WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Extinct Animals
›
Dinosaurs
Carnivorous dinosaurs other than the famous t-rex and spinosaurus..
Carnivorous dinosaurs other than the famous t-rex and spinosaurus..
|
Carnivorous dinosaurs other than the famous t-rex and spinosaurus..
|
This is a pretty good skeletal for Carcharodontosaurus (by SpinoInWonderland); IMO it is the best one so far. The holotype is 10.86 meters standing length/11.09 meters axial length and 5-6 tonnes, while the neotype is 12.95 meters standing length/13.23 meters axial length and ~9 tonnes.
 *This image is copyright of its original author
" Daspletosaurus meaning "frightful lizard") was a genus of tyrannosaurid dinosaur that lived in western North America between about 77 and 74 million years ago, during the Late Cretaceous Period. The genus Daspletosaurus contains two species. Fossils of the earlier type species, D. torosus, have been found in Alberta, while fossils of the later second species, D. horneri, have been found only in Montana. A possible third species, also from Alberta, awaits formal identification. (Daspletosaurus sp.) Mass: 1,800 – 3,800 kg
Lived: 85.8 million years ago - 66 million years ago (Santonian - Maastrichtian) Length: 8 – 9 m (Adult) Scientific name: Daspletosaurus (Frightful lizard) Phylum: Chordata Eats: Edmontosaurus, Hadrosaurus, Centrosaurus, Struthiomimus, Hypacrosaurus "
In my opinion, frankly, I don't imagine a theropod attacking a sauropod in this way. But in order to show the possibly most powerful theropoda during the Jurassic era...
" Saurophaganax ("lord of lizard-eaters") is a genus of allosaurid dinosaur from the Morrison Formation of Late Jurassic (latest Kimmeridgian age, about 151 million years ago) Oklahoma, United States. Some paleontologists consider it to be a species of Allosaurus (A. maximus). Saurophaganax represents a very large Morrison allosaurid characterized by horizontal laminae at the bases of the dorsal neural spines above the transverse processes, and "meat-chopper" chevrons. The maximum size of S. maximushas been estimated at anywhere from 10.5 meters (34 ft) to 13 meters (43 ft) in length, and about 3 metric tons (3.3 short tons) to 4.5 metric tons (5.0 short tons) in weight. Length: 10 – 13 m Mass: 3,000 – 4,500 kg Lived: 155.7 million years ago - 145 million years ago (Kimmeridgian - Tithonian) Scientific name: Saurophaganax (Lord of the eaters of saurians) Phylum: Chordata ." 
Carcharodontosaurus the shark-toothed lizard diagram by Franoys https://www.deviantart.com/franoys/art/Carcharodontosaurus-saharicus-skeletals-MKlll-639149038
Estimated to be one of the largest theropods at around 12 meters long and estimated to mass around 6400 kg (7 tons) with current estimates. "After all these things, it is a matter of a theropod form that is distinctly different from the previously known species, which I name Carcharodontosaurus according to the gross similarity with the teeth of Carcharodon. Carcharodontosaurus saharicus (DÉPERET and SAVORNIN). Middle Cretaceous of North Africa. - (Stromer et al, 1931) Carcharodontosaurus is a carnivorous theropod dinosaur, which lived in the African piece of the Gondwanan continent. Its remains were found in the Kem Kem and Bahariya formations (North Africa) where it was the apex and most powerfully built predator and coexisted with gigantic spinosaurid theropods like Spinosaurus and Sigilmassasaurus, that occupied a different niche, Bahariasaurus, the agile noasaurid theropod Deltadromeus agilis, the medium sized sauropods Rebbachisaurus and Aegyptosaurus, the gigantic titanosaurian sauropod Paralititan stromeri, and a big variety of pterosaurs, like azdarchids (Alanka and Xericeps),and indeterminate tapejarids; and also crocodilomorhps of various sizes and niches, like Aeigisuchus ,Lagonasuchus and Stomatosuchus. At some point, the populations of theropods that would evolve into Carcharodontosaurus became isolated from their south American sister taxa, such as Tyrannotitan or Giganotosaurus. The holotype was found in 1931 and described by Stromer, which also gave a name to the Carcharodontosauridae family. It is really important to remark that the remains were really scarce, for example only 3 vertebrae out of the 23 precaudals, 5 sacrals, and at the very least 45 caudals that constituted the animal (4% of the vertebral column, hence body length estimations are very tentative and conjectural, nevertheless the vertebrae found is not big compared to the other elements) The skull remains were also extremely damaged, broken, and weathered. Out of all the bones found, only the hindlimb bones were complete, and the femur broke in a lot of pieces during transport and had to be rebuilt, therefore maybe it's dimensions are not very reliable. Soon after, the remains were bombed in WW2, along with other dinosaurs described also by Stromer, like the Spinosaurus holotype, Bahariasaurus, and Aegyptosaurus. But the description of the animal remained and allows an attempt to restore it. Later on (in 1996) , Paul Sereno found a 1.28 meters piece of a skull of another individual of the same species (the restored length of the skull is again, conjectural). It is the new type of the species and belongs to an animal approximately 12.5% larger than the destroyed holotype.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
Well, estimates do vary quite a bit and there are multiple ways to interpret the fossils. Spinodont, Franoys', and SIW's skeletals can all be considered reasonably accurate, and the mass will vary depending on which you prefer to use.
