|
Tyrannosaurus rex
|
 (10-16-2020, 04:03 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Tyrannosaurus rex at the Field Museum: I strongly, strongly, strongly disagree with this. As I have went over earlier in this thread, the average Tyrannosaurus is approximately 6 tonnes and Sue is most likely around 7.9 tonnes (the 9 tonne estimates are most likely incorrect; I can explain if needed). Likewise, the average of both specimens of Giganotosaurus appears to be around 9.23 tonnes (therefore over 3.2 tonnes heavier than Tyrannosaurus on average based on known specimens) when correcting for the common problem of the incomplete pectoral girdle, our only adult specimen for Carcharodontosaurus is very likely in the 9-9.8 tonne range (therefore a mean of 3.4 tonnes larger than Tyrannosaurus on average based on known specimens), and Spinosaurus appears to be in the 10-12+ tonne size range on average based on known specimens, meaning that going by that, it was nearly TWICE the size of Tyrannosaurus on average. And at maximum size, Sue appears to be outmassed by MUCPv-95 by well over 2 tonnes (7.9 vs 10.29), SGM-DIN 1 by a mean of 1.5 tonnes (7.9 vs 9-9.8), and MSNM v4047/NMC 41852 by 4.1+ tonnes (7.9 tonnes vs 12+ tonnes) For what it is worth, there's also Mapusaurus* (linked in the Giganotosaurus post), who appears to be 8.17 plus tonnes on average and 10.87 tonnes at maximum based on known specimens, meaning that based on these known specimens Tyrannosaurus is outweighed by over 2 tonnes on average and almost 3 tonnes at maximum by Mapusaurus. Considering all this, I see absolutely no reason to think Tyrannosaurus was the largest carnivorous dinosaur ever discovered seeing as based on all of this, Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus, and Carcharodontosaurus all appear to have been SUBSTANTIALLY heavier. Edit: Also, for what it's worth, using Sue and Scotty to judge whether or not Tyrannosaurus was larger than any given theropod is a very poor idea. They are the largest and oldest in a sample of well over 30 adults, while all the giant carcharodontosaurids outlined above, as well as Spinosaurus, are only known from 1-3 presumably adult specimens that almost certainly aren't senescent and may not even be adults for all of them due to lack of study on that topic (ie: we don't know). Following logics of comparing extremes, who's to say Bucky, B-rex, DMNH 2827, Wyrex, MOR 009, and such are worse representatives? Of course they are also bad representatives for Tyrannosaurus as a species, but since there are a lot more specimens in their size class than in the size class of Sue and Scotty therefore they are if anything a better representative for Tyrannosaurus. The best comparison by far would be average vs average (a specimen close to 6 tonnes such as MOR 555, BHI 4182, LACM 23844, BHI 3033, MOR 008, MOR 980, or UCMP 118742), and as I have gone over above when based on known specimens, Tyrannosaurus is quite smaller not just at average but also at maximum and obviously at minimum. *Just as a side note, do you remember the earlier discussions we had about Mapusaurus' size roughly a year ago, where I had proposed 8-8.5 tonnes for the giant pubis MCF-PVPH-108.145? As you can probably tell from the estimations outlined here, that is a SEVERE underestimate. Using the scenario of maximum parsimony, you'd have an animal approaching 11 tonnes based on the pubis, and even if we completely disregard the pubis we still have the tibiae that lead to >9.7 tonne specimens. So consider all my old posts on Mapusaurus from that discussion to be a FUBAR by now, considering how rife with underestimation they are. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 7 Guest(s) |