My Top 10 Largest Theropods

Darn it, I posted the pictures and my computer could recognize them but they did not show up on here! If there is a Moderator, Staff, or Admin that would be willing to take the time to add picures I will send you PM you the links of the ones I want to see. Thank you!

Nice list and all, but if you don't keep it under control, this gonna be how people react to this...

LOL that isn't good.

I also see you are a moderator, cough cough, add pictures, cough cough.

I can send you the links if you would like.

Though don't be afraid to tell me if you don't want to do it or something.

I a moderator but my edits don't work at all. Still waiting for the problem to be fixed. In the meantime you could wait or ask other staff. Sorry, Iw ould have done it for you but I can't.

Ok, I might not ask the Staff or Admins, they probably have more important things to be doing.

To be honest they do but there are mods like Rex Fan and Gojira2K.

Oh, so the error is only with you, strange. I know Rexfan pretty well, we are on another forum so I may message him, though I don't want to push him to do it. I do feel bad having all the "higher powers" (moderators, staff, and admins) adding the pictures to my posts just because I have a junk computer.

I don't know if they have the same problems, just to clarify. Yeah, only know him and some others on Wikia.

And it's alright. Try to see if you could get a better computer, if possible.

It's late, this is confusing me, I'm just going to say interesting list, full of surprises.

I have my brothers macbook because he got a new one, though that is still pretty old for a macbook, I've never tried it on there. I also have my iphone 5c and my ipad 1, I do a lot of my posts on my ipad 1 but that is even worse than junky computer I am on now. I have never tried my iphone 5c, though that may be a little complicated.

Show me evidence for oxalia being the biggest theropod. From what I understand and all reliable sources oxalia is 5 to 8 tons at max and 46 to 50 feet long at max. So it should not be first. I will debate with you more tomorow. I am tired.

Whoops, sorry Mr. Happy, we were posting at the same time. Anyways I put Oxalaia on top because it was probably similar to the "old Spinosaurus". Why? Well it seems to lack a lot of those pits in the snout of Spinosaurus and its nostrils look like they are towards the end of the snout unlike Spinosaurus which has its nostrils close to its eyes. This suggests that Oxalaia did not have as much of an aquatic lifestyle, though we have not found legs of it, so, I would not confirm that it looked like the "old Spinosaurus".

I lowered my estimate of Oxalaia to 11 tons, 12 tons was a little bit of an over-estimate. Though Oxalaia still tops my list, I told you guys this list would be full of surprises ;)

11 tons! that is still way too much. It should be 8 to 9 tons max. Not 11 tons. That is spino sized.

I personally think a creature like that would be very muscular and would have somewhat dense bones (not as dense as spino's, but still dense). If you wish to state your own opinion then make a list of your own, this isn't an official list.

Ok, woah. I find your estimations for Oxalaia to be really out there, and I'm the guy that wants to put feathers on triceratops. I mean, we have so little of it to go off of, and what little we have suggests an animal slightly smaller that Spinosaurus. I think that the idea of Oxalaia being the two-legged spino-monster of yore is also absurd. I think that Oxalaia represents the descendants of spinosaurus, and would've likely been very similar to the current models of spinosaurus. I think that 9-8 tons seems like the highest reasonable estimate.

In short, I think your beliefs on Oxalaia are completely and totally unfounded.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Oxalaia:

Now, next to a spinosaurus skull:

Honestly, if anything Oxalaia is BETTER suited to an aquatic lifestyle based on the position of the nostril.

You're wrong, and your Oxalaia estimations are unfounded.

LORD OF THE SPINOSAURS - What a very neat series of data! I greatly enjoy how you've presented each animal! How did you draw your conclusions, if I may ask? :)

I understand this is opinionated data, but these sizes for ALOT of animals really are inaccurate on what we know about each specimen. This is your opinion, but if you would like to know where you could fix/change certain things, PM me.

Well just explain to me how you think oxalia, an animal in the weight range of 8 tons to a 12 ton monster. And show me proof and evidence because a 5 ton difference is a lot.

Interesting list, I don't agree with all of it, but I see where you are coming from.

Concerning the pics, I am niether moderator nor staff, but I do own an iPhone 5c too and for me, I can get pics to work.

How can Carch be heavier than Gig when the latter is most likely larger. Also, Mapu largest specimen is bigger than Gig largest specimen. Also, Oxalaia is not even near to that size. Its skull was likely even shorter than Suchomimus'.

Yeah, I  noticed that too. Forgot about mapusaurus though... LotS, what's going on there? I'm not as taken back as I was (and still am) about Oxalaia, but this still raises some questions.

Most sources put Mapusaurus at 3 tons, and thats not just Wikipedia. Mapusaurus had to be lightly built because it was probably a pack hunter, although an individual was not very strong they were very strong in packs. Plus, if Mapusaurus was like 8 tons they might starve because they hunt and feed in packs.

Adding on to that, I personally think that Tyrannotitan was the ancestor of both Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus. I put my estimates of the weight of Tyrannotitan at about 5 tons, so it almost made the list.

Ok, but that still doesn't explain why Carchar is higher than Giga...