|
Size comparisons
|
Tiger, Himalayan black bear, leopard and clouded leopard
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Ugyen Wangchuck Institute for Conservation and Environmental Research 
When you have been so clearly defeated and proven wrong that there is nothing left for you to do but dig your own grave by defining the experts' material as "irrelevant".
Circus simulator here. However, let's give some deep attention to cetaceans, the archaeoceti genus. Here a skull size comparison of the most known representants of the earliest examples of cetaceans. They still had nostrils, an overall semi-aquatic life (talking from Pakicetus to Rodhocetus) and visible hindlegs, becoming smaller as their body adapts to sea life. *This image is copyright of its original author And now Basilosaurus’ skull, the largest repesentant of this group, compared to Tyrannosaurus Rex skull and human skull *This image is copyright of its original author you wouldn't guess from the skull size that Basilo is a near 4x larger animal. Almost like showing a sauropod skull next to a theropod
These are from October, regarding bears
Thanks to @Maritimus77 for helping me collecting info back then *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author
What happened with LoveAnimals has been dealt with by the great effort of the moderators and my communications with them. I may eventually get around to addressing LoveAnimals themselves if I feel at any point there is a reasonable time for me to do so, but I won't be doing so at this time.
In the meantime, anyone who has no bones to pick with me (because I really don't have time to deal with any more attacks) can feel free to ask me about absolutely anything LoveAnimals said provided it only concerns the science and data.
^ I edited my comment only because a superior to me (a moderator) asked me to cooperate and not because I feel guilty or because I changed my mind, since I have done nothing but expose the truth.
Considering that this is a scientific site, as Tigerluver himself said, I find it an obligation to maintain objectivity and only and exclusively to use as a source official and accurate studies made by qualified scientists in the way in which theses are presented, morphological comparisons are made and animal features are described , whether they are felines, dinosaurs, bears, horses, sharks, cetaceans or whatever. Consequently, I believe it is a duty to recall anyone who breaks these rules (the person in question has been called out billions of times on many other sites as well by qualified paleoartists, so it's not the first time) calling the work of scientists as irrelevant, approving instead their own material which is instead the result of preferences towards certain animals to the detriment of others and above all of a massive disrespect towards those who are the true methods of science. And as you have already noticed, many users of this server including the very humble and qualified Guategojira have appreciated and approved the intent of my text bomb, since it exposed the pure truth. However, I ain't talking anymore about this since there's no need as all points have been pointed out and I ain't wasting my time anymore, reasonable people know and that's all I need. Unreasonable individuals aren't worth my attention.
As much as the original debate concerning theropods is certainly over since all I've done was pointing out all the morphological differences among them and how they differ from each other in bone structure and overall built, I think I need to go into an ultimate and deeper analysis of this topic to make the point and conclusions clear and evident once for all (as if the first comment alone has not already done enough ,lol).
Spinosaurus Agyptiacus, the cetacean of the theropod family? The original debate was whether or not to consider the hypothesis that spinosaurus had evolved as an animal heavier than the other theropods (and consequently, also than the tyrannosaurus) according to an evolution that would resemble that of cetaceans. I also believed that such a theory was possible, until I looked deeper into the morphology of the river monster and noticed that there is currently no evidence that the reptile is really that heavy. We can talk about the fact that Nizar Ibrahim made this estimate, but since we have no idea how he managed to obtain these equations, we cannot consider them unless he knows methods still unknown to us. But it must also be taken into account that in his message Nizar expressed how we are underestimating the mass of MANY dinosaurs, not just Spinosaurus. This is what many people ignore, and considering the morphological differences between Spinosaurus and tyrannosaurus, which I'll list again later, if the former were truly estimated to be 10-12 tons it would mean that the tyrannosaurus would easily be in the range of 15 tons as well. Also to note that if we make a 3d model of the Spinosaurus model with the completely wrong chest and a weird crocodile neck and scale it to the 14.4 meters long size we still DO NOT GET an animal anywhere close to 12 tons as battle champion and Random on discord have stated. So until we have proper evidence, we ain't considering any of these speculations. And as I said, modern methods of estimating body masses of theropods suggest nothing that the morphological features of the skeleton let the sailed reptile to be really capable of carrying such massive amount of weight. If Spinosaurus truly adapted to aquatic life (which it did) by evolving and developing a heavier body due to the fact that water cancels gravity and therefore the amount of an animal's body mass is no longer affected by size limitations that instead affect terrestrial predators (An animal with excessive body mass would struggle to hunt on land, which is also true for modern and prehistoric mammalian hypercarnivores), its rib arch and its bones should be DEFINITELY much wider and denser / thicker respectively to allow for an adequate distribution of this high amount of mass that some individual tried to estimate and take as a sheer fact. The problem is that this is not the case, the width of the area covered by the ribs of the Spinosaurus Holotype is 98 cm (fun fact, Sue's SKULL width is 94.5 cm so even in skull width Tyrannosaurus almost exceeds spino's BODY width) , while that of the largest specimen ever estimated (which is not s. Aegyptiacus anymore, but we still consider it to be generous) is 118 cm. For comparison, Sue is a whopping 180cm wide, nearly a meter larger than the holotype and more than half a meter (58cm) than the largest estimated size for Spinosaurus. Once again, I compare them to each other. *This image is copyright of its original author And I also compare the ribs alone and isolated from the rest of the vertebra. *This image is copyright of its original author Note that even when just looking at the ribs the bones