Top 10 largest theropods

There isn't any 13 m T.rex, Celeste is undescribed, the largest is still 12,3 meters long.

I think you missed Mapusaurus.

Firstly, it'z not my 9 t T.rex, it's Hutchinson's if anything, plus, I said 'a 8-9 t range', wich means that Sue is between 8 and 9 t , like Hartman's 8400 kg, not 9 t. A 13 m T.rex would be over 9 t, but simply there is no 13 m T.rex.

You missed my point again. That was just an example. I said 8-9 t because the margin of error can be great, thus, rather than saying that it was 8,4 t, I said 8-9 t-ish. For example, masses for MUPCv-ch1 rage from 6,4 to 7,4 t, according to Hartman, so a 1 t range is more wise than saying that an excint animal was, for example, 8,4 t. 

Wich specimen is your 13 m T.rex? I don't recall anything about it. 

As I've already said, Celeste is undescribed, so it's unreliable, while animals like MUPCv-95 and SMG din-1 are described. 

I asked it you because I said in the first post that Celeste is unreliable, the you said "there is actually a 13 m T.rex", and I thought you were talking about another specimen.

That's your calculation, then it isn't official. It's fine for me.

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."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/museums/chi-new-dinosaur-spinosaurus-aegyptiacus-paul-sereno-20140911-column.html

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Carnosaur is not biased. And I would like you to provide legit evidence as to why you say spino and rex are Raquel in weight when clearly spino is heavier due to its semiquatic nature which means the water would support the weight. Think of it as a crocodile and lion. The spino is the croc and rex is the lion. The lion is bulkier than the croc but the croc is a lot heavier due to its aquatic nature. rex and spino would be no different. Tabs don't trust only 3d models because they are highly unreliable, just like media sources.

Therrien data is regarded as fairly outdated since a while, they used a carnosaurian-shaped Spinosaurus for their model and using the length of the skull only ! So much for the more reliable method compared to the 3 D models.

The semiaquatic nature changes nothing in that Spinosaurus is slender built, with a shallow torso and that the authors of the new reconstructions have estimated a body mass of 6 to 7 metric tons. That's irrelevant. Because an anaconda is semiaquatic it has to be necessarily heavier than any land animal ?

I've rarely read an analogy as poor as lion/croc to explain the body mass dynamics of Spinosaurus and T. rex...

Stop feeling insecure because I threaten your biased positions and if anything you ask directly to the Ibrahim et al. You guys are incredible. I give you the estimates of the guys working on Spinosaurus material since years but you keep arguing.

Where have I said something about anaconda's chest ?

I say that Spinosaurus is more slender built theropod than Tyrannosaurus and large carcharodontosaurids. The lifestyle has nothing to do here.

Cau is in close relation with Ibrahim et al. mos of the team is Italian like him and he has long time hinted about the material and data in the new study. Plus, I've given you the statement of Maganuco about their body mass estimate for Spinosaurus. So give me a break.

http://zupimages.net/viewer.php?id=14/46/lu9r.png

My word is not very good ? I'm not a native English speaker, thanks.

how does the lion/croc not work, huh explain that and don't be a jerk. Stop beating around the bush and give me some legit evidence go once.

Actually the eviorment does matter.

Because you don't have to look at the lifestyle, just at the body structure and weights estimates deduced from them. Spinosaurus is estimated by Ibrahim et al. 2014 at between 6 and 7 metric tons.

Don't be a jerk ? I bring evidences for this since this morning, I've even directly asked to Maganuco to be sure of the mention on Cau's blog, and the guys are still doubting of my word and dare to even ask me a screenshot of my private conservation ! 

And I am the jerk around ?

Well then post a screenshot. Ane tell md why the lion/croc example was bad.

The environment does matter on a general principle than marine animals are generally heavier than land animals.

Spinosaurus a semiaquatic animal, with very short legs, long, shallow torso and very narrow skull. No wonder the weight estimates from Ibrahim et al. are lower than previously thought.

So the largest carcharodontosaurids and tyrannosaurids are (slightly) heavier than the largest Spinosaurus individuals.

Is there any reason you bring up Ibrahim.

I've already posted the screenshot. But since I'm a nice guy I post it again !

http://zupimages.net/viewer.php?id=14/46/lu9r.png

Copy the link and put it in your bar adress. 

Because Tyrannosaurus is not a lion and Spinosaurus is not a crocodile.