Top 10 Largest Theropods - Update

@Kom,I thout you were like 12.

Here is the screenshot Kom tried to post:

*For those having trouble posting images, just upload it to a hosting site like Tiny Pic or Imgur, then right click on the picture and "COPY" the image, then paste it directly to the part of the page where you want it to appear. Try not to post links, it's harder to get them to post correctly. 

Here is a link that can help: How to Post Images on Scified

Well, KOM certainly brings up some interesting points, and until you guys provoked him, did it in a friendly manner. No need to be so persistent and rude to him. He did get immature after, but we all do. He did, you do, I do, everyone does. 

Nobody provoked him, he was spouting nonsense from the beginning and tried to make people who didnt agree with him look stupid. 

His first comment :

Damn, why there are still people keeping with their 11 tonnes estimate for Spinosaurus since the authors of the publication THEMSELVES reject this, and have estimated Spinosaurus at 6-7 tonnes using digital model ?

People are really unable to perform a slight research and display humility rather than always playing the ultimate experts ?

Found one paleo-authority who at now agrees on a 11 tons Spino. You'll search for a while...

Now is that what you call "friendly" or are you once again defending someone who's clearly in the wrong due to you agreeing with his claims?

easy guys, and he is right we diidnt provoke him. he got mad at us and said things and we retaliated back.

Alright, not friendly friendly, just friendly, compared to you. I personally like to give people scone chances, so how about forgive and forget this time around? 

spino rex was actually somewhat friendly.

Depends on if you're on his good side or bad side. Pretty sure I'm wayyyyyyy past his bad side. 

Forgive and forget will be an option if he changes his ways right away.

True, true. It really is only an option if a person changes their ways. 

KOM - I'm very interested in seeing the full document upon its release - and I'm very pleased you managed to get a screenshot of the reply you were given! Do you happen to know when the document is due to be presented? :)

Well I see that smart people finally posted on the board with more friendly manners, so I won't respond to the immature attacks, in respect to the valuable members here?

Instead I post the response from Simone Maganuco (Svanya, I still can't post the actual image, can you do it right after ?)

http://i57.tinypic.com/dbtowl.jpg

I think that's obvious I'm not trolling or writting bullshits.

Something Real, next time I ask him when this more detailled study will be presented.

*Image fixed by Svanya. 

dude seriously stop with the insults.

Immature attacks huh? Refer to your first comment.

Which insult ? "Immature attacks" ? That's no insults. I post solid information and I'm attacked, that's all.

People sent me PM but for strange reasons I can't open my box. If anything, contact me through email please.

Immature attacks huh? Refer to your first comment.

That was no attack, I didn't understand why some people were still using outdated, not supported body mass figures for Spinosaurus whereas it's easy to read which body mass estimate Ibrahim et al. have deduced for the new Spinosaurus. Plus I post the quote from Maganuco and I'm even more insulted and my honesty puts into doubt.

Sorry guys, but I'm 28, I'm nowhere a fanboy geek since a while, if I reach the authors instead of making my own fake facts, that's because I try to be as objective and up to date as possible. But it seems that this does not please some of you. You want Spinosaurus to be 11 tons yes...I wanted too, in 2001, right after JP3 release..

My 50 posts are about that because the guys I'm talking to just don't want to believe me, because they don't want Spinosaurus to be downsized or more likely they don't want their opinion appear to be flawed.

What you're basing off of, Kom, isn't definitive and scaling issues in ibrahim et. al have raised concern to begin with. the pelvis/legs should be bigger according to their own measurements and then the arms still don't show any adaptation for locomotion and they might as well be smaller than what is shown in the reconstruction.

i asked you for tangible evidence(i.e. figures, some sort of something concrete) and what do you give me? a personal communication with absolutely no context, and a rambling abstract. Don't get me wrong Cau's work is good, im not familiar with magnuco.

But, if we're responding with blog posts...here's one from mark whitton on this subject:

The most important debate has focused on the allegedly reduced Spinosaurus hindlimbs, which are integral to the proposed locomotor and lifestyle hypotheses proposed for the 'new look' animal, but also difficult to reconcile with presented data. Scott Hartman, who's no stranger to producing high-quality skeletal reconstructions, blew this whistle first when he found the reconstructed proportions of the Spinosaurus neotype specimen - a series of vertebrae and hindlimb elements - were questionably scaled against measurements of the bones themselves. Lead author of theSpinosaurus study, Nizar Ibrahim, publicly responded and suggested that the measuring landmarks Scott used in comparing vertebral and hindlimb elements may be wrong. 

It turns out that I've got to eat a few of those words. Following my post, Nizar opened a chain of correspondence where I directly asked about these scaling issues. Nizar's response was bringing his coauthor Simone Maganuco into our chat, who had taken the time to demonstrate and describe how the restored vertebral and hindlimb lengths match the dimensions reported in the paper. In his screenshot and email, Simone provided an enlarged view of the restored Spinosaurus trunk and took the time to explain where he thought the alleged scaling errors came from. Appreciating their interest to a wide audience, Simone has kindly allowed me to reproduce his screengrab and email here.

Image courtesy Nizar Ibrahim and Simone Maganuco, used with permission.

Dear Mark,

It is nice to be in touch with you. I am writing to comment briefly on my photoshop image, forwarded by Nizar a couple of hours ago.

I hope it is the key to understand the misunderstanding about the measurements, so I would be really glad to know your opinion about it.

I have tried to replicate the coefficients for scaling obtained by you and Scott Hartman and here is my line of reasoning.

Look at the vertebra D8 in my photoshop image. For convenience, we can focus our attention on the D8 on the left.

The yellow line is 18 "units" (and matches our measurements in the table) but if you include the posteriormost margin of the slanted posterior face and the condyle you have nearly 23 units.

23:18=X:71 where 18 and 71 are also the measurements in cm in the table of the Science paper; 23 units is the length of the whole vertebra in the drawing; and X should be the length of the ilium to match the length of the vertebra in the drawing, if one assumes that the whole vertebra - and not the yellow line - is 18 units, i.e., if one thinks  we used different landmarks and measured the maximum length of the centrum.

The value of X is 90.72  units.

90.72 /71  = 1.27 that is exactly the coefficient for pelvic girdle and hindlimb scaling suggested by Scott @ skeletaldrawing.com to resize the pelvis and the legs to match the size of the D8 vertebra measured with different landmarks (i.e., if 18 is considered the maximum length).

I can see that your coefficient is slightly lower, and I wonder if you have taken slightly lower measurements (it seems to be the case looking at the white lines in your test).

Do you think that this could be the explanation of  what happened?

In the paper, we thought it was better to measure the vertebrae from rim to rim (the rounded margins of the faces), excluding the condyle, and at the same dorsoventral height (because some vertebrae are like parallelograms). It is easier to compare anterior dorsals and posterior dorsals in this way, and it is easier also to compare the centra with those of some specimens not prepared three-dimensionally but preserving well-articulated vertebrae, i.e. specimens in which it is difficult to look at the anterior condyle.

As what concerns the femur, it must be taken into account that there is also a slight perspective effect, because in the digital model it points a bit laterally. i.e., it is not 100% parallel to the sagittal plane.

The misunderstandings generated by the comparison between the figure and the table clearly indicate that we had to indicate our landmarks in one extra figure, or dedicate a couple of lines to this into the text to satisfy the need to compare figure and measurements by people who want to test our skeletal reconstruction.

When I work with palaeoartists to prepare illustrations and flesh-models I also compare figures and measurements, so I can understand this need.

Sometimes there are figures that are not 100% in the view indicated in the caption (also because it is not easy to put a bone in plane!) and sometimes it is difficult to understand the landmarks used to take measurements. What if I were in your shoes? Who knows... but I can understand that the new look of Spinosaurus has unexpected proportions that leads to think that there is something wrong.

In the monograph everything will be more clear because the detailed figures will report measurements directly on the bones, permitting everybody to see the landmarks.

In the meantime, however, I think it is useful to clarify this aspect.

Best wishes,

Simone

--

So there we have it: the measurements, landmarks and an image where they can be measured accurately. The latter is especially important because dorsal vertebra 8 in the full restoration is rather small, and thus prone to measuring errors even when measuring landmarks are known. A slip of a few pixels may not seem like much but, because the bone is a tiny component of a huge reconstruction, such minor errors can throw a scaling calibration right off. These risks were identified in Scott's original posts, and it seems they have been borne out. Nevertheless, it is interesting that Scott and I - and others, according to some Facebook chat - found such similar results: this could be coincidence, or it might be that the published reconstruction lends itself to a erroneous interpretation. Either way, there is plenty of food for thought here as goes presentation and reading of reconstruction data. For the record, when attempting to replicate the scaling again, this time on the screenshot, I found my results matched measured values given in Ibrahim et al. (2014) within a few percent. My confidence in the published proportions is thus fully restored.

