Size comparisons

[DinoFan83]

(08-26-2020, 12:33 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(08-25-2020, 10:40 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: 1: To my knowledge the spines on the tail were found somewhat distorted by taphonomy and it's possible there's more than 1 way to articulate them. I'll need to ask SpinoInWonderland to verify what he did, but it's possible that he tried articulating them from scratch instead of just using what the authors came up with.
2: Other than the (not necessarily wrong) Spinosaurus, what are you referring to in particular?



3: Same as above, what in particular are you referring to? That he inflates any predatory dinosaur that isn't Tyrannosaurus appears to be a misconception from 2012; he is very objective and reliable these days, and to my knowledge does not try to inflate the size of anything in particular. 

BTW, I know SpinoInWonderland personally and he prefers that if anyone has any issue with him or his work to talk to him about it directly. 
You can take it up with him on his DeviantArt profile: https://www.deviantart.com/spinoinwonderland

1: This is not the first time that his happen. Check the Carcharodontosaurus, there is no evidence that it surpassed even the 12 meters and he scaled to almoust 13, even larger than Giganotosaurus!

2:The weights are always inflated, none Carcharodontosaurid weighed more than 7 maybe 8 tons, they were long but more slender than the T. rex.

3: Even worst, Spinosaurus was even lighter and now he and you are bringing weights of over 10 tons, that is insane. The experts like Dr Ibrahim stated that the largest Spinosaurus weighed about 7 tons+, and with this change, if actually add more weight, it will reach about 8 tons, as the largest Giganotosaurus, but again, none reach the mark of 9 tons of T. rex.

4: I don't need to address anything to him, DeviantArt is not my place. Wildfacts IS my place and I will not allow to polute the place with incorrect information from a guy that clearly provide estimations with no base and that had been corrected by other people at DevainArt too, like Franoys or Randomdinos. Even Scott Hartman corrected his previous estimations.

1: I would like to disagree - 13 plus meters appears to be a very plausible size for Carcharodontosaurus, judging by these factors:

-It is phylogenetically intermediate between Acrocanthosaurus and giganotosaurines and that may very well be the best way to restore it. See the comments of this for more elaboration.

-The primary difference between SpinoInWonderland's and Franoys' Carcharodontosaurus (as SpinoInWonderland has told me and I am inclined to agree with him) is the different dimensional discrepancies the 2 of them got between the holotype and the neotype, 12.5 percent bigger vs 19.2 percent bigger. Both of their skeletals use Tyrannotitan as the primary basis, and the difference in length they got for the holotypes (10.67 vs 11 meters) fall well into the error bars of one another due to differing skull reconstructions, differing reconstructions of caudal vertebrae, and amounts of intervertebral cartilage.
Aside from that there isn't really much disparity between them to my knowledge.

-Solely using Giganotosaurus as a base, you can get SGM-DIN 1 well above 9 tonnes. I'll quote a statement from SpinoInWonderland himself as well as demonstrate my scaling.

SpinoInWonderland's scaling:

Quote:I get about ~5.79 tonnes for IPHG 1922 X 46 if scaled based on my unreleased GDI for the old version of my Giganotosaurus skeletal (around ~7.4 tonnes, the deeper chest did quite a bit). Scaling this result up to SGM-Din 1 gives around ~9.8 tonnes (using my best-fit scaling factor).

My scaling:
According to Carrano et al. 2012, the femur of MUCPv-Ch1 is 136 cm long, compared to 126 for IPHG 1922. As for the size of the Giganotosaurus being used as a base, I'll quote myself from elsewhere:

Quote:On his website, Paul 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, following both SpinoInWonderland's GDI of GetAwayTrike's Giganotosaurus as well as the GDI of his own skeletal, 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.

This would result in a mass of about 6.5 tonnes for IPHG 1922. For this particular restoration SpinoInWonderland's best fit of 19.2% gets about 11 tonnes for SGM-DIN 1 (this does not mean his best fit is wrong, just that it's not the best to be using for this particular restoration) which is very likely excessive, therefore I'll use the Franoys' best fit estimation of 12.5%.
Scaling up to SGM-DIN 1 results in a mass of 9.25 tonnes.

Long story short, I quite frankly do not see at all this lack of evidence for Carcharodontosaurus being 13+ meters and 9+ tonnes. Just because it's a large estimate does not make it wrong.

2: I do not agree with that either. Aside from the Carcharodontosaurus scalings by SpinoInWonderland and myself, I feel we have sufficiently good skeletals that suggest Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus could have reached 9-10+ tonnes.
Furthermore, on carcharodontosaurids being slender, I think it should be noted that much of this supposed 'slenderness' comes from most Giganotosaurus skeletals taking the incomplete scapula as complete and therefore the very shallow chest, which would increase the 'slenderness' factor. As you can see, compared to Scott Hartman's skeletal, the skeletals that have this corrected (SpinoInWonderland's, GetAwayTrike's, and SpinoInWonderland's GDI of GetAwayTrike's (I would even argue that based on the rest of these, GetAwayTrike's original skeletal may have the scapula too far up in the neural spines and needs to be shifted down somewhat, thus deepening the chest and decreasing the slenderness even further)) have a considerably deeper chest than that and thus mass more. For example, Scott's skeletal is 12.4 meters and 6.8 tonnes, compared to 12.32 meters and 7.53 tonnes for SpinoInWonderland's GDI - thus 12.9% heavier at length parity with the corrected version, or maybe even more with Greg Paul's corrected skeletal, though admittedly I do not know what the axial length of his MUCPv-Ch1 is so I cannot yet make a precise judgement on that.

3: I recommend checking out this in regards to Spinosaurus' size. While you are correct that both myself and SpinoInWonderland agree with those size estimations, we didn't come up with them - Ibrahim et al. 2020 did. 
But that's not all, nowadays Ibrahim supports 10-12 tonne sizes for Spinosaurus, as you can read about here and here.  (Also I usually go with masses of 7.47-8.4 tonnes for the largest Tyrannosaurus specimens, but that's a story for another time).

4: If you don't want to address him so be it. But where, may I ask, have Franoys, randomdinos, and Hartman 'corrected' his skeletals of large theropods? As far as I am aware that has not happened, period. No one has 'corrected' them.
Heck, maybe I should even ask him about these supposed corrections. That may be useful.

Though, if absolutely necessary, we can agree to disagree. I have no issue to continue this but if it needs to be done, agreeing to disagree is not such a bad idea. Reply