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.
05-19-2020, 03:33 AM( This post was last modified: 06-17-2021, 06:43 PM by DinoFan83 )
Giganotosaurus is a species of allosauroid theropod dinosaur that lived in what is now Argentina during the early Cenomanian age of the Cretaceous period, approximately 98 to 97 million years ago. The holotype specimen was discovered in the Candeleros Formation of Patagonia in 1993, and is almost 70% complete. The animal was named Giganotosaurus carolinii in 1995; the genus name translates as "giant southern lizard" and the specific name honours the discoverer, Rubén D. Carolini. A dentary bone, a tooth and some tracks, discovered before the holotype, were later assigned to this animal. The genus attracted much interest and became part of a scientific debate about the maximum sizes of theropod dinosaurs. Giganotosaurus was one of the largest known terrestrial carnivores ever. The most complete specimen and also the holotype, MUCPv-Ch1, is thought to be 12.4 meters in length and weigh more than 8320 kg. The referred dentary MUCPv-95 that appears to have been an animal 10% larger has been used to extrapolate a length of 13.6-13.7 meters and a weight of more than 11100 kg, the average size of the 2 specimens being about 13.1 meters in length and more than 9700 kg in weight. Some researchers have found the animal to be larger than Tyrannosaurus.
The skull was very deep, with rugose (rough and wrinkled) nasal bones and a ridge-like crest on the lacrimal bone in front of the eye. The front of the lower jaw was flattened, and had a downwards projecting process (or "chin") at the tip. The teeth were compressed sideways and had serrations. The neck was strong and the neural spines tall. Part of the family of theropods known as the Carcharodontosauridae, Giganotosaurus is one of the most completely known members of the group, which includes other very large theropods, such as the closely related Carcharodontosaurus and sister species Giganotosaurus roseae. Giganotosaurus is thought to have been homeothermic (a type of "warm-bloodedness"), with a metabolic rate between that of a mammal and a reptile, which would have enabled fast growth. It may have been relatively fast moving, with a calculated maximal running speed of 14 metres per second (50.4 km/h). It would have been capable of closing its jaws quickly, capturing and bringing down prey by delivering powerful bites. The "chin" may have helped in resisting stress when a bite was delivered against prey. Giganotosaurus is thought to have been the top predator of its ecosystem, and it may have fed on herbivorous dinosaurs such as sauropods or ornithopods.
05-19-2020, 03:37 AM( This post was last modified: 05-05-2021, 09:14 PM by DinoFan83 )
Giganotosaurus skeletal in Ernesto Bachmann Palaeontological Museum (image by Simona cerrato on Wikimedia Commons).
*This image is copyright of its original author
Giganotosaurus reconstructed skull displayed at EBPM (image by Neloadino on Wikimedia Commons).
*This image is copyright of its original author
Giganotosaurus skeletal by GetAwayTrike.
*This image is copyright of its original author
GDI of GetAwayTrike's Giganotosaurus done by SpinoInWonderland, multiply volume by 0.97 to get mass. Note that the volume of my recommended estimate for MUCPv-95 (10% larger than the holotype) is about 10950 litres, and that both that estimate and the volume of the holotype as written are very likely underestimated due to a too-narrow ribcage (post #17).
05-26-2020, 11:49 PM( This post was last modified: 06-22-2021, 05:05 PM by DinoFan83 )
Giganotosaurus skeletal by SpinoInWonderland (link).
GDI result of this will be reported eventually when he makes a blogpost, but as a preliminary report from my personal communication with him, it's >8500 kg for the holotype.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Giganotosaurus skeletal by Greg Paul (as stated below, this also provides good sized estimates).
*This image is copyright of its original author
Largest specimens of Purussaurus and Giganotosaurus. Purussaurus is also credited to Jorge W. Moreno-Bernal.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Largest specimens of Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus.
As the larger dentary's true size is controversial, has anyone ever compared the two G. caroliniii dentaries by length from anterior most of the symphysis to a specific tooth (for example, the seventh tooth) for comparison?
05-27-2020, 12:33 AM( This post was last modified: 02-08-2021, 01:22 AM by DinoFan83 )
^I've measured several of the tooth slot depths between them and MUCPv-95 is about 6.5% deeper with a few, if that helps.
EDIT 01/28/2021: It should be noted that MUCPv-95 is 10% deeper than MUCPv-Ch1 at its deepest point if this is to go by. That is also a feasible choice, probably more so than 6.5%.
05-27-2020, 12:39 AM( This post was last modified: 05-27-2020, 12:39 AM by tigerluver )
(05-27-2020, 12:33 AM)DinoFan83 Wrote: ^I've measured several of the tooth slot depths between them and MUCPv-95 is about 6.5% deeper with a few, if that helps.
Thanks. If you have the time to share some comparative photo with measurements I'd be interested in seeing them.
05-27-2020, 12:51 AM( This post was last modified: 05-21-2021, 04:22 PM by DinoFan83 )
EDIT 04/12/2021: Better late than never. Taken from the comparison linked in my post just before this, here are the symphises of MUCPv-Ch1 and MUCPv-95 compared side by side. As can be seen, MUCPv-95's is 10% deeper.
As previously stated, this is IMO a more likely estimate than 6.5% because it's actually replicable.
05-27-2020, 04:56 PM( This post was last modified: 02-08-2021, 01:48 AM by DinoFan83 )
Thought this might be helpful to include here, as no other post explicitly states this without a mountain of other text and thus this will help those who don't have time for said text mountains.
In case anyone's wondering why Scott Hartman's estimates for Giganotosaurus are not being endorsed in this thread as those from GetAwayTrike's skeletal, SpinoInWonderland's skeletal, and Greg Paul's corrected skeletal, the reason is simple: his skeletal takes the incomplete pectoral girdle as complete and the chest is therefore much shallower than it would have been were this not the case. This artificially shallow chest compared to the listed skeletals is easily visible.
Thus, the estimates he got do not appear to be nearly as accurate as the estimates outlined for the latter 3 and the conclusion of his famous blogpost, as a post below reviews, is pretty incorrect due to that.
06-22-2020, 04:45 PM( This post was last modified: 06-01-2021, 08:57 AM by DinoFan83 )
For those of you who have not seen my post about it in the carnivorous dinosaurs thread, this is why I think Giganotosaurus is larger than Tyrannosaurus based on fossil evidence we currently have (and I'll also address/debunk what Scott Hartman had to say on the matter).
On his website (link), when comparing the sizes of T. rex and Giganotosaurus, Scott Hartman states "As near as I can tell, despite Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus appearing similar in size in side view, there is little question that T. rex is actually the larger theropod based on known specimens."
Many read this and believe T. rex to undoubtedly be the larger, but I have a number of reasons to believe the exact opposite is true. What those reasons are is as follows:
1) As I have gone over above and on page 2 of this thread, Scott Hartman's estimates for Giganotosaurus are major underestimates since he takes the incomplete pectoral girdle as complete and the torso therefore has a lot less mass than that of the living animal, with a complete pectoral girdle, would have had. For anyone who may be wondering where I got the pectoral girdle being incomplete from, it is noted to be the case on Page 27 of Canale et al. (2014).