of the spinosaurus do not even come close to the thickness and density of those of the tyrannosaurus, and this should be an animal that surpasses the Tyrant lizard in mass? When the width of its area that would be occupied by flesh, muscles and organs that consist in basically 80–90% of body mass is almost a meter narrower and thinner? Not to mention how Spinosaurus's vertebrae look compared to those of the tyrannosaurus, they're nowhere near as thick or as large as them. The only impressive thing to note is how the spinal arch width of the Spinosaurus Holotype almost entirely fits TWICE within the area bounded by Sue's body width. To not even mention the skull width difference, I already posted a very self-explanatory comparison but now I'm sharing a new comparison that shows even better how a fish eater compares to a bone crusher *This image is copyright of its original author Isn't the comparison even more than clear now? The way Spinosaurus' snout looks thinner than a straw compared to the very wide Jaws of tyrannosaurus rex makes clear how wrong and absurd is even trying to compare such different and incomparable animals. Claiming Spinosaurus to reach such inflated and tyrannosaurus-like sizes would mean that it would need a rib arch as wide as Rex aswell as bones as much as dense, or better, as Orca since we have mentioned cetaceans before . Now that I've mentioned the current living king of the oceans, let's compare the bodywidth of an Orca (Killer whales are cetaceans that outweigh every theropod except for tyrannosaurus, whereas they have a drastic overlap in sizes) to that of a Spinosaurus when scaled both at their respective max lengths (since the 14.43 meters theropod doesn't classify itself anymore as aegyptiacus but as Spinosauridae indet) with Spino holotype at 11. 60 meters and orca at around 9 meters (the largest orcas are 9.7-10 meters max but that's given with their tail added). *This image is copyright of its original author To compare, the largest orcas are 9.8-10 tons. Does Spinosaurus even look like it could damn rival or exceed by TWO TONS the killer whale? Cleary not, that's just like stating a subsaharan lion is as equally as robust as a yellowstone grizzly bear at max size or worse as a Katmai/Kodiak war tank. Even if I upscaled Spinosaurus at 14-15 meters (even though the largest Spinosaurus isn't a aegyptiacus anymore, I still believe aegyptiacus could reach such size on max) there would be basically 2 tons difference, as much as with Tyrannosaurus. But still comparing an Orca to a Spinosaurus isn't still very useful since they are totally different animals in any terms with a too different morphology. Also looking at orca's rib cage (this one is probably not even a 10 meters and 10 tons sized bull) you can clearly see how it is unrivaled in width by Spinosaurus' one. *This image is copyright of its original author I basically measured the body width of the skeleton I used in the size comparison and I got about (or more) 165 cm body width, to compare Sue is 180 cm, the largest Spinosaurus estimate is 119 cm and the Holotype is 98 cm. Which is a very clear difference. This topic here is over forever now as it was already before, I ain't debating again over a comparison that never existed and will never exist given the abyssal difference in size and robustness among the two theropods. And it's absurd trying to deny the evidence. Just imagine claiming that these animals are comparable. *This image is copyright of its original author Any claim of that kind isn't worth of any attention. How Carcharodontosaurid morphology differs from Tyrannosaurid one. As for the carcharodontosaurids I have already expressed myself quite remarkably, these allosaurids have evolved more robust bodies and skulls than Spinosaurus due to the different species to which they belong but above all for the diet and their lifestyle which is completely different from that of the Spinosaurus. In the case of Giganotosaurus for example, we are talking about terrestrial hypercarnivores specialized in predating other dinosaurs, sometimes even aiming at taking down sauropods, consequently to cope with these prey probably difficult to kill due to their large size, as terrestrial predators have developed a body structure, a skull and a different set of teeth compared to a semi-aquatic theropod whose diet was mainly composed of ichthyophagous creatures. So yes, allosauria members and mainly carcharodontosaurids have stronger and denser skulls and bones than spinosaurines, as well as larger teeth and consequently a more powerful bite (Giganotosaurus is estimated at around 2.5 tons). Of course that's reasonable, we are comparing fearsome hypercarnivorous hunters of other dinosaurs to a theropod with an ichthyophagous diet! It makes sense that dinosaurs that prey on other dinosaurs have evolved a more powerful build and more fearsome teeth than those who prey predominantly on fishes. It is like comparing a gharial to a Nile or a saltwater crocodile. Now we will focus on these hypercarnivores. There are mainly two groups, the carcharodontosaurids and the tyrannosaurids that have evolved differently depending on the way they killed their prey and also depending on the type of prey they fed on. While carcharodontosaurids relied on their knife-like serrated teeth to tear apart meat and likely tear apart and bleed larger prey like sauropods to death, tyrannosaurus primarily killed its prey as a jaguar would, relying on its powerful bone crushing jaws by breaking bones and ripping off big mouthfuls of meat. It is reasonable, the tyrannosaurus coexisted with two of nature's tanks, the triceratops and the ankylosaurus which were truly built with sturdy bones and armor that a predator like Giganotosaurus could not have dealt with easily. The T-Rex on the other hand had an average estimate of 6 tons biteforce and a maximum of over 9 tons for the larger specimens (Calling Sue and Scotty in question here) that could very well break bones and do as much damage to armor , especially the bony collar and horns of the triceratops since numerous fossils have been found with fractured bone collars with signs and grooves that match perfectly with the tyrannosaurus teeth, revealing that the tyrannosaurus was certainly a predator of these herbivores. Although I would still give the edge to triceratops in an hypothetical encounter. For comparison, if the tyrannosaurus has evolved much more powerful jaws than those of the allosaurids capable of crushing even the bones of the bony collars of the triceratops, it is evident that they have evolved skulls with much larger and stronger zygomas with larger and stronger teeth than the carcharodontosaurids, just as it had a markedly superior musculature to aim such stength in bite force to be able to take down and handle such armored tanks, which probably smaller teeth and thinner skulls would have a hard time