|
Size comparisons
|
Persian leopard and Syrian brown bears
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author https://khabarban.com/a/25478809?fbclid=IwAR0MjWgj173DyHT4JmQ2PziDY76rtqtJYf8ehxBFS3yKBQgu_xb8Etq0F3E  *This image is copyright of its original author I just made all by myself this size comparison of North American cougar and African leopard. Yes, as leopard model I used Vin Diesel
Leopard.
*This image is copyright of its original author And Bengal Tiger vs South African Lion *This image is copyright of its original author Maybe I must improve but I will try to adjust the quality of my edits 
Holotype specimens of Viavenator and Dakotaraptor.
 *This image is copyright of its original author
I got a new one!
 African Leopard vs Pantanal Jaguar *This image is copyright of its original author
Leopard and panda comparisons (posted one previously)
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
Polar Bear vs Kodiak name, always made by me, Andrea Vitanza.
Enjoy! *This image is copyright of its original author
Skulls of the holotype specimens of Sarkastodon and Yutyrannus.
 *This image is copyright of its original author
From what I have seen from Franoys, Tyrannosaurus is now both larger, taller and heavier than Giganotosaurus.
Sue is even longer than the largest reliable Giganotosaurus ever found (not considering the Jaw fragment one since we can never estimate a reliable size) For lengths Sue : 12,35/57 meters Giganotosaurus holotype : 12,25/45 meters Height Sue : 3.73 m Giga : 3.53 m Trex holotype : 3,67 m Stan : 3,64 m *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author
@"LoveAnimals"
Quote:From what I have seen from Franoys, Tyrannosaurus is now both larger, taller and heavier than Giganotosaurus. I do not agree with this. By my estimation, the exact opposite is true; in fact, while I can't say anything on height, we don't seem to have any T. rex specimens that outweigh any known Giganotosaurus specimens. Quote:Sue is even longer than the largest reliable Giganotosaurus ever found Disagree, by my linked estimations both above and below the latter is slightly longer (12 vs 12.46 meters). Not to mention, for reasons the link goes over, Sue is quite the poor representative of T. rex size on the whole. Quote:(not considering the Jaw fragment one since we can never estimate a reliable size) You may disregard it if you so wish, but the maximally parsimonious assumption favors it to belong to an animal >2000 kg heavier than Sue and >4000 kg heavier than the average T. rex. Furthermore, a few more things should be noted on Franoys' estimates: -I have reason to believe the ribcage on their Sue is too wide. It is 1.8 meters (which equals or approaches the width of the very inflated mounted skeleton's ribcage), while other authors have gotten a substantially lower ribcage width when correcting for that. Scott Hartman got about 1.6 meters (even though their Giganotosaurus estimate there is quite incorrect and I can explain why if need be), and Asier Larramendi got 1.5 meters. Correspondingly, their estimates are lower than those from Franoys, and my personal estimate as linked above is lower as well (8200 kg with the revised 0.95 density and 7900 kg with the same density as Franoys'). In summary, I see the lower estimates such as mine as more likely due to that. -Their Giganotosaurus skeletal does not have the pectoral girdle orientation we see in other allosauroids that preserve an articulated pectoral girdle (eg: Acrocanthosaurus) where the lowest point of the pectoral girdle is roughly equal to the lowest point on the pubis. Instead, it is notably higher up, thus giving the animal a shallower chest than relatives suggest. As you can see in the Giganotosaurus profile thread, the skeletals that have the pectoral girdle and pubis at roughly the same depth suggest a mean estimate of 7850 kg (8320 kg with the new density) for the holotype (as I also said above, this makes the holotype alone a match for Sue masswise). -Aside from my disagreement with the T. rex and Giganotosaurus estimates explained above, there are a number of estimates in Franoys' predatory dinosaur chart that I have reason to believe are incorrect. They are as follows: -Giganotosaurus roseae: From what I can see, Franoys' estimate of 12.2 meters and 6950 kg for the largest specimen is substantially too low. (Before the new density, as the link says these estimates would be even higher with it), the second largest specimen in the bonebed is 13.2 meters and >9700 kg, and the largest specimen is 13.7 meters and 10870 kg by my estimation. Even my estimate of the probable average adult size is >1000 kg larger than Franoys' estimate for the largest. -Carcharodontosaurus: Franoys' 6400 kg estimation for SGM-DIN 1 appears to be a good deal less likely than SpinoInWonderland's >9000 kg estimate. In fact, as that link says, 9350 kg is a perfectly reasonable size for SGM-DIN 1 when using Franoys' skeletal. -Spinosaurus: Franoys has yet to update their skeletal for the 2020 paper, and my estimate (that is supported by Nizar Ibrahim) suggests an animal of 10830 kg for the only specimen that can be estimated from overlap at this time. -Tyrannotitan: There is a lot of stuff about Franoys' 6400 kg estimate that I cannot reconcile with the known remains as well as known allosauroid anatomy. First off, Franoys' Tyrannotitan skeletal suffers the same pectoral girdle problem as their Giganotosaurus - it is not level with the pubis as more complete allosauroids suggest. Correcting this brings the estimate to 7000 kg, as per Molina-Pérez and Larramendi (2016). That is not everything either - the discrepancy Franoys used between the 2 specimens appears to be too low. They assumed (as per Novas et al. (2005) that the size discrepancy between the 2 specimens was 7% - problem is, there are no written measurements that suggest such a size discrepancy and I don't know how Novas et al. got it. Based on the femoral length discrepancy between the 2 specimens (141 vs 127 cm), we get an animal of 12.2 meters long (coherent with the estimate from Thomas Holtz) and >8000 kg (it would be even more with the new density).
How on earth is Giganotosaurus holotype heavier than Tyrannosaurus (Sue) ? I'd give it max of the same size but heavier…
If you consider the alleged max sized giganotosaurus against Sue the tyrannosaurus yes you are perfectly right, but baised on complete and reliable speciments its impossible. The bone structure of the giganotosaurus is too light compared to the stocky pitbull-like bone density of tyrannosaurus. I mean I have visited many sites and from what i heard giganotosaurus carolinii holotype can max reach 8000+ kgs or 9 metric tons which rivals Sue but never overweights it. On the other hand, the giganotosaurus holotype is bigger than all other tyrannosaurus speciments, there is only the exception of Sue and maybe Scotty. The largest giganotosaurus carolinii ever found is 12.25 / 12.45 meters long. I am never considering a speculative size of a dinosaur we only have a jaw fragment of. Those are only speculations, how can you know it was 13.2 meters? Could have been more, could have been less. (but hey I am not saying that these alleged giganotosaurus speciments aren't larger than Sue, they ARE, it's just that it's really hard to determine an accurate body length and size of them, is it?) I only take as proof for size comparison the most complete speciments and for this reason I don't even consider the alleged tyrannosaurus specimens supposed to be "larger" than sue since all those sizes are not confirmed but speculated. But it's only my personal take, not going to judge others. Charcarodontosaurus is highly controversial imo, we only have skulls and some bones of them so I guess that estimating a size would be too hard. We don't know the body proportions of it and we can't compare them to a giganotosaurus since they are different, what if charcarodontosaurus had a shorter tail related to