Quote:A detailed comparison between the scapulocoracoid of Tyrannotitan and Giganotosaurus reveals that in the coracoid of the holotype of Giganotosaurus, the dorsal and anterior borders are damaged and only the sector over the glenoid cavity is preserved. The scapula of the type specimen of Giganotosaurus also has the acromial process broken, which was previously interpreted as a low acromial process.
The character ‘externally open coracoid foramen’ is also produced by a misinterpretation of the type material of this taxon. The coracoid foramen is present, but in a fragment of the left coracoid that is fused and preserved attached to the scapula .This fragment of the coracoid was interpreted as part of the scapula by previous authors, but the suture scar between the coracoid and scapula is visible in the type material. The position of the coracoid foramen is almost the same as in Tyrannotitan, located centrally on the lateral surface of coracoid. The interpretation of the fragment of the coracoid as part of the scapula led previous authors to postulate the autapomorphic character of Giganotosaurus ‘proximal end of the scapula forwardly projected over the coracoid.
In sum, the pectoral girdle of the type material of Giganotosaurus (Coria and Salgado 1995) is incompletely preserved and led to a misinterpretation of its anatomy. We interpret the scapula and coracoid of Giganotosaurus as similar to that of Tyrannotitan (Novas et al. 2005) and Mapusaurus roseae (Coria and Currie 2006), having a wide coracoid, well-developed coracoid foramen, scapula and coracoid fused, and the contact between these two elements is oriented perpendicular to the long axis of scapula. Although the acromion is only partially preserved in the holotype of Giganotosaurus, the available remains suggest its morphology did not differ from that of Tyrannotitan.
Based on the average mass of the skeletals from SpinoInWonderland, GetAwayTrike, and Greg Paul that correct for this (see post #12), we get an estimate of 8320 kg for MUCPv-Ch1, which would result in 11100 kg for MUCPv-95 and the average of the 2 being 9700 kg. This is still very likely an underestimate, however, because (as post #16 explains) the ribcage of these models is almost certainly about 9.9% too narrow.
Furthermore, Scott Hartman himself agrees with me about his mass estimate being an underestimate, and he doesn't think my inflating of the ribcage is unreasonable either (see post #17).
What exactly does this mean for how the 2 animals compare sizewise?
Let's just say Hartman's original premise before he did the GDIs
Quote:That would result in an animal over 13 meters in length, and also one that would be heavier than Sue.
becomes completely and totally vindicated, to an absolutely enormous degree. This corrected >11100 kg estimate for MUCPv-95, contra Hartman's original estimate of 8200 kg (8700 kg with the new density) estimate, substantially outmasses the estimated 8200 kg for Sue, being no less than 2900 kg heavier even with the underestimate.
Which brings me to my next point - that Scott Hartman has probably also underestimated MUCPv-95. As he wrote in the blogpost:
Quote:I must reiterate, the lower jaw fragment of MUCPv-95 does not come from an animal that is 8% larger than the type. In fact it honestly could be from an identically-sized animal that just has a more robust dentary, so scaling it up 6.5% (in linear dimensions) should if anything be seen as the upper bounds.
The question is, how did he even get 6.5%? I for one do not know, but I do know of measurements suggesting MUCPv-95 could have been 10% larger (see post #7).
Therefore, as stated in that post, I think 10% is far more likely than 6.5% because I can actually replicate it.
That is not all. Hartman has stated that because MUCPv-95 could be an animal the exact same size as MUCPv-Ch1 but with simply a more robust dentary, scaling it up to the larger size it suggests (which in his case was 6.5%, notwithstanding how much more likely 10% seems to be) should be viewed as the upper bounds.
Contrary to popular belief, this is not correct - assuming MUCPv-95 was really a larger animal is actually the most parsimonious assumption due to indications of it being the case, and is what should be done in the current absence of evidence suggesting otherwise.
While it certainly could be a robust-jawed animal the size of MUCPv-Ch1, there is no more reason to assume that this was the case than there is reason to assume it was an animal more than 10% larger with a slender jaw, so that should not be assumed over the animal being 10% larger linearly. As stated before, with what we know now, logic would dictate the most likely scenario to be the latter owing to a combination of evidence for it and lack of evidence otherwise.
So with the fixed, replicable, and most parsimonious estimates (that are still likely underestimated), Giganotosaurus is the much larger theropod based on known specimens when Sue is compared to MUCPv-95 as Hartman did. And even MUCPv-Ch1 seems to tie with Sue in terms of size (8320 kg vs 8200 kg) post-correction, quite the contrary to what Hartman said in his mass estimate post on the relative sizes of the 2 specimens:
Quote:Back when I posted the original North vs South comparison I wrote up some general thoughts on the skeletals including:
Quote:3) Sue almost certainly had a higher mass than theGiganotosaurus type specimen, as tyrannosaurs seem to have broader torsos for their size.
I certainly hit point number three on the head.
In a nutshell, the corrections for the incomplete pectoral girdle as well as a more parsimonious and replicable estimate for MUCPv-95's size give his Giganotosaurus mass estimates a substantial boost, to the degree where even with his comparison criteria, the tables are completely turned when it comes to who is heavier than who.
2) Scott Hartman is using Sue as the representative of the entire species and comparing it largely to MUCPv-Ch1, which is a poor comparison choice because Sue is a very large, old specimen in a sample size of over 30 and many adults such as Bucky and B-rex are significantly smaller than it (they end up close to 4000 kg based on Sue assuming the Theropod Database measurements are correct), while MUCPv-Ch1 is the smallest specimen in a sample size of 2.
How do the relative sizes change when switching this around?
Nothing less than a 180 degree turn in relative size takes place. Following that logic, if we wanted to compare Sue to MUCPv-Ch1, we could also compare Bucky or B-rex (as alluded to before, these are some of the smallest T. rex adults we have) to MUCPv-Ch1 or to MUCPv-95. These specimens are literally less than 1/2 the mass of MUCPv-Ch1 and even less than that of MUCPv-95, and while Giganotosaurus is the larger animal based on current specimens it is not larger to that degree.
Therefore, while this is a valid comparison in that the criteria for smallest vs smallest is consistent, it does show the problem with comparing extremes solely.
However, it should not be forgotten that with the fixed estimations, MUCPv-Ch1 alone is on par with Sue (as well as Scotty). So even if we assume the very best case scenario possible for T. rex and the worst case scenario possible for Giganotosaurus, the carcharodontosaurid still is not the smaller animal but instead manages a tie.
In summary, Hartman's criteria for comparison is nowhere near as equal as it should be, and 'putting the shoe on the other foot', so to speak, shows why this is the case very, very well.
3) Even if Sue was hypothetically larger than MUCPv-95, that wouldn't necessarily mean T. rex was the larger animal as a species - we would need to look at the mean mass of both animals based on all known adult or possible adult specimens of both species to determine which was larger on the whole from known data, because it is a far better sample than merely, say, maximum vs maximum, due to incorporating much more data.
And as you may have expected to hear given the above, Giganotosaurus stacks up here very well, with the discrepancy between the average size of known adults (possible adults in the case of Giganotosaurus, we don't know due to lack of study) being even greater than the probable discrepancy between Sue and MUCPv-95 (as large as the latter discrepancy already looks to be), both relatively and absolutely.
How do I know this, you may ask?
As I have calculated in this post, the average of all known adult T. rex specimens is probably about 6000 kg. Meanwhile (as previously stated above), the Giganotosaurus holotype and paratype can be estimated at a very likely underestimated average size of 9700 kg taking the mean of fixed estimates, so going by the mean sizes of all adults or possible adults in both samples, Giganotosaurus is the larger animal by 3700 kg even with a near-certain underestimation. It's also noteworthy that this mere underestimation for Giganotosaurus' average size outweighs the very biggest T. rex specimens (like Sue or Scotty) by a healthy margin, no less than 1500 kg following above estimates.
We don't even need to make any calculations for an average size to see why this would be the case.
As you may have figured out from what was stated above, because it's seemingly right on par with the very largest known T. rex like Sue and Scotty, MUCPv-Ch1 alone looks to outmass all the other adult T. rex specimens I can find data on, such as CM 9380, AMNH 5027, BHI 6233, BHI 6230, BHI 6242, BHI 3033, MOR 555, Tristan, CMNH 1400, UCMP 118742, BHI 4182, LACM 23844, BHI 4960, MOR 1128, RTMP 81.6.1, RTMP 81.12.1, MOR 1125, DMNH 2827, USNM 6183, AMNH 3982, SDSM 12047, Thomas, Ivan, Samson, MOR 980, MOR 008, most likely Trix, most likely 'Dynamosaurus', and MOR 009. And of course, MUCPv-95's mean estimate of >11100 kg outmasses all T. rex specimens known thus far by 2900 kg or more.
In short, what I am saying is because the smallest in 2 Giganotosaurus specimens equals or outsizes all adult T. rex specimens in a sample of >30 and because the largest is larger than even the very biggest T. rex specimens by >2900 kg, with the average size of both suggesting an animal 3700 kg (over 61%) heavier than the average of said T. rex sample, this strongly supports Giganotosaurus being the larger. Especially considering that, as stated before, the Giganotosaurus estimate is almost certainly underestimated to a degree.
Further support from this stems from the fact that even in that very small sample of 2 where any individuals below or above the size range of the majority are highly unlikely to be found, we only have specimens suggesting an animal substantially heavier than T. rex, with even the likes of Sue or Scotty being significantly lighter than the average size of the sample.
This is still very much the case if we disregarded MUCPv-95 and only used MUCPv-Ch1, as the fact remains that a sample of 1 Giganotosaurus equaling the very largest in such a large T. rex sample and not being outsized by a single one discovered thus far while significantly outsizing the vast majority suggests the former to have been the larger species on the whole.
Therefore, in conclusion, I'll make a tweak to Scott's statement:
As near as I can tell, with quite the contrary to Scott Hartman's blogpost comparing the size of Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus, there is little question that Giganotosaurus is actually the larger theropod based on known specimens. There's no way around it, an average-size >9700 kg Giganotosaurus substantially outweighs an average-size 6000 kg T. rex, as does an >11100 kg MUCPv-95 to an 8200 kg Sue.
(06-22-2020, 04:45 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: For those of you who have not seen my post about it in the carnivorous dinosaurs thread, here are my reasons for thinking Giganotosaurus is larger than Tyrannosaurus based on fossil evidence we currently have (and I'll also address/debunk what Scott Hartman had to say on the matter).
On his website (link), when comparing the sizes of Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus, Scott Hartman states "As near as I can tell, despite Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus appearing similar in size in side view, there is little question that T. rex is actually the larger theropod based on known specimens."
Many read this and believe Tyrannosaurus to undoubtedly be the larger, but this isn't necessarily true, for several reasons. Here is why:
-As I have gone over above, there are several factors that end up underscoring the mass of Hartman's Giganotosaurus by a good bit compared to what the real animal probably weighed (such as too little soft tissue and a significantly too shallow torso); using the GDI of GetAwayTrike's likely better skeletal, we have a mass range of ~7.53-9.49 tonnes for the 2 Giganotosaurus specimens, compared to the ~6.8-8.2 tonnes of Hartman's skeletal as-is.
The upper end of this (~9.49 tonnes) outmasses the estimated ~8.4 tonnes for Sue, thus when comparing Sue and MUCPv-95 as Hartman did, but using GetAwayTrike's skeletal, Giganotosaurus would be the larger theropod based on known specimens, by well over a ton.
-Scott Hartman is using Sue as the representative of the entire species and comparing it partly to MUCPv-Ch1; not the best idea as it is a very large and old specimen in a sample size of over 30, and many adults such as Bucky and B-rex are significantly smaller than it, while MUCPv-Ch1 is the smallest specimen in a sample size of 2.
Following that logic, if we wanted to compare Sue to MUCPv-Ch1, we could also compare Bucky to MUCPv-Ch1 or to MUCPv-95. Bucky is literally about 1/2 the mass of MUCPv-Ch1 and even less than that of MUCPv-95, and while Giganotosaurus is most likely the larger animal based on current specimens it is not that much larger. Thus, it's not a good idea to compare Sue to MUCPv-Ch1 as it is both misleading and biased towards Tyrannosaurus in terms of comparison. Therefore, going by that as Hartman also did, Giganotosaurus is larger.
-Even if Sue was hypothetically larger than MUCPv-95, that wouldn't necessarily mean Tyrannosaurus was the larger animal as a species - we would, as previously stated, need to look at the mean mass of both species based on all specimens of both species to determine which was larger as it is a far better sample than merely maximum vs maximum. As I have calculated in this post, the average of all adult Tyrannosaurus specimens is about 6 tonnes. Meanwhile, the Giganotosaurus holotype and paratype (7.53-9.49 tonnes) average out at 8.51 tonnes, so going by the mean sizes of all adults in both samples, Giganotosaurus is the larger animal.
What's more, we don't need to make any calculations for an average size to see why this would be the case. The Giganotosaurus holotype, at 7.53 tonnes, equals or outmasses the majority of adult Tyrannosaurus specimens, such as CM 9380, AMNH 5027, BHI 4100, BHI 6233, BHI 6230, BHI 6242, BHI 3033, MOR 555, Tristan, CM 1400, UCMP 118742, BHI 4182, LACM 23844, BHI 4960, MOR 1128, RTMP 81.6.1, RTMP 81.12.1, MOR 1125, DMNH 2827, USNM 6183, Thomas, Ivan, Samson, MOR 980, MOR 008, most likely Trix, and MOR 009. Meanwhile, the Giganotosaurus paratype, at an estimated 9.49 tonnes, outmasses all Tyrannosaurus specimens known thus far. Even if we were to discard MUCPv-95, the Giganotosaurus holotype being equal or larger than the majority of adult Tyrannosaurus specimens as well as the average size of them still suggests Giganotosaurus to be larger.
