(I believe)...

Are you sure Carnosaur? The largest Mapusaurus fossils indicate animals about 12 meters long and 5-6 tons. The 14 meter, 8 ton estimates are usually considered too high.

Yeah, I think your mistaken Carnosaur. Mapu seems to be much more slender then giga. And it doesn't seem as long ether.

you guys realize that the largest mapusaurus is dimensionally 10% larger than the giganotosaurus holotype, which means at least 2% larger than MUCPv-95, and should, assuming geometric similarity, be 1/3 heavier.

Theropod database on Mapusaurus

Also, i don't quite understand where you guys get the "more slender then giga" idea, only the smaller carcharodontosaurs were slenderly built, and Mapu isn't one of them

I copied this from the link you gave me...

"This taxon was discovered in 1995, but only reported to Coria in 1997, when he and Currie examined the material. It was announced at that years Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting, and described briefly in an abstract (Coria and Currie, 1997). At the time, only the remains of an 8 meter long specimen were known, and it was identified as an adult. Coria and Currie returned to the site in 1998 to discover the presence of at least six individuals, some of which Currie said could be larger than Giganotosaurus’ holotype. The largest specimens are MCF-PVPH-145, 185 and 202, which are about 100-103% the size of the Giganotosaurus holotype."

Could be larger than the holotype.

Giga

Mapu

there are the upper estimates for mapu compared to the average estimates of giga... As you can see giga appears a great deal more robust then the Mapusaurus.

Yes, but "could be larger" is exactly like the fragmentary tyrannosaurs, or spinosaurus....any dinosaur really.

The minimum The shaft dimensions of MCF-PVPH-108.145 are7.5 by 10 cm, which is 10% greater than those inthe holotype of Giganotosaurus. This suggests thatthe specimen represents the largest individual ofMapusaurus n. gen. from the bonebed.

Fromthislink: http://www.mnhn.fhttp://www.mnhn.fr/museum/front/medias/publication/7653_g06n1a4.pdfr/museum/front/medias/publication/7653_g06n1a4.pdf 

I've never trusted Wikipedia scales. Wikipedia itself puts mapu at 33 feet and 3 tons.

wikipedia actually refers to the max size as being undefined but about as larger as giganotosaurus and > 10,2m. every other website states 12,2+m as a max lenght.
the publication initially describing mapu refers to it as larger than 12,2m. the theropod database which is a reliable source refers to the fibula as belonging to a 12,6m individual, and the pubic shaft could be bigger depending on the proportions of the animal. 33ft is no serious max size estimate. If i'm correct, it was the smaller individual found in the group of individuals that was unearthed. And the larger specimens aren't Fossilized freaks, the chances of us finding one of those are rather low.

Agree to disagree. I estimate Mapusaurus at 10-12 meters and 3-5 tons and Giganotosaurus at 12-14 meters long and 6-8.5 tons. 

Besides, this was about Alamsaurus, not Giganotosaurus/Mapusaurus.

Yeah. My estimates are

mapu 10-11.5 meters and 3-6 tons

giga 12.5-14 meters and 7-8.5 tons.

why such lower bounds for mapu? We have remains pointing at the species being larger then 10, 11, or even 12 meters

Didn't you put the lower estimate of Tyrannosaurus at 10 meters? I have no idea where you got that number when Black Beauty is the smallest adult we have and she's 11 meters.

Anyways, because the lower published estimates are indeed 10 meters for Mapusaurus. 

Yeah most if not all paleontolgists estimate mapu at 10-11 meters 12 is ussualy pushing it.

when did black beauty get a size upgrade? She is one of the smaller adults, if not the smallest we have at 10.5 meters in length.

If Black Beauty has a ~5-tonne mass(A guess, but pretty likely), it's an adult smaller than Stan. Stan represents one of the smaller tyrannosaur adults, correct?

Nice dinosaur choice Carnosaur!

I said Black Beauty is the smallest adult.

Stan was about 40.1 feet long.

Exactly! and "she" is aorund the 10.5 meter mark. If i remember correctly i said the lower bound estimates for tyrannosaurus were 11 meters...

you and HHP misread me. Why such deflated estimates for Mapu( 10-12 meters) when we have evidence of a select few individuals exceeding that size?

Because that "evidence" is scanty. 

Anyways, I'll draw my own conclusions thank you.

Yeah, the evidence is far unreliable. 

But we take the toe bone and other fragmentary tyrannosaurs as evidence? and not more decently preserved remains?

You simply cannot do that.

Also, there's no need to be agitated. It's called debate for a reason ;)

@HHP how is it unreliable?

I for one don't use the toe bone as evidence. I use specimens like Celeste, which is somewhat complete.

I agree with Carnosaur about Mapu being larger than 10-12 meters as there is some evidence that points to Mapu being about 14 meters at the most but I do not agree with you saying that it was larger than Giga even though evidence points to the fact that the upper estimates for both are around 14 meters, but the average estimates of most paleontologists for Giga tend to be larger than Mapu.

Thanks for sharing there carnosaur, great find. :)

Celeste is based on field guesses made by no other then Jack horner. He said something about Celeste being 10% bigger then Sue, which would put her ~ 43-45 feet long. 50 feet is an overexaggeration. That being said, a 45 foot rex would weigh close to nine tons. I haven't seen any other info regardeing "c-rex" other then the field estimates

Actually, if you check my site, there is no 50 ft estimate anymore. It's now 40-46 ft and 7-10 tons.

(If Sue was 9 tons at 42 ft, then a 45 ft Rex would easily be 10 tons)

See, i see  The estimates of 9.1-10.0+ tons  estimates as too high - as those models seem to have Sue being very fat. Like wise the original estimates of 7 tonnes seems to be too light, and skinny. 

Scott Hartman's estimate of 8.4 tonnes, sounds very reasonable, therefore "Celeste" would be pushing 9 tons, maybe a little bit more.

Or Sue was very muscular. Afterall, muscle weighs more than fat.