Size comparisons

[DinoFan83]

@"LoveAnimals" 

Quote:How on earth is Giganotosaurus holotype heavier than Tyrannosaurus (Sue) ? 

I currently don't believe MUCPv-Ch1 was heavier than Sue. What I am saying is that the estimations I have reached suggest that they are about the same weight (note that this also applies to Scotty since it appears to be roughly the same size as Sue).

Quote:The bone structure of the giganotosaurus is too light compared to the stocky pitbull-like bone density of tyrannosaurus.
I mean I have visited many sites and from what i heard giganotosaurus carolinii holotype can max reach 8000+ kgs or 9 metric tons which rivals Sue but never overweights it.
On the other hand, the giganotosaurus holotype is bigger than all other tyrannosaurus speciments, there is only the exception of Sue and maybe Scotty. 

I obviously can't go and fact-check each and every one of those sites, but I think it is likely they were referring to an estimate based on a skeletal (eg: Scott Hartman's) that had the incorrect pectoral girdle, because the most popular Giganotosaurus skeletals have just that problem. It may not be as robustly built, but because of how much deeper its torso becomes and how much my estimates go up when this happens, I don't see why it couldn't equal Sue and Scotty.
I'm glad to see we agree on how it compares with other T. rex specimens though.

Quote:The largest giganotosaurus carolinii ever found is 12.25 / 12.45 meters long. I am never considering a speculative size of a dinosaur we only have a jaw fragment of. Those are only speculations, how can you know it was 13.2 meters? Could have been more, could have been less.

(but hey I am not saying that these alleged giganotosaurus speciments aren't larger than Sue, they ARE, it's just that it's really hard to determine an accurate body length and size of them, is it?)

Well, I do respect your decision. Fragments are always tricky.

Quote:I only take as proof for size comparison the most complete speciments and for this reason I don't even consider the alleged tyrannosaurus specimens supposed to be "larger" than sue since all those sizes are not confirmed but speculated. But it's only my personal take, not going to judge others.

Since I already got out of the way that I respect your opinion on this, I'll just make a note to anyone else who is reading this and may get the wrong idea:
It should be noted that the fragmentary T. rex specimens that are said to suggest sizes larger than Sue aren't all they're cracked up to be. As per this, UCMP 137538, UCMP 118742, and MOR 008's claims of being giants are unsubstantiated, and MOR 1126 has no measurements whatsoever, just a field guess from Jack Horner. No estimates can be made for it ATM.

Quote:Charcarodontosaurus is highly controversial imo, we only have skulls and some bones of them so I guess that estimating a size would be too hard. We don't know the body proportions of it and we can't compare them to a giganotosaurus since they are different, what if charcarodontosaurus had a shorter tail related to its body size? We can never know until we find a real skeleton. That's the reason why I never consider charcha in size comparisons. But still it's only my personal opinion. 

Your opinion is fair enough. I agree a good skeleton of Carcharodontosaurus is desperately needed.

Quote:About giganotosaurus holotype, it can max rival Sue's size, but never exceed it. Sue is even longer and about 20 cms taller at thenhip and note that Sue's tail is not it even complete.

Compared to each other, they are this big

You may have missed what I previously stated about the Sue that has been used there. I'm glad to see that further down the text you recognize it's using an underestimated Giganotosaurus, but as I said before, I have reason to believe the Sue model is quite overestimated.

Quote:Sue is indeed bigger, but as you said, giga is not only 6800+ kgs, it is more and as I said it rivals Sue.
For more infos see this

Matt Dale Conrad's answer to Giganotosaurus vs T. rex, who is the deadliest predator? (Matt Dale Conrad's answer to Giganotosaurus vs T. rex, who is the deadliest predator?)
Nelson Bass-Howell's share of Nelson Bass-Howell's answer to What is the heaviest theropod? in Ancient Life (Nelson Bass-Howell's share of Nelson Bass-Howell's answer to What is the heaviest theropod? in Ancient Life)

Just some notes to anyone else who may be reading these and may get curious:
-I quite frankly couldn't disagree more on T. rex being 'deadlier' than Giganotosaurus. Since Animal vs Animal debates are discouraged on WildFact I'll refrain from elaboration, but it should be obvious why I think so.
-Nelson Bass-Howell's answer is also something I disagree with, for obvious reasons. Not to mention that the heaviest theropod is and will always remain indeterminate because of all the massive theropods that have existed but never fossilized, their not being fossilized keeps the heaviest theropod forever unknowable.

Quote:NOTE : CONSIDER THAT THEY USE THE WRONG WEIGHT FOR GIGA,

As previously stated, glad to see you noticed this.

Quote:I just wanted to give you the size comparison of the skeletons with Sue being bigger but similar in mass

See what I wrote above on Franoys' Sue.

Quote:And how are heights not reliable? I am talking about hip heights not head heights, there's nothing you can change from hip height, it's like the shoulder height for modern predators
Sue hip height : 3.73 meters
Giganotosaurus holotype hip height : 3.53 meters
Tyrannosaurus holotype hip height : 3.67 meters

I'm not saying they are not reliable. I'm saying I don't know precisely what they are in the skeletals I used because I haven't looked into it, and I find it unimportant.

