Size comparisons

[AndresVida]

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It's not been proven outdated but just didn't had a good base for a theory or a proper paper.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. Reply