to replicate the same result. On the one hand we have an animal built like a tank that crushes the bones of prey to kill with a bite of 4-7 tons higher than the Giganotosaurus for example, it is normal to state that carcharodontosaurid (as well as all other allosaurids) has consequently developed of the thinner skulls a leaner and slender body with less dense and robust bones than the tyrannosaurus which is comparable in terms of strength and consequently a lower musculature than the tyrant lizard. The tyrannosaurus is also more robust in terms of bones, being heavy weight and more heavily built it is evident that as with the spinosaurus it has a body width based on the area of the costal arch much wider and larger than Giganotosaurus and any other terrestrial predator , it also has a larger frame derived from longer legs and consequently is even taller by about 30cm at the hip (scaled at the highest point of the neck Sue is about 4.10 meters tall and with flesh added based on randomdino's model I used is about 4.33 meters tall whereas MUCPV-CH1 is about 3.70-3.72 m with flesh added so at the head the height difference is even higher than 30 cm, basically more than half a meter) So yes, the tyrannosaurus is the largest animal both in terms of bones, body strength and in terms of height and weight. The only thing he can be challenged at is body length but this is because carcharodontosaurids have evolved more elongated bodies, otherwise they have shorter limbs and have a smaller body frame, which is why the tyrannosaurus in addition to being markedly longer heavy is significantly higher. This comparison still shows it quite sharply. *This image is copyright of its original author Also to note, Tyrannosaurus Holotype was estimated by Fran's work to be 7500 kg. Turns out some random claims made by an individual on here who tried to downpost Fran's work by saying this tyrannosaurus specimen was in reality much lighter than that (I could retake the lines where it was said but I ain't in that debate anymore as I already said) was wrong, since it was actually EVEN HEAVIER than original Fran's work. All the things you all gotta do toget it's latest body mass estimate is just divide all of Frans estimates by 0.912 and multiply by 0.97. If you want the specific numbers to the density equation... 7500 / .912 = 8223.6 8223.6 * .97 = 7976.8 kilograms Result : 7.9 tons, literally 8 tons. So not only the tyrannosaurus Holotype which is smaller than Sue and Stan is larger than Giganotosaurus Holotype in mass, but it's also not far from MUCPV-95's bodymass estimate. And this difference in size and overall morphology between tyrannosaurids and allosaurids can be found also in the smaller species. For example, here's a top view comparing a tyrannosaur (Albertosaurus) on top and an allosaurid (Allosaurus Fragilis) on bottom. You can still see how the tyrannosaurid is more heavily built than the other theropod *This image is copyright of its original author Regarding Carcharodontosaurus itself, the claim of it being larger than tyrannosaurus is totally unfounded again. There is no evidence for it to grow to such monstrous 13-14 meters long sizes as for the largest specimens we currently have all we get is a total body length that barely exceeds 12 meters without even matching Giganotosaurus Holotype, so just to say how can Carcharodontosaurus outsize both Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus if it's total body length doesn't even reach Sue's one? Work from Franoys. *This image is copyright of its original author At 12.12 total length there's a new estimated body size for the largest Carcharodontosaurus specimen, the neotype one, which is 12.14 meters long using bricks for an estimated 7.4 tons body mass. Still shorter and slightly lighter than Giganotosaurus Holotype which is estimated to be in the 12.24 - 12.40 meters long range for a 7.6 tons bodymass GDI. So Giganotosaurus holotype exceeds in size the largest estimated size for Carcharodontosaurus with current scientific data, although new fossils could change the table but even then I personally doubt Carcharodontosaurus would still be able to match Giganotosaurus paratype, which is itself the largest representant of Carcharodontosauridae family although still dubious because too fragmentary, but we'll discuss about this later. A paleoartist on discord is creating a new carcharodontosaurus skeletal (work in progress) and it's using the same measurements we got from using bricks so you get the idea that at me moment 12.14 meters and 7.4 tons is the current largest estimated for the shark-toothed lizard. Here's the work in progress on Theropoda : *This image is copyright of its original author Also by looking at the skulls' measurements, all you see is that it's size doesn't exceed significantly tyrannosaurus as it's just 1 mm longer. Giganotosaurus Holotype as well exceeds Sue by 1 mm but we already saw how Sue ends up being clearly larger and taller so there wouldn't be much difference with Carcharodontosaurus. *This image is copyright of its original author Now, about MUCPV-95. The largest Giganotosaurus specimen. As I've already said, it's estimated to be 2.2% larger than Holotype which yelds to a longer body than Sue the Tyrannosaurus but still not as heavy (8.3 tons vs 9.7 tons) and not as tall per hip height (3.60 m vs 3.80 m) and head height (I guess 3.80 meters vs 4.30 meters with flesh added). So even if we consider the largest RELIABLE estimate for this monster, why is specimen MUCPV-95 still controversial? Well as I already said because it's just one single jaw fragment and nothing else it's not a partial skeleton we have no other bones when it comes to this animal. This is a pretty big problem because basing this idea on just one jaw fragment is just not reliable at all you simply cannot extrapolate an unusually large size estimate for a big multi-tonne animal, reliably from a fragment. Did this jaw fragment come from a larger individual than the holotype specimen ? we really can not say for sure. Despite the fragmentary nature of this specimen it still has not stopped people from estimating the animal's size, however. This jaw fragment could have belonged to a larger individual. *This image is copyright of its original author This specimen has been estimated been around 12.5 to over 13.2 meters long and has been estimated to mass over 8 tons (7290 kg based on the 2.2% increase compared to the holotype) to 9 tons (8200 kg from Scott Hartman and 8300 kg based on Random's GDI made on Dan's model) but this is very uncertain because all this specimen consists of is one jaw fragment and nothing else. The final estimate which is currently thought to be the most accurate one, estimates the specimen at about 12.7 meters, even lower than the previous 13+ meters estimated size. Jaws of the big theropods tend to vary in size and shape quite often so yes this could be a larger specimen of Giganotosaurus (which I really hope it to be personally, I want Giganotosaurus to be super-sized as well since it's my second favorite theropod) or it could just be another 12 meters long or even shorter Giganotosaurus individual that just has a slightly bigger jaw or skull. We can never really be sure until we find a decent amount of the skeleton this is a problem often faced in palaeontology. When MUCPV-95 was first described It was supposed to be around 8% larger than the jaw bone for the Giganotosaurus holotype because of the dentary being 8% longer but further study found this to be incorrect. This is because the dentary of the holotype is actually incomplete. While MUCPV-95 is complete not because the MUCPv-95 jaw fragment is actually larger its highly possible the individual the MUCPV-95 came from was really not larger than the holotype at all. Both dentaries bones have been measured previously in other studies and the difference between them is a tiny three millimetres that is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Fragmentary pieces of bones from these huge animals DO NOT scale isometrically in Dinosaurs or in any living animal or extinct so using fragments is never very accurate. Animals of same species are never perfect clones of each other. It's pretty common that we see animals being at similar height or lengths and weight but some have longer fingers or larger feet or have larger skulls. Some animals are taller and more lanky while others carry more weight around. One example is that a Namibian leopard was 262 cm in TBL and an Indian one was about 261 cm in TBL. The same size? Not if I told you that the Namibian one weighed 96.5 kgs and the Indian one weighed 78 kgs, a negligible difference. So you can see what we're talking about. The same can be said for the theropod Dinosaurs. All of them would have been different in some ways. Quote from Franoys regarding the isolated jaw fragment MUCPV-95 *This image is copyright of its original author But even then it is estimated that even a 13-meter long Giganotosaurus would weigh slightly less than the bulkier 12.3-meter long Tyrannosaurus, it would basically require a 14-meter long Giganotosaurus to for sure outweigh a 12.35-meter Tyrannosaurus and so far there is no fossil evidence that shows Giganotosaurus (and neither the even slightly smaller Carcharodontosaurus) growing to that kind of length. No large-bodied fully terrestrial theropod has ever reliably reached that length outside of estimates that usually end up being inaccurate, apart from Spinosaurinae species members that are another case as well, since they're extremely narrow for their elongated skeletons. And as I repeat again, the largest Spinosaurus agyptiacus isn't anymore estimated to be over 14 meters long since the jaw fragment is supposed to belong to another species. Haven't you all read the latest news? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j-ERQ0fUTXmZLX-91pjenMQ_4E11VLmo/view?usp=drivesdk Any fossil from Morocco is now estimated to belong to Spinosauridae indet, which is considered to be another species belonging to the same family as Spinosaurus, suchomimus, irritator and so on. I haven't read the paper whole cause it's too long but I guess that all they did was confronting actual Spinosaurus aegyptiacus bones with this mysterious creature and the result was as I read somewhere that the bones of the unidentified theropod were more robust and bulkier than those of Spinosaurus Holotype when scaled at same size. Here the difference, the mysterious animal on bottom compared to all other spinsaurini species including Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. The difference in thickness is clearer than Canada's snow *This image is copyright of its original author So that's why this animal among all Moroccan species is not classified as "aegyptiacus" anymore. So just imagine, Spinosaurus could even not be the largest member of Spinosaurinae family, but more so, the largest official adult Spinosaurus agyptiacus could be JUST the holotype specimen, at 11.6 meters long for a 3.7 tons GDI body mass estimate. Well you have seen its comparison with Sue, you can see how comparable in size they are. If I mentioned Pantanal Jaguar- leopard comparison, this even falls to a Jaguar - Eurasian lynx comparison. Also personally, I'd be interested to find out more of this Spinosaurinae indet specimen, just by looking at its jaw thickness it already exceeds all other known spinosaurini for sure. This could be possibly the most badass species of its family. Very robust for being a Spinosauridae member, considering all other members including agyptiacus are known for their extremely elongated but narrow and slender bones and snouts compared to most other theropods. Finally, there is this final argument that I really wanted to point out to all of you. When we speak of "largest tyrannosaurus specimen ever found" we are referring only and exclusively to specimens that are considered the largest COMPLETE and official / reliable specimens with enough bones that make them officially qualify as such, and it is the case of Sue and by Scotty. I've always used Sue as a comparison to the largest tyrannosaurus ever recorded and I'm still doing it now because although Scotty is estimated to be around 700kg heavier and there are several measurements and bone studies that pretty much confirm that, but I'm still waiting for the paper with the official measurements to be published to start using Scotty as the largest Tyrannosaurus rex. And if you are relatively interested in Scotty's comparison of measurements with Sue, here you are: Quote from the study An Older and Exceptionally Large Adult Specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex “Here we describe an extremely large and relatively complete (roughly 65%) skeleton of Tyrannosaurus rex (RSM P2523.8). Multiple measurements (including those of the skull, hip, and limbs) show that RSM P2523.8 was a robust individual with an estimated body mass exceeding all other known T. rex specimens and representatives of all other gigantic terrestrial theropods” Scotty was a massive animal its femur measures around 133 cm in length with a circumference of 59 cm. Sue’s femur measures 132.1 cm in length and only has a circumference of 57.5 cm the femur is a very important weight bearing bone. While Scotty’s skull is mostly complete, the possible length estimate of 161 cm that’s 9 cm more than Sue’s estimated skull length. Based on the skull and femur size its likely Scotty measured between 12.67 and 13.08 meters and could have weighed anywhere from 8,870kg (9.7 tons) to possibly 10,490 kg (11.5 tons). This makes Scotty the new record holder for largest T. rex and the largest land predator just surpassing the previous record-holder that was originally Sue. Scotty exceeds Sue in 84.6% of the published