its body size? We can never know until we find a real skeleton. That's the reason why I never consider charcha in size comparisons. But still it's only my personal opinion. About giganotosaurus holotype, it can max rival Sue's size, but never exceed it. Sue is even longer and about 20 cms taller at thenhip and note that Sue's tail is not it even complete. Compared to each other, they are this big *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author Sue is indeed bigger, but as you said, giga is not only 6800+ kgs, it is more and as I said it rivals Sue. For more infos see this Matt Dale Conrad's answer to Giganotosaurus vs T. rex, who is the deadliest predator? (Matt Dale Conrad's answer to Giganotosaurus vs T. rex, who is the deadliest predator?) Nelson Bass-Howell's share of Nelson Bass-Howell's answer to What is the heaviest theropod? in Ancient Life (Nelson Bass-Howell's share of Nelson Bass-Howell's answer to What is the heaviest theropod? in Ancient Life) NOTE : CONSIDER THAT THEY USE THE WRONG WEIGHT FOR GIGA, I just wanted to give you the size comparison of the skeletons with Sue being bigger but similar in mass And how are heights not reliable? I am talking about hip heights not head heights, there's nothing you can change from hip height, it's like the shoulder height for modern predators Sue hip height : 3.73 meters Giganotosaurus holotype hip height : 3.53 meters Tyrannosaurus holotype hip height : 3.67 meters Here holotype Tyrannosaurus, taller than giganotosaurus ( 3.53 vs 3.67) but lighter and shorter in length ( 11.8 meters vs 12.25/45 meters) *This image is copyright of its original author But about weight you are right, 6980+ kg for giganotosaurus is too low but i don't believe it could go far from 8000 kg. Yes, it rivals sue in size but keep in mind that giganotosaurus was way more agile and faster than Tyrannosaurus, the longer tail probably worked as a cheetah's tail works today. So, faster = less body mass. Tyrannosaurus on the other hand wasn't built to be agile or fast, it wasn't as agile as giga so probably that's why it looks like it has a much more muscle and bone density than giga. Wasn't Tyrannosaurus the scavenger? So my conclusions : The largest reliable tyrannosaurus (sue) is slightly bigger than the largest giganotosaurus carolinii ever found by mass, height and length. Giganotosaurus holotype however is not that small, it rivals sue in size and weight. (Sue may be heavier by only 300–500 kgs) Can giganotosaurus be bigger than Tyrannosaurus? Yes absolutely , the alleged incomplete specimens you cite even though size and weight aren't reliable are indeed bigger than Sue, by both body lass, length and probably hip height. But talking about largest complete speciments, Tyrannosaurus is slightly bigger than giganotosaurus. See this from Scott Hartman https://images.app.goo.gl/PbhUVUekaTuVe5FA8 But the largest giganotosaurus that could reach 9–11 tons are larger than Sue. I know Ibrahim’s studies of Spinosaurus and those are completely reliable innmy opinion, since spinosaurus was an aquatic reptile it probably weighed more than Tyrannosaurus since water cancels gravity. No wonder why most marine animals weigh that much, such as hippos, whales and killer whales. Adapted to live in water without gravity they grow with bigger mass, that's why spinosaurus was probably heavier than Tyrannosaurus I heard that there was a limit of 13 tons for spinosaurus wasn't there? *This image is copyright of its original author Yes, with these studies a spinosaurus is indeed much heavier than Sue do you think that the max can be up to 13 tons? It's damn interesting that spino is changing in years. I am happy to see someone interested in dinosaurs as me, most of people talk about big cats and bears on here so I am happy that there's someone as interested as me ? I hope to have a nice conversation with you
Sorry if there are some grammar or spelling mistakes, English is not my mother language so I am doing my best for it.
