|
Size comparisons
|
 (10-30-2019, 10:47 PM)Pckts Wrote:Ah, okay.(10-30-2019, 10:37 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote:It's an estimate, these are only sighted for a Census, not measured or weighed.(10-30-2019, 10:27 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:1: Here you go(10-30-2019, 10:12 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: The 6.8 meter Orinoco is considered a reliable voucher. And I thought there was a big 7 meter and 2 ton saltie in India? Well it's not baseless. Nor does it prevent other crocs from being bigger at record size.  (10-30-2019, 10:37 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: 1: Here you go The first link shows an "estimation" of 24 ft long (732 cm) for the largest croc, but again, it has not been measured and based in experience, those news reports, even from officials, are not reliable. The second link have information about the Orinoco Croc and present this quote: "largest individual recorded 669 cm total length; Humboldt 1860 in Medem 1983". The source is: Medem, F. 1983. Los Crocodylia de Sur América. Vol. II. Los Crocodilia de Colômbia. Colciencias, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá. Now, let's investigate this source and also take in count that the "orginal" figure cam from 1860, which is the original report. Why I put so much weight in founding the source? Because again, in my experience, many of the old records are incorrect, exagerated and even fake. Believe, I have saw that many times with many animals, for example with tigers, lions, gorillas, whales, anacondas, phytons, and I don't see any reason why those of crocs may be excluded of this. About the body mass, we know that "bigger the animal" is "bigger the mass", but like I say, how is posible that 1 meter may increas 1 ton? I think that base on the evidence 500 kg will be a more or less reliable increase, but 1 ton is too much. (10-30-2019, 10:52 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:Ah, okay.(10-30-2019, 10:37 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: 1: Here you go I wouldn't immediately dismiss it, but yes, record sizes are always kinda iffy. Maybe I'll refrain from adding that to my charts. As for mass, to double the weight, the crocodile would have to be 20 percent bigger in all dimensions - not that far off from 6 vs 7 meters. Add to that a bulk increase and 2 tons or close to that is certainly on the table. (10-30-2019, 10:55 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: As for mass, to double the weight, the crocodile would have to be 20 percent bigger in all dimensions - not that far off from 6 vs 7 meters. Add to that a bulk increase and 2 tons or close to that is certainly on the table. I will try to dig more about that, because as I said, I have saw few real weights from crocodiles, for any species, and just "Lolong" and other captive specimens surpass the 1 ton, and those are already exceptional specimens. From Dr Britton, about the Saltwater crocodile: "Largest living crocodilian species with a confirmed measurement, and in fact the world's largest living reptile in terms of mass. Adult males can reach sizes of up to 6 or 7 metres (20 to 23 feet), the largest confirmed individual being 20.7 feet (6.3 metres). There is always a lot of interest over the largest ever recorded saltie. In general, males over 5 m (17 feet) in length are extremely rare. Females are smaller, the normal maximum adult size being 2.5 m to 3 m (8 to 10 feet) being the normal maximum adult size. Maximum weight varies, but has been known to exceed 1,000 kg in 18 to 19 foot adults. 5 metre adults are closer to 400 to 500 kg. This is a large-headed species with a heavy set of jaws." Link: https://web.archive.org/web/200601081137...p_cpor.htm About the record crocodiles (do not includes "Lolong" as is an old webpage): https://web.archive.org/web/200601090021...faq-q2.htm Now, about the Orinoco croc, also from Dr Britton: "The Orinoco crocodile is one of the larger crocodilian species, with historical records of animals reportedly reaching 6 and even 7 metres (unconfirmed). Today, it would be highly unlikely to encounter an animal exceeding 5 m - a more conservative estimate of maximum size for males. The snout is relatively long and narrow, similar to C. cataphractus, and is reported to curve slightly upwards (although this is a common trait in captive-raised animals)." Link: https://web.archive.org/web/200601091432...p_cint.htm Check this paper: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/fil...hology.pdf It says that largest Saltwater males may weight 2 tons, but is just an speculation, again no real evidence of such a huge weights. Other paper: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/fi...t-plan.pdf It estimate a higher figure of 1500 kg. Again, is just speculation. So how, I see those figures of "up to" as unreliable, as unless we can have a specimen that weighed that figure, we can't use it as a reliable form. I can say that, hypotetically speaking, some animals have the capacity to reach huge sizes, but if that maximum figures recorded says otherwhise, I will stick to that.