I have some objections with your claims here:
"using GetAwayTrike's skeletal, Giganotosaurus would be the larger theropod based on known specimens, by well over a ton" - I've seen GetAwayTrike's take on the Giga. Here's a link where him and Franoys are debating about the accuracy of his estimates:
Even GAT has doubts on the accuracy of his claims. His estimations are just as open to criticism as Hartman's or Vitamin Imagination's (my favorite Artist). There's even a reply there that has a good point take on MUCPv-95's supposed "larger than Sue" estimations (by TriceratopsHorridus):
[font=devioussans02regular, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'メイリオ, meiryo', 'ヒラギノ角ゴ pro w3', 'hiragino kaku gothic pro', sans-serif]actually agree with you that an 8% larger MUCPv-95 is not realistic for this skeletal; sometime after making that top comment I came across a GDI for this skeletal (here it is, recommended density 0.915,: [color=var(--G4)][font=devioussans02regular, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'メイリオ, meiryo', 'ヒラギノ角ゴ pro w3', 'hiragino kaku gothic pro', sans-serif]https://i.imgur.com/wK1ESRN.png[/font]) and 6.5% larger MUCPv-95 is already about 9 tonnes. If a relatively cursorial theropod (like Giganotosaurus) were to exceed that, it wouldn't make much sense from an evolutionary standpoint because if you're much over 9 tonnes you're not gonna be a very fast runner, and you have larger demands, thus you need more food than you can catch.[/font][/color]
[font=devioussans02regular, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'メイリオ, meiryo', 'ヒラギノ角ゴ pro w3', 'hiragino kaku gothic pro', sans-serif]That was mainly thrown in there because, based on everything other than mass (which I didn't know would have implications for the skeletal when I made that comment), 8% MUCPv-95 is still on the table but nobody ever uses it today.[/font]
If you think about it, Gigas are known to be predators who is known for it's serrated teeth (known to bleed out it's prey) and very fast locomotion (about 32kmph) compared to the T-Rex. The former indicating a very patient, high-enduranced predator. It wouldn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint for such animal to be bulky as opposed to being streamlined as Hartman and Franoys claim it to be. That 9 Ton estimate from GAT is a reach in my opinion. Oh, well! Hopefully, more research shows up.
"Scott Hartman is using Sue as the representative of the entire species and comparing it partly to MUCPv-Ch1" - Sue's the 2nd largest T-Rex specimen next to Scotty. While there are only 2 specimen from the Giga's part, MUCPv-Ch1 is literally the 2nd largest (also, smallest) Giganotosaurus specimen. So I say, the comparison is fair. Until more proof are discovered, it's wise to zip our lips on this issue.
"Even if Sue was hypothetically larger than MUCPv-95, that wouldn't necessarily mean Tyrannosaurus was the larger animal as a species - we would, as previously stated, need to look at the mean mass of both species based on all specimens of both species to determine which was larger as it is a far better sample than merely maximum vs maximum" - It's not her fault Giganotosaurus lacks new specimen. Speaking of, the problem with claiming that Gigas are the larger animals compared to the Rexes is due to the lack of specimen a.k.a. proof that this is indeed the case. We need more data to confirm that whether or not MUCPv-Ch1 and MUCPv-95 are the largest, shortest or average size of the animal? We're all really depending heavily/blindly on the estimates, and I am not liking that! It's very unscientific!
As paleontologists, it is their job to be as accurate as possible and avoid relying too much on said estimations. T-Rex is currently the legitimate biggest theropod in terms of mass because as you said, it has the most specimen and data of all the theropods we've discovered. We can easily calculate the dimensions of the T-Rex holotypes. This is currently impossible with Giga's case. It can be changed, but without sufficient data from the Giganotosaurus' part, we can't rush to conclusions. We don't want another BS spread by the media. People still believe that Jurassic park 3 Spinosaurus is legit dinosaur even to this day, you can look up YouTube comments if you don't believe me.
08-16-2020, 04:27 AM( This post was last modified: 04-13-2021, 01:14 AM by DinoFan83 )
(07-27-2020, 03:25 PM)Mstr293 Wrote: I have some objections with your claims here:
"using GetAwayTrike's skeletal, Giganotosaurus would be the larger theropod based on known specimens, by well over a ton" - I've seen GetAwayTrike's take on the Giga. Here's a link where him and Franoys are debating about the accuracy of his estimates:
1: Even GAT has doubts on the accuracy of his claims. His estimations are just as open to criticism as Hartman's or Vitamin Imagination's (my favorite Artist). There's even a reply there that has a good point take on MUCPv-95's supposed "larger than Sue" estimations (by TriceratopsHorridus):
[font=devioussans02regular, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'メイリオ, meiryo', 'ヒラギノ角ゴ pro w3', 'hiragino kaku gothic pro', sans-serif]actually agree with you that an 8% larger MUCPv-95 is not realistic for this skeletal; sometime after making that top comment I came across a GDI for this skeletal (here it is, recommended density 0.915,: [color=var(--G4)][font=devioussans02regular, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'メイリオ, meiryo', 'ヒラギノ角ゴ pro w3', 'hiragino kaku gothic pro', sans-serif]https://i.imgur.com/wK1ESRN.png[/font]) and 6.5% larger MUCPv-95 is already about 9 tonnes. If a relatively cursorial theropod (like Giganotosaurus) were to exceed that, it wouldn't make much sense from an evolutionary standpoint because if you're much over 9 tonnes you're not gonna be a very fast runner, and you have larger demands, thus you need more food than you can catch.[/font][/color]
[font=devioussans02regular, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'メイリオ, meiryo', 'ヒラギノ角ゴ pro w3', 'hiragino kaku gothic pro', sans-serif]That was mainly thrown in there because, based on everything other than mass (which I didn't know would have implications for the skeletal when I made that comment), 8% MUCPv-95 is still on the table but nobody ever uses it today.[/font]
If you think about it, Gigas are known to be predators who is known for it's serrated teeth (known to bleed out it's prey) and very fast locomotion (about 32kmph) compared to the T-Rex. The former indicating a very patient, high-enduranced predator. It wouldn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint for such animal to be bulky as opposed to being streamlined as Hartman and Franoys claim it to be. That 9 Ton estimate from GAT is a reach in my opinion. Oh, well! Hopefully, more research shows up.
2: "Scott Hartman is using Sue as the representative of the entire species and comparing it partly to MUCPv-Ch1" -
3: Sue's the 2nd largest T-Rex specimen next to Scotty.
2: While there are only 2 specimen from the Giga's part, MUCPv-Ch1 is literally the 2nd largest (also, smallest) Giganotosaurus specimen. So I say, the comparison is fair. Until more proof are discovered, it's wise to zip our lips on this issue.
4: "Even if Sue was hypothetically larger than MUCPv-95, that wouldn't necessarily mean Tyrannosaurus was the larger animal as a species - we would, as previously stated, need to look at the mean mass of both species based on all specimens of both species to determine which was larger as it is a far better sample than merely maximum vs maximum" - It's not her fault Giganotosaurus lacks new specimen. Speaking of, the problem with claiming that Gigas are the larger animals compared to the Rexes is due to the lack of specimen a.k.a. proof that this is indeed the case. We need more data to confirm that whether or not MUCPv-Ch1 and MUCPv-95 are the largest, shortest or average size of the animal? We're all really depending heavily/blindly on the estimates, and I am not liking that! It's very unscientific!
5: As paleontologists, it is their job to be as accurate as possible and avoid relying too much on said estimations. T-Rex is currently the legitimate biggest theropod in terms of mass because as you said, it has the most specimen and data of all the theropods we've discovered. We can easily calculate the dimensions of the T-Rex holotypes. This is currently impossible with Giga's case. It can be changed, but without sufficient data from the Giganotosaurus' part, we can't rush to conclusions. We don't want another BS spread by the media. People still believe that Jurassic park 3 Spinosaurus is legit dinosaur even to this day, you can look up YouTube comments if you don't believe me.
I can finally see this post! So I guess I can respond to it.
1: Okay, first off, I'd just like to note a few things:
-That 7.53 tonne GDI for GetAwayTrike's edited skeletal has, to my knowledge, been estimated to match more conservative estimations for MUCPv-Ch1. As you can see, it's 12.32 meters long (well within the most common estimations of 12.2-12.4 meters), instead of using GAT's original estimation (which isn't necessarily incorrect, mind you, as the material needs a better description badly and until then more or less everything is on the table for Giganotosaurus save the obviously outlandish material such as 180+ cm skull lengths and 12-14 plus tonne sizes).
Also, that TriceratopsHorridus person is myself; I have since then been convinced otherwise as there is very little different between the metabolism and speed of a 9 tonne Giganotosaurus and a 9.49+ tonne Giganotosaurus, and the animals Giganotosaurus (and carcharodontosaurids in general) were eating were nowhere near as fast as the prey of, say, tyrannosaurs, so I believe they would have an easier time getting to larger sizes than the better studied tyrannosaurids because they are less cursorial.
BTW, for what it's worth, there are some more things you may want to consider if you didn't see me address them in the above posts:
-SpinoInWonderland's skeletal also produced a GDI result roughly coherent with GetAwayTrike's. That is what they have told me.
-The often quoted mass of 6.8 tonnes (based on Hartman) is very likely not enough, because his skeletal takes the incomplete scapula as complete and the chest is very shallow as a result. Correcting this, the mass goes up to the ballpark of SIW and GAT GDI's.
2: The issue with using Sue (or Scotty) to compare to MUCPv-Ch1 is that they are by far the largest and oldest in a sample of well over 30, while MUCPv-Ch1 is the smallest of 2 specimens, and we don't know how old it is or whether it's an adult or not.
By your reasoning, if we compare smallest and smallest, we could compare, say, Bucky (3.5-4 tonnes), B-rex (4.5 tonnes), or USNM 6183 (2.7-3 tonnes) to the Giganotosaurus holotype as they are some of the smallest adults of Tyrannosaurus, just as MUCPv-Ch1 is the smallest of the 2 Giganotosaurus specimens.
4: It's impossible to know which species was truly larger and it may never be. However, considering that even with the very poor sample size of Giganotosaurus and the large one for Tyrannosaurus, that the average of both Giganotosaurus specimens is 2.51-3.23 tonnes higher than the average for 30 Tyrannosaurus specimens, and that the Giganotosaurus holotype alone matches or outsizes just about all adult Tyrannosaurus specimens, that in my opinion suggests Giganotosaurus to be larger with the specimens we have.
5: I do not agree that Tyrannosaurus is the largest theropod; Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus, Tyrannotitan, and Spinosaurus, depending on interpretation could very well have equalled or surpassed it.
As for the size of the holotypes, I believe CM 9380 is somewhat smaller than MUCPv-Ch1 - it's about 6 tonnes (Larramendi and Molina 2016) to 7 tonnes (SpinoInWonderland GDI I posted in the Tyrannosaurus thread) compared to 7.53-8.17 tonnes for MUCPv-Ch1.
6: Trust me when I say that I know that guy well and I strongly disagree with his views on giant theropod sizes.
One last thing: I'd like to post some corrections for Greg Paul's estimations for Giganotosaurus that I forgot to earlier. On his website, he estimates the Giganotosaurus holotype at 6.85 tonnes. However, there are 2 issues with his skeletal likely underscoring the mass: -He has used a specific gravity of 0.85 when it should have been about 0.915 following Hartman's 2013 GDI analysis. -In his skeletal, the preserved scapula is taken as complete when it isn't (the same issue that plagues Hartman's skeletal), thus making the chest much shallower than it would be. The correction factor, as I have went over in the numerous different points and posts above, is 6.8 to 7.53 tonnes. Correcting both of these, Greg Paul's skeletal of Giganotosaurus goes to 8.17 tonnes for MUCPv-Ch1, which would then be 10.29 tonnes for MUCPv-95 and the average of both of them being 9.23 tonnes if we were to use his skeletal as the base.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EDIT: Updated correction for Greg Paul's skeletal is below:
Quote:On his website, he estimates the G. carolinii holotype at 6850 kg. However, there are 2 issues with his skeletal likely underscoring the mass:
-He has used a specific gravity of 0.85 when it should have been a mean of about 0.97 following Larramendi & Paul (2020). -In his skeletal, the preserved scapula is taken as complete when it isn't (the same issue that plagues Hartman's skeletal), thus making the chest much shallower than it would be. As I have went over in this thread, the correction factor for that based on SpinoInWonderland's GDI (multiply volume by 0.97) of GetAwayTrike's skeletal is (the percentage of the old-density mass) 6800 to 7530 kg.
Correcting both of these, Greg Paul's skeletal of Giganotosaurus goes to 8660 kg for MUCPv-Ch1, which would then be 11530 kg for MUCPv-95 and the average of both of them being 10100 kg if we were to use his skeletal as the base. For comparison, SpinoInWonderland's above GDI suggests a total size range of 7980-10620 kg, with a 9300 kg average, and his GDI of his own skeletal roughly matches GetAwayTrike's.
The mean of these three, which I will be assuming, is 8320-11100 kg, average of 9700 kg.
For length, we have ranges of 12.45-13.7 meters respectively, and 12.3-13.5 meters respectively. I will be assuming the mean of these as well, which is roughly 12.4-13.7 meters. This gives us a total average size of 13.1 meters and 9700 kg for the 2 known specimens of Giganotosaurus.
And even these are almost certainly underestimates. They use Scott Hartman's model for dorsal view, which as per post 19 of this thread probably has a ribcage 9.9% too narrow.
(07-27-2020, 03:25 PM)Mstr293 Wrote: I have some objections with your claims here:
"using GetAwayTrike's skeletal, Giganotosaurus would be the larger theropod based on known specimens, by well over a ton" - I've seen GetAwayTrike's take on the Giga. Here's a link where him and Franoys are debating about the accuracy of his estimates:
1: Even GAT has doubts on the accuracy of his claims. His estimations are just as open to criticism as Hartman's or Vitamin Imagination's (my favorite Artist). There's even a reply there that has a good point take on MUCPv-95's supposed "larger than Sue" estimations (by TriceratopsHorridus):
[font=devioussans02regular, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'メイリオ, meiryo', 'ヒラギノ角ゴ pro w3', 'hiragino kaku gothic pro', sans-serif]actually agree with you that an 8% larger MUCPv-95 is not realistic for this skeletal; sometime after making that top comment I came across a GDI for this skeletal (here it is, recommended density 0.915,: [color=var(--G4)][font=devioussans02regular, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'メイリオ, meiryo', 'ヒラギノ角ゴ pro w3', 'hiragino kaku gothic pro', sans-serif]https://i.imgur.com/wK1ESRN.png[/font]) and 6.5% larger MUCPv-95 is already about 9 tonnes. If a relatively cursorial theropod (like Giganotosaurus) were to exceed that, it wouldn't make much sense from an evolutionary standpoint because if you're much over 9 tonnes you're not gonna be a very fast runner, and you have larger demands, thus you need more food than you can catch.[/font][/color]
[font=devioussans02regular, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'メイリオ, meiryo', 'ヒラギノ角ゴ pro w3', 'hiragino kaku gothic pro', sans-serif]That was mainly thrown in there because, based on everything other than mass (which I didn't know would have implications for the skeletal when I made that comment), 8% MUCPv-95 is still on the table but nobody ever uses it today.[/font]
If you think about it, Gigas are known to be predators who is known for it's serrated teeth (known to bleed out it's prey) and very fast locomotion (about 32kmph) compared to the T-Rex. The former indicating a very patient, high-enduranced predator. It wouldn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint for such animal to be bulky as opposed to being streamlined as Hartman and Franoys claim it to be. That 9 Ton estimate from GAT is a reach in my opinion. Oh, well! Hopefully, more research shows up.
2: "Scott Hartman is using Sue as the representative of the entire species and comparing it partly to MUCPv-Ch1" -
3: Sue's the 2nd largest T-Rex specimen next to Scotty.
2: While there are only 2 specimen from the Giga's part, MUCPv-Ch1 is literally the 2nd largest (also, smallest) Giganotosaurus specimen. So I say, the comparison is fair. Until more proof are discovered, it's wise to zip our lips on this issue.
4: "Even if Sue was hypothetically larger than MUCPv-95, that wouldn't necessarily mean Tyrannosaurus was the larger animal as a species - we would, as previously stated, need to look at the mean mass of both species based on all specimens of both species to determine which was larger as it is a far better sample than merely maximum vs maximum" - It's not her fault Giganotosaurus lacks new specimen. Speaking of, the problem with claiming that Gigas are the larger animals compared to the Rexes is due to the lack of specimen a.k.a. proof that this is indeed the case. We need more data to confirm that whether or not MUCPv-Ch1 and MUCPv-95 are the largest, shortest or average size of the animal? We're all really depending heavily/blindly on the estimates, and I am not liking that! It's very unscientific!
5: As paleontologists, it is their job to be as accurate as possible and avoid relying too much on said estimations. T-Rex is currently the legitimate biggest theropod in terms of mass because as you said, it has the most specimen and data of all the theropods we've discovered. We can easily calculate the dimensions of the T-Rex holotypes. This is currently impossible with Giga's case. It can be changed, but without sufficient data from the Giganotosaurus' part, we can't rush to conclusions. We don't want another BS spread by the media. People still believe that Jurassic park 3 Spinosaurus is legit dinosaur even to this day, you can look up YouTube comments if you don't believe me.
I can finally see this post! So I guess I can respond to it.
1: Okay, first off, I'd just like to note a few things:
-That 7.53 tonne GDI for GetAwayTrike's edited skeletal has, to my knowledge, been estimated to match more conservative estimations for MUCPv-Ch1. As you can see, it's 12.32 meters long (well within the most common estimations of 12.2-12.4 meters), instead of using GAT's original estimation (which isn't necessarily incorrect, mind you, as the material needs a better description badly and until then more or less everything is on the table for Giganotosaurus save the obviously outlandish material such as 180+ cm skull lengths and 12-14 plus tonne sizes).
Also, that TriceratopsHorridus person is myself; I have since then been convinced otherwise as there is very little different between the metabolism and speed of a 9 tonne Giganotosaurus and a 9.49+ tonne Giganotosaurus, and the animals Giganotosaurus (and carcharodontosaurids in general) were eating were nowhere near as fast as the prey of, say, tyrannosaurs, so I believe they would have an easier time getting to larger sizes than the better studied tyrannosaurids because they are less cursorial.
BTW, for what it's worth, there are some more things you may want to consider if you didn't see me address them in the above posts:
-SpinoInWonderland's skeletal also produced a GDI result roughly coherent with GetAwayTrike's. That is what they have told me.
-The often quoted mass of 6.8 tonnes (based on Hartman) is very likely not enough, because his skeletal takes the incomplete scapula as complete and the chest is very shallow as a result. Correcting this, the mass goes up to the ballpark of SIW and GAT GDI's.
2: The issue with using Sue (or Scotty) to compare to MUCPv-Ch1 is that they are by far the largest and oldest in a sample of well over 30, while MUCPv-Ch1 is the smallest of 2 specimens, and we don't know how old it is or whether it's an adult or not.
By your reasoning, if we compare smallest and smallest, we could compare, say, Bucky (3.5-4 tonnes), B-rex (4.5 tonnes), or USNM 6183 (2.7-3 tonnes) to the Giganotosaurus holotype as they are some of the smallest adults of Tyrannosaurus, just as MUCPv-Ch1 is the smallest of the 2 Giganotosaurus specimens.
4: It's impossible to know which species was truly larger and it may never be. However, considering that even with the very poor sample size of Giganotosaurus and the large one for Tyrannosaurus, that the average of both Giganotosaurus specimens is 2.51-3.23 tonnes higher than the average for 30 Tyrannosaurus specimens, and that the Giganotosaurus holotype alone matches or outsizes just about all adult Tyrannosaurus specimens, that in my opinion suggests Giganotosaurus to be larger with the specimens we have.
5: I do not agree that Tyrannosaurus is the largest theropod; Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus, Tyrannotitan, and Spinosaurus, depending on interpretation could very well have equalled or surpassed it.
As for the size of the holotypes, I believe CM 9380 is somewhat smaller than MUCPv-Ch1 - it's about 6 tonnes (Larramendi and Molina 2016) to 7 tonnes (SpinoInWonderland GDI I posted in the Tyrannosaurus thread) compared to 7.53-8.17 tonnes for MUCPv-Ch1.
6: Trust me when I say that I know that guy well and I strongly disagree with his views on giant theropod sizes.
One last thing: I'd like to post some corrections for Greg Paul's estimations for Giganotosaurus that I forgot to earlier. On his website, he estimates the Giganotosaurus holotype at 6.85 tonnes. However, there are 2 issues with his skeletal likely underscoring the mass:
-He has used a specific gravity of 0.85 when it should have been about 0.915 following Hartman's 2013 GDI analysis.
-In his skeletal, the preserved scapula is taken as complete when it isn't (the same issue that plagues Hartman's skeletal), thus making the chest much shallower than it would be. The correction factor, as I have went over in the numerous different points and posts above, is 6.8 to 7.53 tonnes. Correcting both of these, Greg Paul's skeletal of Giganotosaurus goes to 8.17 tonnes for MUCPv-Ch1, which would then be 10.29 tonnes for MUCPv-95 and the average of both of them being 9.23 tonnes if we were to use his skeletal as the base.
1. You're TriceratopsHorridus? Cool, good to know. I've seen GetAwayTrike and SpinoIsWonderland's GDI of the Giga, Rex and other dinos. It seems that your findings of a 9.49T Giga makes sense, if you're using a T-Rex bauplan (body plan). I've also seen the chart they have on Stan and one other Rex (I forgot the name), and using my trusted calculator, they match your "MUCPv-95" if I made them of equal size. Which shouldn't make sense since Gigas are more closely built to other theropods than the Rex (more streamlined). I was told that Rexes have a weird bauplan among the others, that it's unusually wide (thorax and skull). Non-experts misused it's image as the standard theropod bauplan because it has the most complete specimens and is the most popular amongst other carnosaurs.