Quote:Here holotype Tyrannosaurus, taller than giganotosaurus ( 3.53 vs 3.67) but lighter and shorter in length ( 11.8 meters vs 12.25/45 meters)

While it's good that we can agree on CM 9380 being lighter than MUCPv-Ch1, I think it should be noted that Franoys' 7500 kg estimate is very likely excessive (I view 6500 kg as a more likely estimate, as per Seebacher et al. 2001). Why do I think it is excessive, you ask? See what SpinoInWonderland told me.

Quote:But about weight you are right, 6980+ kg for giganotosaurus is too low but i don't believe it could go far from 8000 kg. Yes, it rivals sue in size but keep in mind that giganotosaurus was way more agile and faster than Tyrannosaurus, the longer tail probably worked as a cheetah's tail works today.

So, faster = less body mass. 

Well, one animal being faster than another doesn't necessarily mean the former was smaller. It all depends on their morphology - in this case, Giganotosaurus has a proportionally shorter lower leg relative to its femur than T. rex does (meaning shorter strides), but its legs are also proportionally shorter (meaning superior leverage of the energy it can produce to run - this is also why short legged hippos and rhinos are so fast), and in this case, its larger size probably gives it an edge for speed given that a larger animal can produce more energy to run with. Overall speed for both would probably be similar, but if we're talking maximum speed, the greater size of Giganotosaurus may just be what let it go faster (Bianco and Mazzetta estimate 50 km/h for a 9000 kg specimen, the latter being coherent with my estimates and larger than any known T. rex).
As for agility, Giganotosaurus was probably similar or slightly moreso (the latter is because of the superior leg leverage).

Quote:Tyrannosaurus on the other hand wasn't built to be agile or fast, it wasn't as agile as giga so probably that's why it looks like it has a much more muscle and bone density than giga. Wasn't Tyrannosaurus the scavenger?

 
While I do agree that it's possible T. rex was not as agile as Giganotosaurus, that it "wasn't built to be agile or fast" does not seem to be true, nor does it seem to be true that it was a scavenger. These two links explain it better than I ever could.

Quote:The largest reliable tyrannosaurus (sue) is slightly bigger than the largest giganotosaurus carolinii ever found by mass, height and length.

Giganotosaurus holotype however is not that small, it rivals sue in size and weight. (Sue may be heavier by only 300–500 kgs)

Can giganotosaurus be bigger than Tyrannosaurus? Yes absolutely , the alleged incomplete specimens you cite even though size and weight aren't reliable are indeed bigger than Sue, by both body lass, length and probably hip height.

But talking about largest complete speciments, Tyrannosaurus is slightly bigger than giganotosaurus.

Length and height are certainly up for debate given the error margin of estimates, but now I can see where our disagreement came from. I think you may be putting too much importance in a size difference of a couple hundred kilograms; if the difference is, let's say, 400 kg, that's not a lot at all and easily falls into the massive error bars associated with each estimate (imprecision of volumetric models, unknown proper amount of soft tissue, unknown exact densities, and so on).
For example, my estimates for Sue and MUCPv-Ch1 are 8200 and 8320 kg respectively. You might say that MUCPv-Ch1 was the bigger if those estimates were being used, but given those massive error bars they are equals.

Quote:See this from Scott Hartman 

https://images.app.goo.gl/PbhUVUekaTuVe5FA8

As alluded to earlier, the incomplete pectoral girdle being taken as complete results in Scott Hartman's Giganotosaurus estimates being major underestimates. See the Giganotosaurus profile thread (both pages) for more.

Quote:But the largest giganotosaurus that could reach 9–11 tons are larger than Sue.

This, I agree with you on.

Quote:I know Ibrahim’s studies of Spinosaurus and those are completely reliable innmy opinion, since spinosaurus was an aquatic reptile it probably weighed more than Tyrannosaurus since water cancels gravity. No wonder why most marine animals weigh that much, such as hippos, whales and killer whales. Adapted to live in water without gravity they grow with bigger mass, that's why spinosaurus was probably heavier than Tyrannosaurus

Agreed with everything here. Known probable adult specimens of Spinosaurus suggest a much heavier animal than T. rex, and the former's greater mass for its volume certainly contributes to this.

Quote: I heard that there was a limit of 13 tons for spinosaurus wasn't there?

Close. 13,000 kg or more is probably not the limit (we don't know what that is), but it is certainly a plausible size by several of my estimations. All we need to wait for is a few more skull and arm bones to be more sure.

Quote:Yes, with these studies a spinosaurus is indeed much heavier than Sue do you think that the max can be up to 13 tons?

As stated above, indeed I do. In fact, while it cannot be confirmed due to lack of overlap remains, I view 13700 kg as the most likely estimate for MSNM v4047 (see my linked Spinosaurus estimates).

Quote:It's damn interesting that spino is changing in years.

No doubt about that. It could not be more interesting to me.

Quote:I am happy to see someone interested in dinosaurs as me, most of people talk about big cats and bears on here so I am happy that there's someone as interested as me ? I hope to have a nice conversation with you

Thank you very much for the kind words. I'm also happy that you're a fellow dinosaur enthusiast and look forward to having fruitful future discussions with you. Reply