Jurassic World Movie News

Carcharodontosaurids: bulkier than you think

Gigadino

MemberCompsognathusNovember 23, 20144771 Views17 Replies

 

(This comparison isn't completely accurate, but it was the only Carcharodontosaurids image I could find, so I used it)

Carcharodontosaurids are often thought to be slim and skinny. However, they don't appear to be so skinny. Today, I'll show you why I think that Carcharodontosaurids aren't slim as most of the people think. I'm going to use Giganotosaurus as my type of Carcharodontosaurid. Let's see SHartman's Giganotosaurus skeletal:

Look at its neural spines. They appear to be very long. The fact that Giganotosaurus had long neural spines is mentioned on several sources. And, if Giganotosaurus had long neural spines, well, Acrocanthosaurus are even longer. It means that Giganotosaurus spinal column carried quite high mass. Plus, take a look here:

Ignore that skull, it's inaccurate. Look at the torso: it isn't definitely as wide as Tyrannosaurus'. However, its torso is deeper. Plus, given that its neural spines are higher, its torso is taller as well. The body of the other, similar-sized giant carcharodontosaurids (such as C.saharicus) should be assumed to be the same, as they all are very close relatives, as you can see there:

Thus, I'd suggest that assuming that Carcharodontosaurids were pretty bulky isn't so unlikely.

User Avatar
Something Real
Group: Member
Rank: Tyrannosaurus Rex
View Profile

GIGADINO - This is a very neat and well-presented topic! Indeed, it is quite possible that the Carcharodontosaurids were heavier than they've been presented in more recent publications. It wouldn't surprise me if such massive animals were proportionately heavy! Thank you for sharing this thought provoking notion! :)

User Avatar
Carnosaur
Group: Member
Rank: Compsognathus
View Profile

Look at its neural spines. They appear to be very long. The fact that Giganotosaurus had long neural spines is mentioned on several sources. And, if Giganotosaurus had long neural spines, well, Acrocanthosaurus are even longer. It means that Giganotosaurus spinal column carried quite high mass.

Evidence for this?

Acrocanthosaurus' neural spines have never really had a definitive reason stuck to them. But, anchoring for muscle attachments is widely accepted atm...

Clicky Click here: Acrocanthosaurus atokensis, a new genus and species of lower cretaceous theropoda from Oklahoma

Let's compare the two:

Harman's most recent acro - 

2013 giga - 

Acro's are significantly taller, and form the prominant "ridge". This feature is not duplicated in Giganotosaurus, so it's safe to say they did not have the same function.the neural spines of Tyrannosaurus are tall as well:

Not as tall as those of Giga or Acro, but their decently sized.

Also, that cladogram you used is outdated(missing tyrannotitan, among other issues) Is it pre- novas 2013?

Here's after Novas et. al:

Cladogram after Novas et al., 2013[3]

   

Allosaurus

  Carcharodontosauridae  

Neovenator

   

Eocarcharia

   

Concavenator

     

Acrocanthosaurus

     

Shaochilong

  Carcharodontosaurinae  

Carcharodontosaurus

  Giganotosaurini  

Tyrannotitan

     

Mapusaurus

   

Giganotosaurus

               

Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.

User Avatar
Carnosaur
Group: Member
Rank: Compsognathus
View Profile

Take note that i'm not saying Carcharodontosaurids aren't bulky, it's just the notions you've put forward have no scientific backing behind them.

Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.

User Avatar
Something Real
Group: Member
Rank: Tyrannosaurus Rex
View Profile

CARNOSAUR - As I've come to rely on you as a very credible source for dino info, would you be so kind as to answer a quick question? Was Mapusaurus larger than Carcharodontosaurus? I will greatly appreciate any information you can provide! :)

User Avatar
Carnosaur
Group: Member
Rank: Compsognathus
View Profile

With pleasure!

Carchy has always been one of the dinos that has had size estimates fluctuate hugely over the last few decades. 

We don't really have a whole lot to go off of for Carchy( Giganotosaurus, isn't a good base, despite common belief. It's within the subfamily Giganotosaurinae, which carchy is not) so i tend to use A. atokensis here for my estimates

But, to put it more simply we look at skull measurements, and the use of what i like to call "the 8ths rule".

SGM-DIN 1 has a skull length of ~1.56 meters

1.56 x 8 ~ 12.4 meters

Now, basing off of the  A. atokensis holotype (OMNH 10146) we get ~7.32 tons. Off of "fran"(NCSM 14345) we get 7.63 tons

Mapusaurus is a bit iffy, really. An animal (again, that catalogue number eludes me -.-) known from a pubic shaft is estimated to measure 13.6 meters in length, and be ~27% more massive then the Giganotosaurus holotype. Which would put it easily at 8+ tons. But, the other individuals we have of Mapusaurus are generally in the 10 -11.5m mark. Acrocanthosaurus, Being of comparible length, measured in at 4 - 5 tons. For those individuals, i usually put the estimate at 5 tons. the 12 meters and up though (3 individuals) i put at 6 - 7.5 tons. 

To end my rambling manner, their pretty similar in overall size...Mapu might be larger overall once this pubic shaft gets an official estimate on it

Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.