I was referring to scaling, not the accuracy of such specimens. They do need to be taken with a grain of salt.
I found the record of the 678 cm croc from the Orinoco, not the orginal source, but some secondary sources that accepted it.
1 - On the Maximum Total Length of the Salt-Water Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) - Allen E. Greer, 1974.  *This image is copyright of its original author 2 - Los Crocodylia de Sur América, Volumen 2 - F. Medem,1983 (in Spanish).  *This image is copyright of its original author 3 - Animal facts and feats - Gerald L. Wood, 1977.  *This image is copyright of its original author None of them actually corroborate the record, they just accept it. Finally, this is the original souce, but I could not found it:  *This image is copyright of its original author However, we must remember what not all people accept it, Dr Britton for example, and as there is no physical evidence, skull or even a picture to suport it, I can't accept it, just like many of the old "giant" tigers, lions, snakes and gorillas in the old records. This is just my point of view, you can accept it of course, but I advise you to have your reserves about it, and at least take it like a" grain of salt".
I found the original source of the records of the Orinoco crocodile: https://archive.org/details/personalnarr.../page/n166
 *This image is copyright of its original author However, what concerns me is that he said that also saw other animals of extraordinary size in other regions:  *This image is copyright of its original author However, again, no other evidence is presented. Certainly he was not there to collect animals, but to survey the area, but he could get at least the skull of the beast. Certainly, because of the time, we can say that a picture will be out of question. Other thing is his description of a jaguar in the area:  *This image is copyright of its original author Bigger than any Bengal tiger? Is he serious? This type of exagerations remaind me the statements of Sasha Siemel about his jaguar (he said the same thing) and from my point of view, put doubt about the statements of Von Humboldt and his reports on the crocodiles, unless someone can actually corroborate otherwise. These people where made a survey of the area, so we can say that they were making a reliable work, but how realible where the measurements on these animals? Sadly, there is no description of the method used, or the status of the animal. So, here is the original book, anyone can have they own guess about it.   *This image is copyright of its original author Ursus arctos tyrannus ( in polar bear form ) faces two cave bears Credited to Brobear. http://domainofthebears.proboards.com/thread/642/ursus-tyrannus?page=3&scrollTo=20501
Largest short faced bear specimen (FMNH PM24880) vs Megalosaurus lectotype (BMNH R1101). Short faced bear is by Blaze, Megalosaurus is by Hartman.
Read more: http://theworldofanimals.proboards.com/p...148/thread  (10-31-2019, 12:54 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: I found the original source of the records of the Orinoco crocodile: https://archive.org/details/personalnarr.../page/n166 To be fair, Sasha was only talking about Bengals he had seen in Museums and we all know what Taxidermy does to an animals size, especially in those days. Sasha spent years in the Brazilian jungle and he killed many Jaguar via spear, so he's definitely seen his fair share of Jaguars. Also, do you know which book that is from? Thanks
Alright, @johnny rex , here you go: Purussaurus (randomdinos) vs Giganotosaurus holotype and paratype (Hartman)
Read more: http://theworldofanimals.proboards.com/p...210/thread (10-31-2019, 09:10 PM)Pckts Wrote: To be fair, Sasha was only talking about Bengals he had seen in Museums and we all know what Taxidermy does to an animals size, especially in those days. The images are not from any book of Sasha, the link of the book is in the post and is from A. von Humbold and his travels in 1852. The book of Sasha, where he mentioned the size of tigers and his jaguars, is from "Tigrero". As far I remember he mentioned that there.
I have that book, I'll have to look through it again. He really doesnt mention much about the cats from what I remember.
CM 9380 Tyrannosaurus rex vs OMNH 1331 Apatosaurus, both skeletals by Hartman. 7.5 vs 95 tons
Read more: http://theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/50/size-comparison-scale?page=85#ixzz63xJ9lBCP  (10-31-2019, 09:27 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: Alright, @johnny rex , here you go: Purussaurus (randomdinos) vs Giganotosaurus holotype and paratype (Hartman) Awesome, can you make a comparison between the largest Deinosuchus and Tyrannosaurus rex? Thanks! |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |