There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
Just to say that, despite its tremendous look and its gigantic claws, therizinosaurus wasn't a predator. 10 meters long, 5 tons weight, forelimb reaching between 2m50 and 3m50 length, the largest claw specimens reached 0m70 to 1m long. Lived in Mongolia during Late Cretaceous (70 millions years ago).
Dryptosaurus: tyrannosaurid of the Later Cretaceous (67 millions years ago) found in what is now New Jersey in the US. Contrary to the other tyrannosaurids, its arms weren't small and with jaws could serve as weapons when hunting, catching and eating preys. Length: 7m50. Weigth: 1,5- 1,7 ton.
Nice depiction but the indications are lacking: A big theropod onto the agonizing body of a sauropod. The forelimbs seem to be too big and long for a tyrannosaurid, clearly more probably it would be an allosaurid. In this case it's a scene of the Jurrassic period.
Known fossils of Dryptosaurus aquilunguis by GetAwayTrike:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Incredible how few bones we know of some specimens, but still very interesting. This was a Tyrannosauroid in the east of North America, completelley separated from those from the west, check this map:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Other Tyrannosauroid from Appalachia is no other than the Appalachiosaurus montgomeriensis, check these reconstructions, the first from GetAwayTrike, the second is copy-past from Thomas Carr:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Interesting how the evolution produced these long and slender predators in North America in the east side, from the same branch that gived origin to the more stockier Tyrannts from the West.
09-11-2019, 10:39 AM( This post was last modified: 09-11-2019, 10:40 AM by johnny rex )
(09-09-2019, 08:08 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: Known fossils of Dryptosaurus aquilunguis by GetAwayTrike:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Incredible how few bones we know of some specimens, but still very interesting. This was a Tyrannosauroid in the east of North America, completelley separated from those from the west, check this map:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Other Tyrannosauroid from Appalachia is no other than the Appalachiosaurus montgomeriensis, check these reconstructions, the first from GetAwayTrike, the second is copy-past from Thomas Carr:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Interesting how the evolution produced these long and slender predators in North America in the east side, from the same branch that gived origin to the more stockier Tyrannts from the West.
Regarding the Appalachiosaurus, that was just a juvenile specimen, I believe the adults would match Tyrannosaurus rex in size.
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.
(09-11-2019, 10:39 AM)johnny rex Wrote: Regarding the Appalachiosaurus, that was just a juvenile specimen, I believe the adults would match Tyrannosaurus rex in size.
Actually, I see it more in the line of Albertosaurus or Gorgosarus, or probably Daspletosaurus, regarding its size and weight, but again, were are just speculating.
(09-11-2019, 10:39 AM)johnny rex Wrote: Regarding the Appalachiosaurus, that was just a juvenile specimen, I believe the adults would match Tyrannosaurus rex in size.
Actually, I see it more in the line of Albertosaurus or Gorgosarus, or probably Daspletosaurus, regarding its size and weight, but again, were are just speculating.
Yeah, there's no definitive answer especially when dealing with animals millions of years old though. It could be a juvenile, or another species.
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.
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)
They used the image from Franoys, which is the most accurate that I had saw, for the moment. He estimated a weight of nearly 7 tons.
I don't think that a Mapusaurus of over 8 tons is an imposibility, is like a T. rex of 10 tons. However we most take in count that based in the current estimations, no Carcharodontosauridae surpassed the 8 tons, probably just the largest Giganotosaurus, but now that is doubtfull.
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)
1: They used the image from Franoys, which is the most accurate that I had saw, for the moment. He estimated a weight of nearly 7 tons.
2: I don't think that a Mapusaurus of over 8 tons is an imposibility, is like a T. rex of 10 tons. However we most take in count that based in the current estimations, no Carcharodontosauridae surpassed the 8 tons, probably just the largest Giganotosaurus, but now that is doubtfull.
1: Oh, you mean what Franoys got? They used all the biggest specimens in Giganotosaurus size territory for that, and it doesn't necessarily mean all equated to 12.47 meter, 7 ton Mapusaurus.
For instance, MCF-PVPH-108.202 is 12.2 meters, so yes the exact sizes do vary. A pubic shaft of that (MCF-PVPH-108.145) size would've been indicative of a larger animal, but one within the 12 plus meter size range
2: 10 ton Rex is also impossible - in fact, no theropod would have been over 9 tons save for Spinosaurus. That's beyond the biped weight limit
However, most carcharodontosaurids are fairly poorly known, so we're extrapolating from other dinos. As I said, an 8.5 ton Mapu seems perfectly reasonable to me going by that
2:
A striped sauropod, apatosaurus i.e. brontosaurus, attacked by spotted allosaurus... Allosaurids and not tyrannosaurus because the arms (forelimbs) aren't atrophied.
Carnivorous dinosaurs other than the famous t-rex and spinosaurus..
