Carnivorous dinosaurs other than the famous t-rex and spinosaurus..

[DinoFan83]

(09-13-2019, 06:28 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(09-11-2019, 07:07 AM)DinoFan56 Wrote: @GuateGojira 

Sorry for the late reply, I was locked out of my account.
That's just what Franoys got; scaling up from this specimen yields 13.6 meters and 8.5 tons
Example: https://www.deviantart.com/namdaotetanurae/gallery?catpath=%2F&sort=popularity

Gotta say, Mapusaurus is vastly underestimated in terms of size.

I may agree with you in that Mapusaurus may be somehow underestimated, but not vastly. In fact, that escalation of 13.6 meters seems exagerated and in the same link there is a criticism about that:

FeatheredDinoDec 19, 2014
I don't believe we shouldscale this specimen from Giganotosaurus. I mean, they are different species. If we try to scale a 13.6 m Mapusaurus from the 10.2 m, 3.3 t specimen we get something close to 8 t (~7600-7800 kg), wich isn't larger than Giganotosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus and Tyrannosaurus, but in the same size range. Maybe we should even scale its lenght from a Mapusaurus pubis, but I don't have any data about Mapusaurus' pubis.

So, this previous comment is also valid, as the size is just based in a pubis and that is the problem from scaling animals from fragmentary bones. Scaling Mapusaurus from a Giganotosaurus is like scaling a tiger from a lion, closely related species but that have important differences in they anatomy.

Interestingly in the original document of 2006 Dr Rodolfo Coria and Dr Philip Currie provide and estimated total length of 12.2 m, so probably Mapusaurus was about the same length than Giganotosaurus, but been a predator of large sauropods was probably more robust.

Couple of things in regards to that:
1: Whose Mapusaurus was that scaled from? Franoys or Ville Sinkkonen's? 
Ville Sinkkonen's is VERY shrinkwrapped and inaccurate. It's this

*This image is copyright of its original author

vs this

*This image is copyright of its original author

2: Juveniles are a considerable degree more gracile than adults. Does this scaling up factor in the bulk increase, or not? If not, 8.5 tons may be more accurate
3: I'm not necessarily taking that size estimate as gospel. However, large theropods vary a lot in general weight ranges, so I see no reason why Mapusaurus would not.
Allosaurus fragilis ranges from 1.5 to almost 4 tons
Daspletosaurus is 1.8 to 3.8 tons
And Tyrannosaurus rex is 5-8 tons
I see absolutely no reason why an 8.5 ton Mapusaurus is unrealistic (not saying it's true, but I don't see how it's unrealistic)

EDIT 12/22/2020: This post is arguing for a serious underestimate. As it turns out, the most parsimonious assumption favors the pubic shaft to belong to an animal of nearly 11 tonnes, and even if we were to assume it was an animal with a robust pubis instead of a giant, there are still very large >9.7 tonne tibiae. 8-8.5 tonnes for the largest Mapusaurus is so much of an underestimation that it isn't even funny. Reply