@"LoveAnimals"
Quote:How on earth is Giganotosaurus holotype heavier than Tyrannosaurus (Sue) ? I currently don't believe MUCPv-Ch1 was heavier than Sue. What I am saying is that the estimations I have reached suggest that they are about the same weight (note that this also applies to Scotty since it appears to be roughly the same size as Sue). Quote:The bone structure of the giganotosaurus is too light compared to the stocky pitbull-like bone density of tyrannosaurus. I obviously can't go and fact-check each and every one of those sites, but I think it is likely they were referring to an estimate based on a skeletal (eg: Scott Hartman's) that had the incorrect pectoral girdle, because the most popular Giganotosaurus skeletals have just that problem. It may not be as robustly built, but because of how much deeper its torso becomes and how much my estimates go up when this happens, I don't see why it couldn't equal Sue and Scotty. I'm glad to see we agree on how it compares with other T. rex specimens though. Quote:The largest giganotosaurus carolinii ever found is 12.25 / 12.45 meters long. I am never considering a speculative size of a dinosaur we only have a jaw fragment of. Those are only speculations, how can you know it was 13.2 meters? Could have been more, could have been less. Well, I do respect your decision. Fragments are always tricky. Quote:I only take as proof for size comparison the most complete speciments and for this reason I don't even consider the alleged tyrannosaurus specimens supposed to be "larger" than sue since all those sizes are not confirmed but speculated. But it's only my personal take, not going to judge others. Since I already got out of the way that I respect your opinion on this, I'll just make a note to anyone else who is reading this and may get the wrong idea: It should be noted that the fragmentary T. rex specimens that are said to suggest sizes larger than Sue aren't all they're cracked up to be. As per this, UCMP 137538, UCMP 118742, and MOR 008's claims of being giants are unsubstantiated, and MOR 1126 has no measurements whatsoever, just a field guess from Jack Horner. No estimates can be made for it ATM. Quote:Charcarodontosaurus is highly controversial imo, we only have skulls and some bones of them so I guess that estimating a size would be too hard. We don't know the body proportions of it and we can't compare them to a giganotosaurus since they are different, what if charcarodontosaurus had a shorter tail related to its body size? We can never know until we find a real skeleton. That's the reason why I never consider charcha in size comparisons. But still it's only my personal opinion. Your opinion is fair enough. I agree a good skeleton of Carcharodontosaurus is desperately needed. Quote:About giganotosaurus holotype, it can max rival Sue's size, but never exceed it. Sue is even longer and about 20 cms taller at thenhip and note that Sue's tail is not it even complete. You may have missed what I previously stated about the Sue that has been used there. I'm glad to see that further down the text you recognize it's using an underestimated Giganotosaurus, but as I said before, I have reason to believe the Sue model is quite overestimated. Quote:Sue is indeed bigger, but as you said, giga is not only 6800+ kgs, it is more and as I said it rivals Sue. Just some notes to anyone else who may be reading these and may get curious: -I quite frankly couldn't disagree more on T. rex being 'deadlier' than Giganotosaurus. Since Animal vs Animal debates are discouraged on WildFact I'll refrain from elaboration, but it should be obvious why I think so. -Nelson Bass-Howell's answer is also something I disagree with, for obvious reasons. Not to mention that the heaviest theropod is and will always remain indeterminate because of all the massive theropods that have existed but never fossilized, their not being fossilized keeps the heaviest theropod forever unknowable. Quote:NOTE : CONSIDER THAT THEY USE THE WRONG WEIGHT FOR GIGA, As previously stated, glad to see you noticed this. Quote:I just wanted to give you the size comparison of the skeletons with Sue being bigger but similar in mass See what I wrote above on Franoys' Sue. Quote:And how are heights not reliable? I am talking about hip heights not head heights, there's nothing you can change from hip height, it's like the shoulder height for modern predators I'm not saying they are not reliable. I'm saying I don't know precisely what they are in the skeletals I used because I haven't looked into it, and I find it unimportant. Quote:Here holotype Tyrannosaurus, taller than giganotosaurus ( 3.53 vs 3.67) but lighter and shorter in length ( 11.8 meters vs 12.25/45 meters) While it's good that we can agree on CM 9380 being lighter than MUCPv-Ch1, I think it should be noted that Franoys' 7500 kg estimate is very likely excessive (I view 6500 kg as a more likely estimate, as per Seebacher et al. 2001). Why do I think it is excessive, you ask? See what SpinoInWonderland told me. Quote:But about weight you are right, 6980+ kg for giganotosaurus is too low but i don't believe it could go far from 8000 kg. Yes, it rivals sue in size but keep in mind that giganotosaurus was way more agile and faster than Tyrannosaurus, the longer tail probably worked as a cheetah's tail works today. Well, one animal being faster than another doesn't necessarily mean the former was smaller. It all depends on their morphology - in this case, Giganotosaurus has a proportionally shorter lower leg relative to its femur than T. rex does (meaning shorter strides), but its legs are also proportionally shorter (meaning superior leverage of the energy it can produce to run - this is also why short legged hippos and rhinos are so fast), and in this case, its larger size probably gives it an edge for speed given that a larger animal can produce more energy to run with. Overall speed for both would probably be similar, but if we're talking maximum speed, the greater size of Giganotosaurus may just be what let it go faster (Bianco and Mazzetta estimate 50 km/h for a 9000 kg specimen, the latter being coherent with my estimates and larger than any known T. rex). As for agility, Giganotosaurus was probably similar or slightly moreso (the latter is because of the superior leg leverage). Quote:Tyrannosaurus on the other hand wasn't built to be agile or fast, it wasn't as agile as giga so probably that's why it looks like it has a much more muscle and bone density than giga. Wasn't Tyrannosaurus the scavenger? While I do agree that it's possible T. rex was not as agile as Giganotosaurus, that it "wasn't built to be agile or fast" does not seem to be true, nor does it seem to be true that it was a scavenger. These two links explain it better than I ever could. Quote:The largest reliable tyrannosaurus (sue) is slightly bigger than the largest giganotosaurus carolinii ever found by mass, height and length. Length and height are certainly up for debate given the error margin of estimates, but now I can see where our disagreement came from. I think you may be putting too much importance in a size difference of a couple hundred kilograms; if the difference is, let's say, 400 kg, that's not a lot at all and easily falls into the massive error bars associated with each estimate (imprecision of volumetric models, unknown proper amount of soft tissue, unknown exact densities, and so on). For example, my estimates for Sue and MUCPv-Ch1 are 8200 and 8320 kg respectively. You might say that MUCPv-Ch1 was the bigger if those estimates were being used, but given those massive error bars they are equals. Quote:See this from Scott Hartman As alluded to earlier, the incomplete pectoral girdle being taken as complete results in Scott Hartman's Giganotosaurus estimates being major underestimates. See the Giganotosaurus profile thread (both pages) for more. Quote:But the largest giganotosaurus that could reach 9–11 tons are larger than Sue. This, I agree with you on. Quote:I know Ibrahim’s studies of Spinosaurus and those are completely reliable innmy opinion, since spinosaurus was an aquatic reptile it probably weighed more than Tyrannosaurus since water cancels gravity. No wonder why most marine animals weigh that much, such as hippos, whales and killer whales. Adapted to live in water without gravity they grow with bigger mass, that's why spinosaurus was probably heavier than Tyrannosaurus Agreed with everything here. Known probable adult specimens of Spinosaurus suggest a much heavier animal than T. rex, and the former's greater mass for its volume certainly contributes to this. Quote: I heard that there was a limit of 13 tons for spinosaurus wasn't there? Close. 13,000 kg or more is probably not the limit (we don't know what that is), but it is certainly a plausible size by several of my estimations. All we need to wait for is a few more skull and arm bones to be more sure. Quote:Yes, with these studies a spinosaurus is indeed much heavier than Sue do you think that the max can be up to 13 tons? As stated above, indeed I do. In fact, while it cannot be confirmed due to lack of overlap remains, I view 13700 kg as the most likely estimate for MSNM v4047 (see my linked Spinosaurus estimates). Quote:It's damn interesting that spino is changing in years. No doubt about that. It could not be more interesting to me. Quote:I am happy to see someone interested in dinosaurs as me, most of people talk about big cats and bears on here so I am happy that there's someone as interested as me ? I hope to have a nice conversation with you Thank you very much for the kind words. I'm also happy that you're a fellow dinosaur enthusiast and look forward to having fruitful future discussions with you.