2 and 4. Shouldn't that be based on "what ifs" but rather than actual specimens? There's really no one at fault as to why there are about 30 T-Rex specimens while there are less than 3 with Gigas. But there's no evidence that those 3 specimen represent the "average" Gigas and if there are bigger specimens out there. Basically, "averages" are out of the question for Gigas for now since the lack of sample size. Who knows, there might also be smaller Gigas out there? But without evidence it's all just within the realm of hypothesis and like you said, opinion. We already know what happens when we rely on head-canons and hypothesis. We make huge mistakes ranging from what the Spinosaurus looked like in 2000 to 2020 (from T-Rex killer to paddle-tailed crocoduck). So I'll have to go with the experts on this one for now, unless more larger and more complete Giga specimens are found. Fingers crossed!
3. Most Paleontologists seem to agree that Scotty has at least half a ton on Sue. But I guess, there are some of those who disagree. But I'll have to trust the actual the majority's reviews on this one.
5. But it is! Simply because of what I stated earlier, it has the most proof. I'm not saying that there will never be Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus, Tyrannotitan, and Spinosaurus bigger than T-Rex (there might), but without more sample size from the rest, the former still holds the crown despite what fanatics say otherwise.
6. Apparently, I've met others like him and that I've learned how "famous" you are to the Paleo Community. I've learned a lot from them long after I messaged you in this site. Yeah, sorry for bothering you. It's just that you were the first person I've seen that I thought made the most sense in his findings. Now I know better!
09-07-2020, 04:00 PM( This post was last modified: 09-08-2020, 04:25 AM by DinoFan83 )
(09-07-2020, 01:34 PM)Mstr293 Wrote:
(08-16-2020, 04:27 AM)DinoFan83 Wrote:
(07-27-2020, 03:25 PM)Mstr293 Wrote: I have some objections with your claims here:
"using GetAwayTrike's skeletal, Giganotosaurus would be the larger theropod based on known specimens, by well over a ton" - I've seen GetAwayTrike's take on the Giga. Here's a link where him and Franoys are debating about the accuracy of his estimates:
1: Even GAT has doubts on the accuracy of his claims. His estimations are just as open to criticism as Hartman's or Vitamin Imagination's (my favorite Artist). There's even a reply there that has a good point take on MUCPv-95's supposed "larger than Sue" estimations (by TriceratopsHorridus):
[font=devioussans02regular, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'メイリオ, meiryo', 'ヒラギノ角ゴ pro w3', 'hiragino kaku gothic pro', sans-serif]actually agree with you that an 8% larger MUCPv-95 is not realistic for this skeletal; sometime after making that top comment I came across a GDI for this skeletal (here it is, recommended density 0.915,: [color=var(--G4)][font=devioussans02regular, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'メイリオ, meiryo', 'ヒラギノ角ゴ pro w3', 'hiragino kaku gothic pro', sans-serif]https://i.imgur.com/wK1ESRN.png[/font]) and 6.5% larger MUCPv-95 is already about 9 tonnes. If a relatively cursorial theropod (like Giganotosaurus) were to exceed that, it wouldn't make much sense from an evolutionary standpoint because if you're much over 9 tonnes you're not gonna be a very fast runner, and you have larger demands, thus you need more food than you can catch.[/font][/color]
[font=devioussans02regular, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'メイリオ, meiryo', 'ヒラギノ角ゴ pro w3', 'hiragino kaku gothic pro', sans-serif]That was mainly thrown in there because, based on everything other than mass (which I didn't know would have implications for the skeletal when I made that comment), 8% MUCPv-95 is still on the table but nobody ever uses it today.[/font]
If you think about it, Gigas are known to be predators who is known for it's serrated teeth (known to bleed out it's prey) and very fast locomotion (about 32kmph) compared to the T-Rex. The former indicating a very patient, high-enduranced predator. It wouldn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint for such animal to be bulky as opposed to being streamlined as Hartman and Franoys claim it to be. That 9 Ton estimate from GAT is a reach in my opinion. Oh, well! Hopefully, more research shows up.
2: "Scott Hartman is using Sue as the representative of the entire species and comparing it partly to MUCPv-Ch1" -
3: Sue's the 2nd largest T-Rex specimen next to Scotty.
2: While there are only 2 specimen from the Giga's part, MUCPv-Ch1 is literally the 2nd largest (also, smallest) Giganotosaurus specimen. So I say, the comparison is fair. Until more proof are discovered, it's wise to zip our lips on this issue.
4: "Even if Sue was hypothetically larger than MUCPv-95, that wouldn't necessarily mean Tyrannosaurus was the larger animal as a species - we would, as previously stated, need to look at the mean mass of both species based on all specimens of both species to determine which was larger as it is a far better sample than merely maximum vs maximum" - It's not her fault Giganotosaurus lacks new specimen. Speaking of, the problem with claiming that Gigas are the larger animals compared to the Rexes is due to the lack of specimen a.k.a. proof that this is indeed the case. We need more data to confirm that whether or not MUCPv-Ch1 and MUCPv-95 are the largest, shortest or average size of the animal? We're all really depending heavily/blindly on the estimates, and I am not liking that! It's very unscientific!
5: As paleontologists, it is their job to be as accurate as possible and avoid relying too much on said estimations. T-Rex is currently the legitimate biggest theropod in terms of mass because as you said, it has the most specimen and data of all the theropods we've discovered. We can easily calculate the dimensions of the T-Rex holotypes. This is currently impossible with Giga's case. It can be changed, but without sufficient data from the Giganotosaurus' part, we can't rush to conclusions. We don't want another BS spread by the media. People still believe that Jurassic park 3 Spinosaurus is legit dinosaur even to this day, you can look up YouTube comments if you don't believe me.
I can finally see this post! So I guess I can respond to it.
1: Okay, first off, I'd just like to note a few things:
-That 7.53 tonne GDI for GetAwayTrike's edited skeletal has, to my knowledge, been estimated to match more conservative estimations for MUCPv-Ch1. As you can see, it's 12.32 meters long (well within the most common estimations of 12.2-12.4 meters), instead of using GAT's original estimation (which isn't necessarily incorrect, mind you, as the material needs a better description badly and until then more or less everything is on the table for Giganotosaurus save the obviously outlandish material such as 180+ cm skull lengths and 12-14 plus tonne sizes).
Also, that TriceratopsHorridus person is myself; I have since then been convinced otherwise as there is very little different between the metabolism and speed of a 9 tonne Giganotosaurus and a 9.49+ tonne Giganotosaurus, and the animals Giganotosaurus (and carcharodontosaurids in general) were eating were nowhere near as fast as the prey of, say, tyrannosaurs, so I believe they would have an easier time getting to larger sizes than the better studied tyrannosaurids because they are less cursorial.
BTW, for what it's worth, there are some more things you may want to consider if you didn't see me address them in the above posts:
-SpinoInWonderland's skeletal also produced a GDI result roughly coherent with GetAwayTrike's. That is what they have told me.
-The often quoted mass of 6.8 tonnes (based on Hartman) is very likely not enough, because his skeletal takes the incomplete scapula as complete and the chest is very shallow as a result. Correcting this, the mass goes up to the ballpark of SIW and GAT GDI's.
2: The issue with using Sue (or Scotty) to compare to MUCPv-Ch1 is that they are by far the largest and oldest in a sample of well over 30, while MUCPv-Ch1 is the smallest of 2 specimens, and we don't know how old it is or whether it's an adult or not.