User Avatar
Something Real
Group: Member
Rank: Tyrannosaurus Rex
View Profile

CARNOSAUR - Thank you ever so much! That actually helps to clarify quite a misconception I've had concerning Mapusaurus! :)

User Avatar
Sci-Fi King25
Group: Member
Rank: Allosaurus
View Profile

Interesting

“Banana oil.”- George Takei, Gigantis: The Fire Monster

User Avatar
Tyrant king
Group: Member
Rank: Compsognathus
View Profile

I agree with you giga, I do think carcharadontosaurids were a lot bulkier then given credit for.

User Avatar
Gigadino
Group: Member
Rank: Compsognathus
View Profile

The cladogramm was outdated indeed, I had two of them and I didn't remember wich the most updated one was.

 

You're right even abput Acrocanthosaurus.

But no, Giganotosaurus being the best basis for C.saharicus isn't a common belief. G.carolinii and C.saharicus are much closer than A.atokensis and C.saharicus. It doesn't matter if C.saharicus doesn't belong to Giganotosaurinae. Using A.atokensis is liberal, and would produce a freaking ~13.9~14.3 m (so ~14 m +), ~9~10 t thing. ~12.4 m is possible indeend, if we use Carrano's estimates, A such thing would actually weight around to ~6.8 t (~6~7 t), as Hartman estimated the equally long MUCPv-ch1 at ~6.8 t.

And that Mapusaurus pubic shaft is pretty doubtful if you ask. The difference between G.carolinii's holotype and that Mapusaurus specimen is pretty small, and we know that G.carolinii and M.rosae didn't share the same proportions, so its pubic shaft may be proportionally thicker. Imo the safest thing to say is that that specimen was around the same size as the largest Giganotosaurus specimen.

User Avatar
Carnosaur
Group: Member
Rank: Compsognathus
View Profile
i used methodology similar to hartmans' and i still got the widely accepted range...hmm...Carrano's estimates were a bit inflated, but if we use his methodology we get numbers closer to hartmans' as well EDIT: i only used conservative weights for acro, that's why my numbers fell in line...haha anyway, upon talking to others, the pubic shaft hasn't had an official number put out on it, so indeed it'll have to wait.

Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.

User Avatar
Gigadino
Group: Member
Rank: Compsognathus
View Profile

Scaling from Giganotosaurus holotype is better, as Carcharodontosaurus was likely more strongly built than Acrocanthosaurus, like G.carolinii. As I've already pointed out, the whole thing will get somewhere between ~7 and ~8 t.

User Avatar
Carnosaur
Group: Member
Rank: Compsognathus
View Profile
which my estimates fall comfortably in between...By “more strongly built” are you talking about robusticity?

Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.

User Avatar
Gigadino
Group: Member
Rank: Compsognathus
View Profile

Yes, I meant more bulky.

User Avatar
FACT DUDE
Group: Member
Rank: Compsognathus
View Profile

I have a very high belief in Charcarodontosaurs being bulky, but agile. They were active sauropod hunters and had to be able to get to the tricky spots to kill what it needed to.

What you call discovery, i call the rape of the natural world.
User Avatar
Carnosaur
Group: Member
Rank: Compsognathus
View Profile
@giga, eh...easily agreed enough. "fran" is pretty robust, though compared to the acro holotype

Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.

User Avatar
Gigadino
Group: Member
Rank: Compsognathus
View Profile

Yes, but more derivated Carcharodontosaurids appear to be even more bulky. Acrocanthosaurus is pretty gracile if compared to derivated Carcharodontosaurids.

User Avatar
Carnosaur
Group: Member
Rank: Compsognathus
View Profile
well yes, but i wasn't arguing A. atokensis was nearly bulky as the derived carcharodontosaurs. merely remarking on acrocanthosaurus as a species in general. also that scale...it hurts haha decent art though

Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.

Join the discussion!



New Forum Topics
Recently Active Forums
Jurassic World Rebirth
Jurassic World RebirthDiscuss the new Jurassic World film by Gareth Edwards!
Jurassic World
Jurassic WorldDiscuss Jurassic World Here
Dinosaurs
DinosaursTalk About Dinosaurs
Jurassic World Merchandise
Jurassic World MerchandiseDiscuss Jurassic World merchandise here
Hot Forum Topics
Highest Forum Ranks Unlocked
Chris
Chris » Indoraptor
62% To Next Rank
WhyJUSTWHY3746
WhyJUSTWHY3746 » Compsognathus
15% To Next Rank
J_D_AGGIE
J_D_AGGIE » Compsognathus
12% To Next Rank
Kasier
Kasier » Compsognathus
10% To Next Rank
Joshua_arkan
Joshua_arkan » Compsognathus
10% To Next Rank
Latest Media
Scified Community Stats

Scified hosts a network of online communities containing 406,717 posts by 48,481 members (16 are online now). The Jurassic World Rebirth Forum is the most recently active forum. The latest Forum topic added was: Wallpaper from the computer screen in the lab scene?

1,122 people are currently online

Join the discussion!
Please sign in to access your profile features!
(Signing in also removes ads!)



Forgot Password?
Scified Website LogoYour sci-fi community, old-school & modern
Hosted Fansites
AlienFansite
GodzillaFansite
PredatorFansite
Main Menu
Community
Sci-Fi Movies
Help & Info
+

Sign In to contribute!