I myself would go for SIW's, but to each their own I suppose. This is also a common issue when it comes to people using Franoys' skeletals; they tend to in general be very carnosaur-conservative and it is by no means set in stone. But many believe it is. (12-22-2019, 05:02 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: Well, estimates do vary quite a bit and there are multiple ways to interpret the fossils. Spinodont, Franoys', and SIW's skeletals can all be considered reasonably accurate, and the mass will vary depending on which you prefer to use. The difference is that Franoys is a well-respected paleo artist and a practicing paleontologist he's at university right now studying to become a full-time expert when it comes to these animals and how to reconstruct these animals. You are a Carnosaur fan that prefers to use outdated and higher-end estimates because you like to push Carnosaurs you have a biased for these animals while trying to downplay Tyrannosaurus. Franoys uses the most current data to create his work. And near enough everyone within the paleo community states his work his the most accurate to use. He's more credible than you are it's just that simple. If you did not have your bias views people would take you more seriously. But right now its plain as day what animals you like and do not like so people do not take you seriously and why should they? you are not being objective. You have been told over and over and over again the issues with what you like to state is fact and why you should not use outdated work. Everyone on the theropod discord tried to help you and tried to tell you over and over what you were doing was not the most accurate way to look at these animals. You flat out refused to listen to anyone and carried on downplaying Tyrannosaurus while using outdated work and then you were banned after being told time after time to correct your behavior. Like i have stated to you countless times please leave your bias out of it and stop repeating the same mistakes over and over. Then maybe people will stop being so hostile towards you.
I didn't mean Franoys' information was not factual (if it sounded like that, my bad). All of the skeletals, including Franoys's, are perfectly reasonable depending on interpretation of data, and there are many different ways to interpret the given data especially when there is not much of it. I believe SpinoInWonderland even elaborated on that and pointed it out that when he made his skeletal.
The issue is people assuming Franoys' estimates are set in stone. None of them are. Not even SIW's. Also, what's the matter with SIW's skeletal? If I recall correctly, when I had this discussion on the discord it was something along the lines of all of them being on the table and that they are better than the 14 tonne Carch that Therrein got. (12-22-2019, 07:10 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: I didn't mean Franoys' information was not factual (if it sounded like that, my bad). All of the skeletals, including Franoys's, are perfectly reasonable depending on interpretation of data, and there are many different ways to interpret the given data especially when there is not much of it. I believe SpinoInWonderland even elaborated on that and pointed it out that when he made his skeletal. You have been going off on Franoys work for a while now though. You keep stating his work is just one way to look at it and his work is two conservative. Franoys work is pure and simply the most accurate work we have right now and it is by far the most accurate work we have had on the internet for a long time. You keep using work that was being used from years ago that the paleo community created and used years ago we have moved past that stuff now you keep bringing it back up because you prefer it over the latest estimates. Nothing is set in stone but right now there is nothing at all that shows the work from Franoys is inaccurate or too conservative. His results are frequently very similar to the results published in the most current literature. Look at his Giganotosaurus holotype. Franoys has got it at 12.2 m and it masses 6840 kg. This mass estimated is coherent with other mass estimations published for the Giganotosaurus holotype specimen (Mazzeta et al 2004; 6510 kg, Campione et al. 2014; 6349 kg, Seebacher 2001; 6,594.8 kg) why is this? because Franoys uses the most current literature to create his work.  *This image is copyright of its original author It's simple and has been said to you countless times now if you want the most accurate work when it comes to these animals go with Fran. I know you won't agree and will ignore everything that is said to you. But this is more for anyone that is reading this and is interested in getting the best info when it comes to these animals.
I never said it was inaccurate nor too conservative. I said that while it can be considered accurate depending on interpretation of data, it is more conservative than other mass estimates that are also accurate depending on data interpretation. All of them can work. Just go with whatever floats your boat.
It's not even MUCPv-Ch1 I am referring to; just about every GDI I know of, including the one you posted, gives 7 tonnes for it. I am referring to things such as MUCPv-95, MCF-PVPH-108.145, and SGM-DIN 1, where there are multiple possible ways to accurately interpret the given data. (12-23-2019, 01:39 AM)DinoFan83 Wrote: I never said it was inaccurate nor too conservative. I said that while it can be considered accurate depending on interpretation of data, it is more conservative than other mass estimates that are also accurate depending on data interpretation. All of them can work. Just go with whatever floats your boat. And you have been told what the issues are with using these specimens countless times now by people that know far better than both you and me. You simply go with of date higher-end estimates for Carnosaurs because you like them it's just that simple. There is no point in interacting with you because you want to believe what you want to believe. I have made this mistake way too many times and sadly other users on other forums such as the world of animals are doing it aswell you are pretty much having this same conversation with another user on there its pretty much the same convo you have been having with countless people. It's just one big endless circle.
Just go with whatever floats your boat. Estimations are going to vary because there are several ways to interpret given data and that is perfectly normal! Even moreso when said data is fragmentary.
Feathered deinonychus attacking a tenontosaurus... The fact is we have really discovered this ornithopsid's skeleton which deinonychus' s pieces of bones.
Following post #133:
About the same fact - deinonychus attacking a tenontosaurus - an other depiction, with a pinch of humor, by a famous artist of the 80 years: William Stout. Deinonychus aren't feathered.  *This image is copyright of its original author
Utahraptor in full force, by Sergey Krasovskiy
Depiction that I link with this video of the "Jurassic Fight Club" series : |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |