Spinosaurus News ~

[tigerluver]

(09-10-2020, 01:02 AM)DinoFan83 Wrote: As it turns out, correcting the model from Henderson (2018) gets a surprisingly large animal well in line with the estimations from Ibrahim (2020).
The model was 7 tonnes as-is, but not only is it only around 63.4% as wide as the deepest parts of the torso (upon closer inspection), it is also too pneumatic with a density of 0.833 when it should have been around 1, and it doesn't have the new tail which would have been around 1.5 times the mass of the old one judging by the neural spine depth. The exact torso mass is not listed in the study so to tentatively estimate the corrected version, I'll assume the torso and tail in Henderson's model takes up roughly the same percentage of the animal's mass as SpinoInWonderland's old Spinosaurus (which was only apparently too small-headed and too elongated overall, for proportional size of each body part it should be fine).

Pneumaticity correction: Changing the pneumaticity from 0.833 to 1, Henderson's model goes to 8.4 tonnes.

Torso widening: Widening the torso about 57.7% (100/63.4=about 57.7) using the assumption that it was proportionally similar to SIW's old GDI (meaning a torso slightly over 55.7% of total mass), it goes up to 11.1 tonnes.

Tail mass increase: Increasing the tail mass 50% assuming proportional similarity to the GDI (meaning a tail about 20.8% of total mass), it goes up to 12.26 tonnes.

All in all, this compares very favourably with the sizes for NHMUK R-16421 and NMC 41852 that I have outlined earlier in this thread. Which really isn't surprising.

Good breakdown, but now we just to get the osteological basis to make this concrete.

The new FSAC-KK-11888 was proposed to be around 4000 kg depending on the density used. Dal Sasso and colleagues have gone with MSNM v4047 being 32.5% larger in osteological dimensions than FSAC-KK-11888, at least in their past publications. (I've gotten this from personal communication but it might be published out there. I know Persons et al. 2019 use this value to extrapolate the femoral circumference of MSNM v4047 from FSAC-KK-11888). Scaling up via isometry (multiply 4000 kg by 1.325^3), we get 9300 kg. I'd like to know the basis for the higher estimate then. Perhaps they now consider the size difference even greater? Reply