Hopefully this helps resolve the scaling controversy with the 'Spinosaurus reboot', and the result is much more confidence about the downright weird and remarkable anatomy of this genuinely unusual animal. Thanks to Nizar and Simone for taking the time to explain their work, and allowing me to post their response here."

http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-spinosaurus-hindlimb-controversy.html

And now we're unintelligient because we don't agree with you? haha, that figures. When you're piggy-backing off of others' research and all you've presented is personal communications and then a blog post about personal communications.

Secondly, look at the response to scott hartman from the ibrahim et. al team:

We are not saying that our reconstruction is 100% perfect – of course it isn’t, and I don't think this claim has been made by one of the authors - but paleontologists and paleoartists in particular should finally accept that there is no such thing as a "final word" in dinosaur reconstructions, weight estimates and behavioral interpretations. Look at Tyrannosaurus, Quetzalcoatlus or Diplodocus reconstructions and count the number of changes in posture and proportions and interpretations (scavenger, not scavenger, necks held low, necks held up, terrestrial stalkers, fish eaters etc etc). All we can do as paleontologists is present a reconstruction that best fits the available data. And then it is refined as more material comes to light. If we find a long legged Spinosaurus in Morocco, we will tell you, rest assured. But right now we have two associated skeletons with the same proportions. And if we find more forelimb material, we will refine our model if necessary.

http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/aquatic-spinosaurus-the-authors-responsd9182014

Normally a simple copy of my discussion was enough, on other board, no one asks and harass for a screenshot of a communication. Then I've posted the screenshot but some now are asking for the entire conversation as screenshot. 

To begin with you didn't even want to post it, imagine our exasperation there. So don't go mr. high and mighty " oh well i posted it and that should have been enough" when it didn't occur like that.

A new reconstructed animal with the latest revision

Which even the Ibrahm et. al team doesn't seem to think

And you downgraded our statements and tried to make us look like dumbasses, thats what you did. 

All you have to do is click the envelope thing at the top right, then click on the unread messages.

saying thatt you were glad someone smart responded to you, you called us stupid.

Carnosaur, I'm perfectly aware of the debate that occured between Hartman, Whitton and Ibrahim, I followed it on Hartman website and on FB.

Note, if you were objective you would have posted Ibrahim's reponse too.

Plus, there was no conclusion against the evidences from Ibrahim et al.

Second, even then, this does not change greatly the deduced alleged body mass estimates for Spinosaurus, in no way.

That you like it or not, Spinosaurus still has short legs (how exactly short is the question), a shallow torso, a very narrow skull, an elongated neck.

What Hartman and Witton discussed does not change the slender build of Spinosaurus. 

Maybe you want I discuss with Scott too about his opinion regarding the new Spinosaurus weight ?

I can for sure. But be sure, it won't be your beloved 11 tons figure...

KOM - Excellent! I'm looking forward to reading the finished document! :)

CARNOSAUR - That was a very in-depth and extremely interesting series of data you've just presented! I greatly enjoyed the conversational pieces between the researchers. I wasn't aware that they had two skeletons that evidenced the same physiological characteristics - how compelling! Thank you very much for sharing this with us! :)

That was no attack, I didn't understand why some people were still using outdated, not supported body mass figures for Spinosaurus whereas it'seasy to read which body mass estimate Ibrahim et al. have deduced for the new Spinosaurus. Plus I post the quote from Maganuco and I'm even more insulted and my honesty puts into doubt.

 Sorry guys, but I'm 28, I'm nowhere a fanboy geek since a while, if I reach the authors instead of making my own fake facts, that's because I try to be as objective and up to date as possible. But it seems that this does not please some of you. You want Spinosaurus to be 11 tons yes...I wanted too, in 2001, right after JP3 release..

See, Dal Sasso et al. considered MSNM v4047 the largest theropod, hence their opinion must have been that others were lighter still. That probably based on Seebacher (2001), who they referenced even though their size figure is inconsistent with Seebacher’s results for other spinosaurs.

These "new" 7-9 ton estimates aren't anything new, they were published 9 years ago and had absolutely nothing to do with the new finds.

Once again, The information is pretty poor atm, owing to most of it remaining undescribed. The authors constructed a 3D model for estimating the center of mass, but strangely did not publish a weight estimate. As of now, there is a lateral-view skeletal, but most of the individual remains aren’t described, let alone figured from several perspectives. And i'm not -- i repeat NOT taking your word for any of it. sorry, mate . But as it stands all you've presented, again, is personal communication and a blog spot on those personal communications. And my posts above show why this really shows nothing of what Ibrahim has to show us. Nothing has been released, all of this is your assumptions and that's it. Continue with your insulting mannerism, it's not going to get you far here.

KOM, I do believe your problem may be that you're not signed in on the main site. When you click the envelope, you go to the inbox if you're signed into the main site. If you're not signed in, I'm not sure, some "you don't have access" or something. Click on someones screename, hit the "sign in" button, and enter your username and password. 

Well that where our opinions differ, i think it was more robust, and definately believe it got to 11 tons or more. Don't... i repeat... dont attack me for that, youll be sorry if you do and i have plenty to back me up.

Plus, there was no conclusion against the evidences from Ibrahim et al.

wut...

I did, pretty clearly leave the response from the team. If you'd venture to click the link, you can read it yourself. Enough with your antics kom.

That you like it or not, Spinosaurus still has short legs (how exactly short is the question), a shallow torso, a very narrow skull, an elongated neck

No one agrees. That's the thing; and it can be evidenced throughout our debate.

Plus, there was no conclusion against the evidences from Ibrahim et al.

Second, even then, this does not change greatly the deduced alleged body mass estimates for Spinosaurus, in no way

You have no evidence for this and i have none against it. We must wait for the paper to come out. end of that discussion.

I can for sure. But be sure, it won't be your beloved 11 tons figure...

Baseless conjecture on your part.  But, i'll leave it at that

Guys, guys! This has the potential to be an incredibly insightful and meaningful series of conversations that better expand and expound upon our thoughts and theories concerning certain animals; let's not allow it to deteriorate away into a miasma of bickering. Each individual who has presented facts and hypotheses has done so in a stellar fashion - we should applaud our ability to respond with intelligence and wit! We're all capable of behaving in a civil and courteous manner due to the undeniable fact that we're each intelligent and passionate about the topic of paleontological exploits. :)

i was just gonna say exactly that.

See, Dal Sasso et al. considered MSNM v4047 the largest theropod, hence their opinion must have been that others were lighter still. That probably based on Seebacher (2001), who they referenced even though their size figure is inconsistent with Seebacher’s results for other spinosaurs.

Dal Sasso considered it to be the largest theropod. Now they consider it merely the longest theropod. I don't know which method they've used to estimate its weight, and I don't think you know either. There several new methods to get a body mass estimate now.

These "new" 7-9 ton estimates aren't anything new, they were published 9 years ago and had absolutely nothing to do with the new finds.

Two questions :

- do you think I'm an idiot who doesn't know the history of what I'm talking about ?

- do you carefully ready what I write and post ? I've never said these were new estimates.

6-7 metric tons is the new estimate.

Once again, The information is pretty poor atm, owing to most of it remaining undescribed. The authors constructed a 3D model for estimating the center of mass, but strangely did not publish a weight estimate. 

The information is poor because it's not yet published. It will be published, I repeat, once again, once again, once again....

As of now, there is a lateral-view skeletal, but most of the individual remains aren’t described, let alone figured from several perspectives. 

Let the team do their job instead of arguing. They are working further on it. Don't warry, you'll have your publication.

Also, if really you hate Ibrahim et al. work, just confront them !

Your lack of respect for the paleontologists is disgusting. I guess that's symptomatic of the Internet era, the average geek knows everything from his laptop...

 And i'm not -- i repeat NOT taking your word for any of it. sorry, mate .

That's not my word, that's the quotes from Maganuco. I'm not your mate.

But as it stands all you've presented, again, is personal communication and a blog spot on those personal communications. 

Plus the information of new pending publication.

All what you have presented is your own biased facts.

At least I refer to one of the guys actually working on Spinosaurus material and who's gentle enough to respond me.

And my posts above show why this really shows nothing of what Ibrahim has to show us. Nothing has been released, all of this is your assumptions and that's it.

Ibrahim et al. is going to published their results, are you really trolling me so that I need to repeat this ?

My assumptions ? No, I don't have any assumptions.

If Ibrahim et al. proposed a 13 tons Spinosaurus, I'd report this figure as well.

You have your assumptions of 11 tons based on nothing published at all. You're totally biased in this discussion, I'm not. And if another theropod expert shows doubts about Ibrahim et al. mass estimate, I will show it. 

Because I'm damn more objective than you.

Continue with your insulting mannerism, it's not going to get you far here.

You were the very first to insult me, calling me moron. But I prefer to be a moron than biased. 

Well then how become there are few webites that support this? It's been 3 almost 4 months, and there is only one website that supports this thoroughly. And newsflash, you practically insulted all of us except a few that agree with you, trust me, me and Carno are the last people you want to insult.