There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
(07-27-2020, 03:25 PM)Mstr293 Wrote: I have some objections with your claims here:
"using GetAwayTrike's skeletal, Giganotosaurus would be the larger theropod based on known specimens, by well over a ton" - I've seen GetAwayTrike's take on the Giga. Here's a link where him and Franoys are debating about the accuracy of his estimates:
1: Even GAT has doubts on the accuracy of his claims. His estimations are just as open to criticism as Hartman's or Vitamin Imagination's (my favorite Artist). There's even a reply there that has a good point take on MUCPv-95's supposed "larger than Sue" estimations (by TriceratopsHorridus):
[font=devioussans02regular, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'メイリオ, meiryo', 'ヒラギノ角ゴ pro w3', 'hiragino kaku gothic pro', sans-serif]actually agree with you that an 8% larger MUCPv-95 is not realistic for this skeletal; sometime after making that top comment I came across a GDI for this skeletal (here it is, recommended density 0.915,: [color=var(--G4)][font=devioussans02regular, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'メイリオ, meiryo', 'ヒラギノ角ゴ pro w3', 'hiragino kaku gothic pro', sans-serif]https://i.imgur.com/wK1ESRN.png[/font]) and 6.5% larger MUCPv-95 is already about 9 tonnes. If a relatively cursorial theropod (like Giganotosaurus) were to exceed that, it wouldn't make much sense from an evolutionary standpoint because if you're much over 9 tonnes you're not gonna be a very fast runner, and you have larger demands, thus you need more food than you can catch.[/font][/color]
[font=devioussans02regular, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'メイリオ, meiryo', 'ヒラギノ角ゴ pro w3', 'hiragino kaku gothic pro', sans-serif]That was mainly thrown in there because, based on everything other than mass (which I didn't know would have implications for the skeletal when I made that comment), 8% MUCPv-95 is still on the table but nobody ever uses it today.[/font]
If you think about it, Gigas are known to be predators who is known for it's serrated teeth (known to bleed out it's prey) and very fast locomotion (about 32kmph) compared to the T-Rex. The former indicating a very patient, high-enduranced predator. It wouldn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint for such animal to be bulky as opposed to being streamlined as Hartman and Franoys claim it to be. That 9 Ton estimate from GAT is a reach in my opinion. Oh, well! Hopefully, more research shows up.
2: "Scott Hartman is using Sue as the representative of the entire species and comparing it partly to MUCPv-Ch1" -
3: Sue's the 2nd largest T-Rex specimen next to Scotty.
2: While there are only 2 specimen from the Giga's part, MUCPv-Ch1 is literally the 2nd largest (also, smallest) Giganotosaurus specimen. So I say, the comparison is fair. Until more proof are discovered, it's wise to zip our lips on this issue.
4: "Even if Sue was hypothetically larger than MUCPv-95, that wouldn't necessarily mean Tyrannosaurus was the larger animal as a species - we would, as previously stated, need to look at the mean mass of both species based on all specimens of both species to determine which was larger as it is a far better sample than merely maximum vs maximum" - It's not her fault Giganotosaurus lacks new specimen. Speaking of, the problem with claiming that Gigas are the larger animals compared to the Rexes is due to the lack of specimen a.k.a. proof that this is indeed the case. We need more data to confirm that whether or not MUCPv-Ch1 and MUCPv-95 are the largest, shortest or average size of the animal? We're all really depending heavily/blindly on the estimates, and I am not liking that! It's very unscientific!
5: As paleontologists, it is their job to be as accurate as possible and avoid relying too much on said estimations. T-Rex is currently the legitimate biggest theropod in terms of mass because as you said, it has the most specimen and data of all the theropods we've discovered. We can easily calculate the dimensions of the T-Rex holotypes. This is currently impossible with Giga's case. It can be changed, but without sufficient data from the Giganotosaurus' part, we can't rush to conclusions. We don't want another BS spread by the media. People still believe that Jurassic park 3 Spinosaurus is legit dinosaur even to this day, you can look up YouTube comments if you don't believe me.
I can finally see this post! So I guess I can respond to it.
1: Okay, first off, I'd just like to note a few things:
-That 7.53 tonne GDI for GetAwayTrike's edited skeletal has, to my knowledge, been estimated to match more conservative estimations for MUCPv-Ch1. As you can see, it's 12.32 meters long (well within the most common estimations of 12.2-12.4 meters), instead of using GAT's original estimation (which isn't necessarily incorrect, mind you, as the material needs a better description badly and until then more or less everything is on the table for Giganotosaurus save the obviously outlandish material such as 180+ cm skull lengths and 12-14 plus tonne sizes).
Also, that TriceratopsHorridus person is myself; I have since then been convinced otherwise as there is very little different between the metabolism and speed of a 9 tonne Giganotosaurus and a 9.49+ tonne Giganotosaurus, and the animals Giganotosaurus (and carcharodontosaurids in general) were eating were nowhere near as fast as the prey of, say, tyrannosaurs, so I believe they would have an easier time getting to larger sizes than the better studied tyrannosaurids because they are less cursorial.
BTW, for what it's worth, there are some more things you may want to consider if you didn't see me address them in the above posts:
-SpinoInWonderland's skeletal also produced a GDI result roughly coherent with GetAwayTrike's. That is what they have told me.
-The often quoted mass of 6.8 tonnes (based on Hartman) is very likely not enough, because his skeletal takes the incomplete scapula as complete and the chest is very shallow as a result. Correcting this, the mass goes up to the ballpark of SIW and GAT GDI's.
2: The issue with using Sue (or Scotty) to compare to MUCPv-Ch1 is that they are by far the largest and oldest in a sample of well over 30, while MUCPv-Ch1 is the smallest of 2 specimens, and we don't know how old it is or whether it's an adult or not.
By your reasoning, if we compare smallest and smallest, we could compare, say, Bucky (3.5-4 tonnes), B-rex (4.5 tonnes), or USNM 6183 (2.7-3 tonnes) to the Giganotosaurus holotype as they are some of the smallest adults of Tyrannosaurus, just as MUCPv-Ch1 is the smallest of the 2 Giganotosaurus specimens.
4: It's impossible to know which species was truly larger and it may never be. However, considering that even with the very poor sample size of Giganotosaurus and the large one for Tyrannosaurus, that the average of both Giganotosaurus specimens is 2.51-3.23 tonnes higher than the average for 30 Tyrannosaurus specimens, and that the Giganotosaurus holotype alone matches or outsizes just about all adult Tyrannosaurus specimens, that in my opinion suggests Giganotosaurus to be larger with the specimens we have.
5: I do not agree that Tyrannosaurus is the largest theropod; Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus, Tyrannotitan, and Spinosaurus, depending on interpretation could very well have equalled or surpassed it.
As for the size of the holotypes, I believe CM 9380 is somewhat smaller than MUCPv-Ch1 - it's about 6 tonnes (Larramendi and Molina 2016) to 7 tonnes (SpinoInWonderland GDI I posted in the Tyrannosaurus thread) compared to 7.53-8.17 tonnes for MUCPv-Ch1.
6: Trust me when I say that I know that guy well and I strongly disagree with his views on giant theropod sizes.
One last thing: I'd like to post some corrections for Greg Paul's estimations for Giganotosaurus that I forgot to earlier. On his website, he estimates the Giganotosaurus holotype at 6.85 tonnes. However, there are 2 issues with his skeletal likely underscoring the mass:
-He has used a specific gravity of 0.85 when it should have been about 0.915 following Hartman's 2013 GDI analysis.
-In his skeletal, the preserved scapula is taken as complete when it isn't (the same issue that plagues Hartman's skeletal), thus making the chest much shallower than it would be. The correction factor, as I have went over in the numerous different points and posts above, is 6.8 to 7.53 tonnes. Correcting both of these, Greg Paul's skeletal of Giganotosaurus goes to 8.17 tonnes for MUCPv-Ch1, which would then be 10.29 tonnes for MUCPv-95 and the average of both of them being 9.23 tonnes if we were to use his skeletal as the base.
1. You're TriceratopsHorridus? Cool, good to know. I've seen GetAwayTrike and SpinoIsWonderland's GDI of the Giga, Rex and other dinos. It seems that your findings of a 9.49T Giga makes sense, if you're using a T-Rex bauplan (body plan). I've also seen the chart they have on Stan and one other Rex (I forgot the name), and using my trusted calculator, they match your "MUCPv-95" if I made them of equal size. Which shouldn't make sense since Gigas are more closely built to other theropods than the Rex (more streamlined). I was told that Rexes have a weird bauplan among the others, that it's unusually wide (thorax and skull). Non-experts misused it's image as the standard theropod bauplan because it has the most complete specimens and is the most popular amongst other carnosaurs.
2 and 4. Shouldn't that be based on "what ifs" but rather than actual specimens? There's really no one at fault as to why there are about 30 T-Rex specimens while there are less than 3 with Gigas. But there's no evidence that those 3 specimen represent the "average" Gigas and if there are bigger specimens out there. Basically, "averages" are out of the question for Gigas for now since the lack of sample size. Who knows, there might also be smaller Gigas out there? But without evidence it's all just within the realm of hypothesis and like you said, opinion. We already know what happens when we rely on head-canons and hypothesis. We make huge mistakes ranging from what the Spinosaurus looked like in 2000 to 2020 (from T-Rex killer to paddle-tailed crocoduck). So I'll have to go with the experts on this one for now, unless more larger and more complete Giga specimens are found. Fingers crossed!
3. Most Paleontologists seem to agree that Scotty has at least half a ton on Sue. But I guess, there are some of those who disagree. But I'll have to trust the actual the majority's reviews on this one.
5. But it is! Simply because of what I stated earlier, it has the most proof. I'm not saying that there will never be Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus, Tyrannotitan, and Spinosaurus bigger than T-Rex (there might), but without more sample size from the rest, the former still holds the crown despite what fanatics say otherwise.
6. Apparently, I've met others like him and that I've learned how "famous" you are to the Paleo Community. I've learned a lot from them long after I messaged you in this site. Yeah, sorry for bothering you. It's just that you were the first person I've seen that I thought made the most sense in his findings. Now I know better!