measurements. All of Scottys weight bearing elements are larger than Sues are. Measurements, where Scotty surpasses Sue. Spreadsheet, created by Franoys on Deviantart https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1xbuGjf_PaBcJNKJSu4sEixEqZzEc-wyvfrg1iTnCSno/htmlview#gid%3D0 *This image is copyright of its original author Scotty exceeds Sue in 11 out of 13 bone measurements and that is just the bones measured for the latest study. If you take a look at there skeleton mounts or skeletal diagrams you can see other bones where Scotty exceeds Sue. Scotty has a larger longer and thicker built pubis. The pubis has a direct coalition with the torso of an animal and is important when determining of torso depth. So it is highly likely that Scotty had a even deeper wider torso than the Sue specimen. Scotty also has a larger ischium bone along with multiple caudal vertebrae that are thicker than Sues are. Scotty's whole hip girdle is more robust than Sues is and this is important because the hip girdle is the centre mass bearing structure for a theropod dinosaur. So its highly possible that Scotty carried around more weight than Sue did. The rest of Scotty's body collectively implies a much brawnier body shape than other big Tyrannosaurus specimens and other big theropods. Plus a comparison of cubic femoral dimensions gives a much greater overall weight. The latest study regarding Scotty describes its shoulder bones, hips and it's leg bones and they are all larger with Scotty than the corresponding bones in the Sue specimen. Scotty's bones were also examined and show higher levels of stress from carrying around more weight when compared to the bones of Sue. Using the study by Snively et al 2018 we can compare the cross sectional of the sacral anterior vertebra. This is the method used to show the relationship between the animals body mass and the cross section area of the animals spine by showing the mass of an animal but also the stress of the upper body. The results are once again higher for Scotty than they are for Sue. Scotty's cross sectional area was found to be 650 cm ^2. This means that Scotty was 4 percent larger when compared to Sue who's results were 625 cm^2. Quote from W. Scott Pearsons “It wasn’t until now we’ve been able to take a step back and look at the specimen as a whole, “And doing so there’s an oh gosh moment because the specimen really is enormous.” “We looked at this from a number of different angles. Obviously the best way to do it is the direct one-to-one comparisons through the various skeletal elements,” Persons said. “When you look at everything from the shoulder to the hip to the leg to portions of even the toe bones, yes, Scotty the Tyrannosaurus rex comes out consistently just a smidgen-bit larger than Sue.” ‘I think there will always be bigger discoveries to be made, but as of right now, this particular Tyrannosaurus is the largest terrestrial predator known to science.’ While Persons is very happy about presenting Scotty to the world, he believes Scotty won’t be the largest for long. Both Sue and Scotty had their weights estimated in the latest study both specimens were directly compared. The method used to calculate the mass in the latest study was the same for both of the specimens and the data shows that Scotty is more massive than Sue is. Returning to the original topic, it is obviously necessary to clarify that the question of the larger tyrannosaurus is totally based on fossils with official measurements, because if we consider fragmentary fossils (and unlike the Giganotosaurus paratype, we have both partially complete skeletons and skulls with other bone remains that give clear evidence) there are like 5 tyrannosaurus specimens that could very well be around the same size as Sue based on measurements if not even larger. Trix is one of them, it's a very large specimen estimated to be around 9 tons as it's in very similar size to Sue the tyrannosaurus at about 12 meters long *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author There are other giant Rexes as well. 1)Tyrannosaurus Imperator 2)C.Rex 3)MOR 098 4)MOR 088 So when we say that Sue and Scotty are the largest tyrannosaurus, we are only right when referring to official reports. As for the speculation, we don't really know. And considering that the number of Tyrannosaurs to have existed on earth has been estimated at about 2.5 billion and that already from a small sample size of fossils we have 2 specimens pushing 10 tons with another 5 that could be both the same size and even BIGGER, it is the confirmation of mother nature that the tyrannosaurus is the only theropod to reach such enormous tonnages with such regularity in comparison to the other theropods. So when we talk about the difference in net tonnage between tyrannosaurus and other theropods let's remember that we are probably not even using the largest tyrannosaurs that ever existed since there could be fairly larger ones that would just increase the size gap difference between Tyrannosaurus and other theropods. So basically this whole discussion should be named "The Unrivaled Tyrant" as the only theropod that could rival or exceed a tyrannosaurus in body size based on current SCIENTIFIC data (and not self-made inaccurate and inflated stuff claimed to be part of science) is just another tyrannosaurus. End of story.
Since Dan Folkes updated his Giganotosaurus skeletal, I'm making a size comparison with it! Holotype Rex vs Holotype Giga.
I used Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus because regarding Holotypes these theropod species do overlap in size (not if we consider the largest Tyrannosaurus specimens but still). Same reason why I didn't include Spinosaurus, at 3.7 tons the Holotype s. aegyptiacus doesn't match the sizes of these two hypercarnivores *This image is copyright of its original author Better side view *This image is copyright of its original author As the claim that this tyrannosaur's rib cage was too wide and that the weight was too high, it turns out that the true weight was even slightly higher than Franoys' initial estimate of about 400 kg. Some people have tried and are still belittling this estimate made by a paleoartist, even claiming that the rib cage is too wide, but as the reasonable paleoartist RandomDinos personally replied on discord a few days ago: *This image is copyright of its original author Therefore, I advise anyone who reads these claims not to consider them, they are so unfounded P.S Soon I could update the size comparison between Giganotosaurus Holotype compared to even bigger Sue, but I will probably make other comparisons @GuateGojira I'm sure you'll like this
I'll just take the time to repeat the following: if anyone aside from LoveAnimals (or anyone else with similar intentions) has any questions for me about what LoveAnimals said, they can feel free to ask me about it either here or in private messages.
I won't be replying directly to LoveAnimals or anyone with similar intentions since I don't have time to put up with things getting personal nor erroneous, definitive claims about what are nothing more than estimates. (12-03-2021, 04:33 AM)DinoFan83 Wrote: I won't be replying directly to LoveAnimals or anyone with similar intentions since I don't have time to put up with things getting personal nor erroneous, definitive claims about what are nothing more than estimates.In case you haven't noticed, there is nothing personal anymore as I said I don't waste my time repeating the same arguments to those who are not reasonable and have already proven to the whole world of paleontology that they are not. Here it is only about science. And as I said, anti-science claims here are seen as JP3 Spino or JWD Giganotosaurus would be seen on a scientific paper. If you don't have glasses that allow you to see and accept reality correctly: *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author That's not my problem and I'm sorry for you. I ain't comparing an animal with bones thinner than a straw to the heavyweight bodybuilder of theropods which bone and body thickness would put at shame any Spinosaurus anymore. It's not about not having time, it's about not being able to face me, cause I'm too much for you because even your claims based on thin air collapse in front of me. It's that you can't prove prove wrong a person who's speaking facts unless you find a concrete evidence that generates no disagreements among paleoartists and experts that 98% of them state the exact opposite of you. You already know that my claims and my data (they are estimates yea but based at least on real evidence and studies made by neutral people, not personal things or stuff that your friend SIW, who is not a very different person from you, tells you in a way to help you) are basically too much for you to handle. As it has already happened. Also you have to stop this victimism to try to make people feel more compassionate with you and interpreting any person that calls you out as an attacker. You can't expect a person to be patient enough to repeat the same thing over and over again so don't be surprised if so many other people here got tired of talking to you and just left the conversation. Thing I'm about to do as well. Also, me being ERRONEOUS? Sorry but I'm not the one who just claimed that Sue, Scotty, and all the other super sized Rexes shouldn't be considered tyrannosaurus simply because they have different proportions than the holotype (note that you extrapolated a random average of 6,000 kg from a undersized and outdated Sue estimate at around 8200 kg, as Fran's latest equations put her/him at 9.7 - 9.9 tons with density equations so not only you use measurements and estimated made by people like SIW or GAT that nobody considers and nobody knows compared to Random Dinos or Franoys, but you basically use Scott Hartman's outdated data for Sue and then use the more inflated and recent estimates for the other theropods which is kind of unfair). In case you haven't read my comment regarding the proportions in theropod fossils, happy reading. (11-30-2021, 01:16 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote: Fragmentary pieces of bones from these huge animals DO NOT scale isometrically in Dinosaurs or in any living animal or extinct so using fragments is never very accurate. And if you still don't understand, no animal is the perfect clone of the other even in terms of proportions, which can still differ considerably also due to age and hypothetical sex and the amount of weight they carry. Another hypothesis, the more correct one, is individual variation and nothing more which I'll talk to you later about it. So considering your theory, Sue should also be of a different species from Scotty as they both have different proportions. Scotty surpasses Sue in 13 bone measurements and that's just one example. Moving forward I can pull in other specimens that we have never mentioned, such as Walkel the tyrannosaurus. According to bone density, GDI and also skeletal made by Randomdinos, he is really thin and unimpressive for a tyrannosaurus rex and literally weighs about 1 ton less than the holotype (7.9 tons vs 6.9 tons) despite the size of the femur being just 3 cm inferior. He's a new species as well? Using your reasoning these 5 should all be different species of tyrannosaurs. *This image is copyright of its original author Don't you see how absurd this is or someone has to come and tell you? Huh?Don't worry that sooner or later someone other than me will come. No spoilers. Also, methodology you used is using femur length to estimate body mass size, which is not always a good method and doesn't work for all theropods as it usually gives a much lower estimate. Well, it can work with some theropods if it is done in a very accurate way, but it still wouldn't work for many theropods. Acrocanthosaurus is an example, Acrocanthosaurus 'Fran' ends up in the 2-3 tonne range under that method, despite being 6.5 tonnes roughly based off of GDI. Spinosaurus won't work as well. What you did was take Sue femur and take it's mass as 8200kgs. Then all you did was taking the average length for Rex femur and extracting the value for average bodymass from the undersized Sue. Using that method all you can get accurately is the average femur length but not the mass since it does not work for all theropods. SIW has a GDI where he used really soft and generous tissue (consider what Random said here) *This image is copyright of its original author but it still got a Bodymass estimate almost identical to the latest and most accurate one at this time, the one where you just divide all of Frans estimates by 0.912 and lastly multiply by 0.97. But why did you still not use the estimates of SIW and made your own ones? That's because you knew that even if you used Gdis by SiW you would have got way over 7000kgs, which is an average size you probably still can't accept for tyrannosaurus as it would rival too much (and probably even exceed) your favorite theropods. Just as your claim of CM 9380's rib cage to be too large is totally unfounded as the only one we have with confirmation that it is too wide is Sue, with an estimated maximum of 18 tons which is ridiculous. Adjusted the rib cage in the proportions and adding Fran's latest bone density estimates you get about 9.7 tons. Just saying, this below is outdated since it doesn't have the latest density equations updated by Franoys but even our undersized estimates are still way higher than yours. And we might make a new one soon as well, thing I'll share in record time on here as it will be done. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xGqh6JEciRucCX6BE21b2cunJgQCkvvZ_BBk-BG8UOU/edit?usp=sharing
What's more, can you tell me what the hell is the point of the comparison you made with the cranial differences between lion and tiger here?
*This image is copyright of its original author Do not immerse yourself in topics and arguments on which you have never set foot or in which you are not informed thinking you know everything based on a simple visual estimate without having deeply delved into the anatomy of these animals that you have never dealt with until now. Apart from that it is totally nonsense regardless of why you are comparing animal families that are as different as a shark is different from an orca, the only thing they have in common is their habitat and that they are both fearsome predators. Nothing more. Furthermore, even if you had wanted to make sense of your theory, what you could have done would be to theorize a thesis that has actually existed for some time but which is based on the theory of "Gracile and robust morphes" which has already been thoroughly investigated in the pdf paper below. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312738237_Variation_in_Tyrannosaurus_rex&ved=2ahUKEwioquv3l8b0AhVOUGwGHZ1rDIEQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3DsVgPrQ_dBSxWZqvC The following conclusions emerged from the study. That therefore the most probable reason for this difference in proportions and bones between one tyrannosaurus and another is due to sexual dimorphism as in many other animals. While this is possible, it is still not verifiable. It's not been proven outdated but just didn't had a good base for a theory or a proper paper. So closing the parenthesis is much more likely that it is individual variation & nothing more. As if I had not already told you, for the third time in a row I remind you that no animal is simply the exact and printed copy of the other in proportions, which is why it is also very speculative to say that the Giganotosaurus MUCPV-95 is necessarily larger than the Holotype since bone fragments do not isometrically scale and that it could simply be a specimen of the same size (or even smaller) of the holotype as Franoys had indicated in his reply email. So consequently it is totally wrong and ridiculous to believe that for example all tyrannosaurs are the same and identical to Sue or to Scotty if scaled to the same size. The tyrannosaurus Holotype is not a “Sue” scaled to its lower size. No animal is alike and no huge animal is simply the identical but scaled to a bigger size version of a smaller one. Individual variation is something that occurs in all living species just as every animal, even of the same species, has different characteristics from a similar one. This occurs in all extinct and prehistoric terrestrial vertebrates, including mammals of course. Take this table of measurements of African forest leopard skulls for comparison. Look carefully. *This image is copyright of its original author Notice the difference between length and thickness of the skull, don't you find impressive as the longest skull in the whole table, an alleged 298mm long skull is WELL 50mm narrower than one that's 22mm shorter ? And not only that, don't you notice how all the other skulls, even much shorter ones, still manage to exceed the one of almost 300 mm in width? It looks like comparing the skull of a longer Spinosaurus with that of a shorter but significantly wider Tyrannosaurus. So what do you think? Does that leopard also belong to a different species from the others lol? No dear, not at all. They are all African forest leopards that have simply been recorded in different locations in the same forest, but still all belong to the African forest leopard category. They are not a different species, it just shows you how hilarious the "copy and paste" theory of animals is in nature. As for the Tyrannosaurus it is the same, you cannot expect all specimens to have skeletons and skulls with the same proportions when scaled to the same size, and here the main theory that is given is that it is because of the difference in age. As this diagram illustrates below: *This image is copyright of its original author Quote from the study : Individual variation occurs as progressions until young adulthood, where reversals are first seen. The maximum amount of change occurs at growth stages 5 and 6, which corresponds to the transition from a long and low skull and jaws to a deep and stout skull frame; this event, marked by the concentration of an extreme number of changes, is evidence that the ontogeny of T. rex is metamorphic (sensu Rose & Reiss, 1993). Do you want another comparison? Imagine that in real life you are a strong and muscular adult with a fitness body (around 20-25 years old) and that you have already started the gym at the tender age of 13. Now try comparing yourself to the same proportions, do you really think your bones would turn out the same? Absolutely not, before with the tyrannosaurus you ignored its entire ontogeny to extrapolate your strange theory. If you compared yourself to someone smaller and younger than you (or even yourself before) you would clearly notice how your bone structure is now much stronger and stronger (and developed) than when you were not yet fully developed. This is also due to the fact that calcium in the bones builds up more and more over time in the stage of puberty making you grow in height and sturdiness. According to your reasoning, as a child you would have belonged to a different species and now to another. To let you understand. So the individual variation in tyrannosaurus is most likely due both to the difference in maturity of the animal and to the fact that not all tyrannosaurs are built like heavyweight monsters of 9-10 tons like Sue, Trix, Scotty and all other possible similar sized Rexes. Each species has a certain range of weight ranging from a minimum for exceptionally small specimens, to average size which is the one to which most of the specimens belong (in the case of the adult specimens of tyrannosaurus rex, it seems to be anywhere between 7.5 and 8 tons, higher than any other theropod has ever demonstrated till now with only Giganotosaurus approaching although we can't say for sure since we've got just 1 good adult specimen and a really contradictory one) and then to the freak sized specimens that have a much superior bone structure, muscle and overall mass than all those listed above. This is due precisely to the fact that each specimen develops a body shape and a morphology suitable to withstand and support the weight it accumulates as it grows, so it is no wonder that giants between 9.7 - 10+ tons like Sue or Scotty are significantly more robust and with body proportions different from the holotype of about 7.9 tons as they have their bodies perfectly adapted to support their specific weight. But why is your comparison with lion and tiger to be considered completely nonsense and out of context? For the simple reason you're comparing different SPECIES. The idea that the tyrannosaurus rex genus may have developed and evolved following two different branches is based on an almost unproven theory by the creators of the Saurian game who use as their only evidence the existence of two different subspecies of triceratops. And given that some tyrannosaurs had different morphological characteristics from each other (it is not a common thing at all, only 2-3 specimens have presented this characteristic) it has come to speculate that it may be something similar to the triceratops. But none of them have ever said or stated that it is a thesis or a theory, it is simply a speculative estimate that takes as the only reference an animal totally different from the Tyrannosaurus and therefore this is not enough at all to consider it. This is due precisely to the fact that if we start studying the various bones of the fossils, it is practically clear that these theropods have the same morphological characteristics in common which classifies them all as Tyrannosaurus rex. Sue and Scotty both have bone analysis that clearly determined them as T.rexes. Scotty’s literally having an upcoming and more elaborate paper on its bones which is the same paper that will confirm him as the new largest Tyrannosaurus. Literally like