I guess that the width of the ribcage of Sue depends on the kind of skeleton reconstruction that skeletal drawers refer to
They vary from this *This image is copyright of its original author To this *This image is copyright of its original author So that's maybe the reason why there are so many skeletal drawings about sue with different sizes of ribcages? I saw something on the net like this *This image is copyright of its original author I only have the image sadly, you can download it and do the reverse research for images to be able to visit thebsite with this, if I remember correctly it was a new take on tyrannosaurus just like spino’s new mass is. If it's true, I believe the size shown by franoys is correct though he still didn't modify giganotosaurus’ weight. About the link I sent you, I was only showing you the skeletal comparisons and that's the site I use the most, i don't care about the topic he was talking to, about which is dangerous, because we didn't live at their time so we will most likely never now. I estimate Tyrannosaurus could be more aggressive since it was most likely solitary, while wasn't Giganotosaurus a lizard that lived in packs? Whatever, Ibonky referred to sizes not “hypothetical battles”. But here it comes the mystery. Giganotosaurus holotype. Do photos of it exist? Because I only see it on skeletal drawings but I can't find no images of it, who is Giganotosaurus holotype? Do you know if there are any real images of it? Maybe it's this one I saw myself? (Yes, pictures made by me hehe ) *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author Could it be? Cos I already saw a comparison vs Sue made by someone using this model here *This image is copyright of its original author Now I have an opinion, I visited your thread and maybe we do share the same kind of opinion even before I could read your thread. Giganotosaurus ROSEAE, are you also of the opinion that Mapusaurus Roseae and Giganotosaurus Carolinii could be secretly the same animal or one simply the evolution of the other?
@"LoveAnimals"
Quote:I guess that the width of the ribcage of Sue depends on the kind of skeleton reconstruction that skeletal drawers refer to See, there's a problem with the Field Museum mount. The ribs are articulated so that the ribcage is too wide, and they are also swept strongly anteriorly instead of strongly posteriorly, so those images are not accurate to judge ribcage size from. See page 13 of the T. rex profile thread for more. Quote:I only have the image sadly, you can download it and do the reverse research for images to be able to visit thebsite with this, if I remember correctly it was a new take on tyrannosaurus just like spino’s new mass is. You are correct that it was a new take (putting in gastralia). But what they didn't do was fix the rib placement. Quote:If it's true, I believe the size shown by franoys is correct Well, since it's not true, the size shown by Franoys doesn't seem to be correct. Quote:though he still didn't modify giganotosaurus’ weight. Correct. Why that is, I am not sure, and it is one of the reasons I find the estimates from SpinoInWonderland, GetAwayTrike, and Greg Paul's modified skeletal to be the safer bet. Quote:About the link I sent you, I was only showing you the skeletal comparisons and that's the site I use the most, i don't care about the topic he was talking to, about which is dangerous, because we didn't live at their time so we will most likely never now. I guess this part I will drop since it has no relevance to size. Quote:But here it comes the mystery. Giganotosaurus holotype. Sadly, they do not. There is no scientific publication describing the animal in detail, therefore the mounted skeletons are the closest we have to that until said description. Quote:Could it be? Cos I already saw a comparison vs Sue made by someone using this model here Not only is that Sue model very inflated, I suspect the Giganotosaurus mount may have its ribcage too narrow. We don't know for sure until a description is published, but it's quite dissimilar to Acrocanthosaurus for example, which is not barrel chested but not narrow either. Quote:Now I have an opinion, I visited your thread and maybe we do share the same kind of opinion even before I could read your thread Glad to hear that. Quote:Giganotosaurus ROSEAE, are you also of the opinion that Mapusaurus Roseae and Giganotosaurus Carolinii could be secretly the same animal or one simply the evolution of the other? I do believe they are within the same genus. The reason for this is that almost all of the traits Coria and Currie (2006) used to justify putting G. roseae into the Mapusaurus genus, were not preserved in MUCPv-Ch1 (so there could be no comparison made). |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 24 Guest(s) |