By your reasoning, if we compare smallest and smallest, we could compare, say, Bucky (3.5-4 tonnes), B-rex (4.5 tonnes), or USNM 6183 (2.7-3 tonnes) to the Giganotosaurus holotype as they are some of the smallest adults of Tyrannosaurus, just as MUCPv-Ch1 is the smallest of the 2 Giganotosaurus specimens.
4: It's impossible to know which species was truly larger and it may never be. However, considering that even with the very poor sample size of Giganotosaurus and the large one for Tyrannosaurus, that the average of both Giganotosaurus specimens is 2.51-3.23 tonnes higher than the average for 30 Tyrannosaurus specimens, and that the Giganotosaurus holotype alone matches or outsizes just about all adult Tyrannosaurus specimens, that in my opinion suggests Giganotosaurus to be larger with the specimens we have.
5: I do not agree that Tyrannosaurus is the largest theropod; Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus, Tyrannotitan, and Spinosaurus, depending on interpretation could very well have equalled or surpassed it.
As for the size of the holotypes, I believe CM 9380 is somewhat smaller than MUCPv-Ch1 - it's about 6 tonnes (Larramendi and Molina 2016) to 7 tonnes (SpinoInWonderland GDI I posted in the Tyrannosaurus thread) compared to 7.53-8.17 tonnes for MUCPv-Ch1.
6: Trust me when I say that I know that guy well and I strongly disagree with his views on giant theropod sizes.
One last thing: I'd like to post some corrections for Greg Paul's estimations for Giganotosaurus that I forgot to earlier. On his website, he estimates the Giganotosaurus holotype at 6.85 tonnes. However, there are 2 issues with his skeletal likely underscoring the mass:
-He has used a specific gravity of 0.85 when it should have been about 0.915 following Hartman's 2013 GDI analysis.
-In his skeletal, the preserved scapula is taken as complete when it isn't (the same issue that plagues Hartman's skeletal), thus making the chest much shallower than it would be. The correction factor, as I have went over in the numerous different points and posts above, is 6.8 to 7.53 tonnes. Correcting both of these, Greg Paul's skeletal of Giganotosaurus goes to 8.17 tonnes for MUCPv-Ch1, which would then be 10.29 tonnes for MUCPv-95 and the average of both of them being 9.23 tonnes if we were to use his skeletal as the base.
1. You're TriceratopsHorridus? Cool, good to know. I've seen GetAwayTrike and SpinoIsWonderland's GDI of the Giga, Rex and other dinos. It seems that your findings of a 9.49T Giga makes sense, if you're using a T-Rex bauplan (body plan). I've also seen the chart they have on Stan and one other Rex (I forgot the name), and using my trusted calculator, they match your "MUCPv-95" if I made them of equal size. Which shouldn't make sense since Gigas are more closely built to other theropods than the Rex (more streamlined). I was told that Rexes have a weird bauplan among the others, that it's unusually wide (thorax and skull). Non-experts misused it's image as the standard theropod bauplan because it has the most complete specimens and is the most popular amongst other carnosaurs.
2. Shouldn't that be based on "what ifs" but rather than actual specimens? There's really no one at fault as to why there are about 30 T-Rex specimens while there are less than 3 with Gigas. But there's no evidence that those 3 specimen represent the "average" Gigas and if there are bigger specimens out there. Basically, "averages" are out of the question for Gigas for now since the lack of sample size. Who knows, there might also be smaller Gigas out there? But without evidence it's all just within the realm of hypothesis and like you said, opinion. We already know what happens when we rely on head-canons and hypothesis. We make huge mistakes ranging from what the Spinosaurus looked like in 2000 to 2020 (from T-Rex killer to paddle-tailed crocoduck). So I'll have to go with the experts on this one for now, unless more larger and more complete Giga specimens are found. Fingers crossed!
3. Most Paleontologists seem to agree that Scotty has at least half a ton on Sue. But I guess, there are some of those who disagree. But I'll have to trust the actual the majority's reviews on this one.
4. But it is! Simply because of what I stated earlier, it has the most proof. I'm not saying that there will never be Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus, Tyrannotitan, and Spinosaurus bigger than T-Rex (there might), but without more sample size from the rest, the former still holds the crown despite what fanatics say otherwise.
1: Actually, no. A Giganotosaurus of 9.49 to 10.29 tonnes is not based on giving it the build of a Tyrannosaurus, but rather a simple correction of the scapula. As I have explained above, the most commonly cited Giganotosaurus size estimations use the incomplete scapula as complete and the chest is a lot shallower than it would be otherwise. Therefore, correcting the length of the scapula, the chest becomes deeper and Giganotosaurus is a more robust animal than often thought.
It's true that tyrannosaurids are the most robust of the predatory dinosaurs known thus far, but just because they were doesn't mean less robust theropods could not have equalled or grown bigger than them.
2: That is why I said based on known specimens - it could be incorrect but it is most likely not and is the best judgement of this that we have at the moment. Also (as discussed in my earlier posts), considering that the smallest Giganotosaurus in a sample of 2 is roughly equal to the largest and oldest specimens in 30+ specimens for Tyrannosaurus (and we know that Sue and Scotty are not the norm at all), the largest most likely outweighs the largest Tyrannosaurus by over 2 tonnes, and (most importantly) that the smallest in the sample of 2 equals or outsizes just about all Tyrannosaurus adults so far, that does lean me towards Giganotosaurus being larger. For average sizes they are impossible to verify until more specimens are found (as you said), which is why I am using the average of known specimens.
As for Giganotosaurus, it's not really the same as Spinosaurus. We have a 70 percent complete skeleton so we know what it was like with reasonable certainty, unlike pre-2014 Spinosaurus. That said, I definitely agree with you that what we need for Giganotosaurus is more specimens.
3: If you take a look at the bones that probably is not the case. They are very close in several measurements (eg: 133 vs 132.5 cm femur length), and the error bars are so large it's our safest bet to place them as statistically indistinguishable as Pete Makovicky agrees with as well as John Hutchinson.
4: As I said earlier, I do not believe Tyrannosaurus is the largest without a doubt. In addition to weights of over 10 tonnes for some Giganotosaurus specimens (as I have gone over above), I feel we have sufficiently good evidence to suggest our only adult for Carcharodontosaurus could plausibly have been around 9-9.8 tonnes, we potentially have some Mapusaurus specimens approaching 11 tonnes, and we most likely have Spinosaurus specimens in the 10 to 13 tonne range (such sizes for Spinosaurus are also supported by Nizar Ibrahim). Not to mention (following Larramendi and Molina 2016) Tyrannotitan slightly outsizing the average Tyrannosaurus, at 7 tonnes. The averages for all of these, especially the first 3, are also all well over 6 tonnes, therefore going by the average of their known specimens they are larger. With my preferred estimates, our largest Carcharodontosaurus, Mapusaurus, and Spinosaurus all outsize Sue and Scotty by a ton or more, as well as the average Tyrannosaurus by several tonnes, so I'm sure you can now see why I consider them to be larger.
By the way, should you ever have any issues with SpinoInWonderland or his work, I recommend talking to him about it directly. I know him personally and that is what he prefers should someone take issue with him or his works. You can take it up with him on DeviantArt for example: https://www.deviantart.com/spinoinwonderland