every Paleontologist refers to them as T.rexes The comparison with the lion and the tiger is therefore meaningless because you are comparing animals of two different SPECIES with completely different morphological characteristics, while your theory, however unfounded, would have made little more sense if you had compared an African lion to a Mosbach lion or to another subspecies of lion. Species and subspecies are not the same. The estimate made on Saurian would be that the tyrannosaurus would have had two different subspecies always belonging to the same branch of the Tyrannosaurs rex anyway (because they still have too many morphological characteristics in common to be classified as a separate species as would be the Tarbosaurus or the albertosaurus). The lion and the tiger in comparison are two species totally apart with their own subspecies. And there are many characteristics that differentiate them from each other even with regards to the skulls which are so different that even a child would be able to tell them apart and say they are not the same species. And the differences between these animals in the skulls are not only visual, there are many others. LION 1. The frontal process of the superior maxillary reaches the level of the fronto-nasal suture, or extends back of this suture. 2. The summit of this process is more or less acute. 3. The nasal bones are flat or slightly convex, especially toward their frontal extremities. 4. The external opening of the nasal fossae is relatively wider; it widens regularly beginning at the lower part. 5. The interorbital space formed by the frontals is wider, flatter and even commonly excavated; the Lion has a forehead which is wide and flat, transversely as well as longitudinally. 6. The temporal part of the frontals is relatively less developed; the fronto-parietal sutures are placed further forward. 7. The posterior palatine foramen is closer to the orbital border. 8. The inferior border of the mandible has a rather convex form; below the carnassial, this border presents a sort of tuberosity which is more or less pronounced (ramal process of English authors). This shape is such that a mandible of a Lion lying on a table on this inferior border can not touch the table at the symphysis and the angular process at the same time. 9. The coronoid process does not project behind the condyle. TIGER 1. The frontal process of the superior maxillary does not reach the fronto-nasal suture. 2. The summit of this process is truncated. 3. the nasal bones are very convex throughout their length. 4. The external opening of the nasal fossae is relatively narrower; it widens regularly, only up to a certain height, beginning at the lower part. 5. The interorbital space is narrower and always convex: the Tiger has a forehead which is narrower and more arched. 6. The temporal part of the frontals is relatively more developed; the fronto-parietal sutures are placed further back. 7. The posterior palatine foramen is further removed from the orbital border. 8. The inferior border of the mandible has a rather straight and even concave form; there is no tuberosity below the carnassial. The mandible placed on a table rests on the symphysis and on the angular process at the same time. 9. The coronoid process projects behind the condyle. (Merriam and Stock 1932, pp. 181-182) *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author The Lion skull (top) is generally flatter and the face is upturned. On the other hand, the Tiger skull (bottom) has a rounded look to it with the face tilted sharply downwards. When the skull + mandible is placed squarely on a flat surface, the Lion skull will rock forwards and backwards, primarily due to the rounded ventral margin of the mandible, the tuberosity below the carnassial (m1) as described by Boule (1906). The Tiger skull on the other hand will just sit there firmly. If you want to read the full text, read below http://mambobob-raptorsnest.blogspot.com/2008/07/lion-and-tiger.html?m=1 Finally, don't say that mine are just estimates because you have to remind yourself that yours are too, the problem is that you always act as if your data is the one that shows the truth and that you never agree with people who express a different opinion simply because you don't tolerate when someone goes against you. At least my estimates my claims are based on the opinions of paleoartists and experts as opposed to yours who dare to compare animals with an incomparable morphology (i.e Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus) and which are the result only of your ideas that are simply based on visual estimates without ever deepen the topic.  (12-04-2021, 03:59 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote: The lion and the tiger in comparison are two species totally apart with their own subspecies. And there are many characteristics that differentiate them from each other even with regards to the skulls which are so different that even a child would be able to tell them apart and say they are not the same species.Kind of a tangent from the main discussion, but honestly, you’d be surprised. Even experts do have difficulty telling lion and tiger skeletons apart from each other sometimes. Sometimes identification errors happen with cats that are even more blatantly distinct from each other. Here’s an example - at the 1:30 mark, Dr. Luke Hunter, Chief Conservation Officer of Panthera, confidently discusses the differences between an African leopard skull and a cheetah skull…with the minor problem that the “cheetah” skull he is holding is actually that of a snow leopard: (12-04-2021, 05:10 AM)LandSeaLion Wrote: Here’s an example - at the 1:30 mark, Dr. Luke Hunter, Chief Conservation Officer of Panthera, confidently discusses the differences between an African leopard skull and a cheetah skull…with the minor problem that the “cheetah” skull he is holding is actually that of a snow leopard:Kudos to you man for being able to identify it from behind a screen rather than actually holding it! Or maybe you read it somewhere? Well Snow leopards have actually pretty tricky skulls, you wouldn't expect from a Panthera member to have such rounded and short skull so I'd probably mistake it as well for a cheetah skull. *This image is copyright of its original author I have found a way to distinguish lion and tiger skulls more easily than most other visual identification. Look at the highest point of the skull of both, the skull table. Seems like lion has the wider one. In fact on the left there's the tiger and on the right there's the lion. *This image is copyright of its original author The proportionally wider skull table thing is revealed even in this front view comparison *This image is copyright of its original author
(12-04-2021, 10:19 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote:(12-04-2021, 05:10 AM)LandSeaLion Wrote: Here’s an example - at the 1:30 mark, Dr. Luke Hunter, Chief Conservation Officer of Panthera, confidently discusses the differences between an African leopard skull and a cheetah skull…with the minor problem that the “cheetah” skull he is holding is actually that of a snow leopard:Kudos to you man for being able to identify it from behind a screen rather than actually holding it! Or maybe you read it somewhere? I wish I could say I was sharp-eyed enough to have been the first person to have spotted that error in the program, but honesty compels me to say that I have seen a few other people point it out. :) I do agree with their assessment though. Cheetah skulls are more rounded and arched, and their teeth are rather different compared to a snow leopard (first is the cheetah, second is the snow leopard):  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author To my eyes, the skull Dr. Hunter is holding resembles the snow leopard skull, not the cheetah’s. It’s certainly much easier to see the obvious differences when they’re side-by-side though. If I just had one skull, I could easily see myself making a mistake too. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 37 Guest(s) |