|
Size comparisons
|
Prey and predator
 *This image is copyright of its original author By Regina Riberio  (08-19-2020, 03:22 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: A great white shark (Carchorodon carcharias) taking down a juvenile but much larger (about 3 times) humpback whale (Megaptera novæangliæ), measuring 32–33 ft or 9.7536–10.0584 m! https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-great-w...#pid124486 A few corrections on the jaws comparison: https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-megalod...ght?page=2 
SpinoInWonderland has recently updated his Spinosaurus to fit in the new tail. Here it is!
 *This image is copyright of its original author
(08-25-2020, 03:23 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: SpinoInWonderland has recently updated his Spinosaurus to fit in the new tail. Here it is! That is NOT how the tail was, he change it in a terrible form! That is why I belive that SpinoInWonderland is not a reliable source, his reconstructions are not based in the real specimens and are not correct, and the weights figures that he propose are highly inflated for any carnivore dinosaur that is not a T. rex. This is the real and correct one: *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
(07-22-2020, 04:40 AM)Balam Wrote: Based on all the new recent jaguar data, I decided to make a comparison between Pantanal jaguar and its closest felid relative in size, the Sumatran tiger, as both animals are often compared between one and other. The data for Sumatran tigers is more scarce and less updated, nonetheless what we do have of them is decent enough to provide measurements: Great work @Balam, you manage to make the comparative image that for time issues I was unable to do. About the body mass of the Sumatran tigers, please read this information that I put in other topic and will help to clarify the figures: In my last comparative image on all the tiger subspecies/populations the average weight of the wild Sumatran tigers is of 123 kg (n=10; range: 104 - 148 kg) for males and 98 kg (n=5; range: 75 - 110 kg) for females. Now, we have more weights and is important to corroborate and explain some information that we have. Information about the Sumatran tiger is very scarce and few hunting and scientific records are available. Based in the information that I have, and the new one provided here, I collected 19 weights from males, but actually is not that simple as we may think. The first 6 males came from hunting records gathered by Sody (1949) and Mazák (2013), these weights are: 104, 104, 115, 123, 130 and 140 kg. Based on this and the captive specimens that he knowed, Mazák (1981) stablished a range of 100 - 140 kg for male Sumatran tigers. Latter in 2005, Slaght et al. (2005) reported only one wild male of 140.2 kg and the average weight of 21 captive males of 109.4 kg (SE 3.1) and 21 females of 86.7 kg (SE 2.8); including the wild male Slagth et al. (2005) stablished an average of 110.8 kg (SE 3.3). Barlow et al. (2009) provided more details as he published the ranges used, but while we know now that the lightest of the males was of 91 kg, the heaviest is the wild male of 140.2 kg, so we don't know which is the heaviest captive male in the original sample. As far I know, the heaviest pure Sumatran tiger weighed 131.4 kg (Juma tiger in the Australia Zoo, at 2007). There is a mention of a male of 181 kg from the DreamWorld park, but I am not quite sure if that tiger is 100% pure Sumatran. Based on this, the captive male tigers may weight between 91 - 131 kg, while the wild males may weight between 100 to 140 kg, not big diference. Now we have new weights from wild males, all except one problematic specimens in not quite good conditions and that were captured for relocation or because were injured. The 11 males range from 62 to 130 kg, the lower figures reflect specimens not in they best form. Priatna et al., 2012 reported three males over 4 years old that weighed 73, 98 and 122 kg, and althoug the document says that the three were in good conditions, do not specify if this was during the capture or before its release. Kompas & Fransisca (2008) mention four adults males of 62, 105, 105 and 106 kg, but two of those males (the ones of 105 and 62) are mentioned again by Mardiastuti (2019), this time with weights of 119 kg and 74 kg respectively. So, why there is a difference of 14 and 12 kg respectively? This shows that in the 9 months that they were is captivity they gained weight, corroborating that they initial weights were not normal and when they mention that they were in good conditions, it is clear that this was after the time of recovery in captivity. Here is where we found the problem of using the weigths of animals that presented problems as they do not reflect the status of a wild and healty animals. The weights of 73, 74 and 62 must be discarted (specially the one of 62 as is the same as the one of 74 kg) as do not reflect healthy males, check that even adult captive males do not weight as low. This leave us with all the other 15 wild males between 98 to 148 kg, which at least match the weights of healty adults in captivity and the old records, also from the wild. Other three wild males found injured, one from 110 kg (Jarkasih, 2019), other male of 130 kg confirmed by Veteriany Erni Suyanti Musabine were also included (Suyanti, 2015), and the record male of 148 kg captured in the Jambi region and named "Slamet" (ZLS, 2003), this one was not injured but only captured for study purposes. Using the 15 wild "healty" adult males we get an average of 119.6 kg, which seems realiable for a species with an average skull length of 314.8 mm, probably should be a little more, as @"Pathio" confirmed that the adults animals that we can see in camera traps in the deep of the jungle looks very heavy. The weights used are 98, 105, 106, 110, 119, 122, 130, 140.2 and 148 kg, plus the old records of 104, 104, 115, 123, 130 and 140 kg. In conclution: * Wild Sumatran male tigers: 119.6 kg - n=15 - range: 98 - 148 kg. * Captive Sumatran male tigers: 109.4 kg - n=21 - range: 91 - 131 kg (?). The mix of wild and captive specimens is not recomended, keep them separated. Hope this help you for your next comparative image. (08-25-2020, 08:08 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:1: To my knowledge the spines on the tail were found somewhat distorted by taphonomy and it's possible there's more than 1 way to articulate them. I'll need to ask SpinoInWonderland to verify what he did, but it's possible that he tried articulating them from scratch instead of just using what the authors came up with.(08-25-2020, 03:23 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: SpinoInWonderland has recently updated his Spinosaurus to fit in the new tail. Here it is! 2: Other than the (not necessarily wrong) Spinosaurus, what are you referring to in particular? 3: Same as above, what in particular are you referring to? That he inflates any predatory dinosaur that isn't Tyrannosaurus appears to be a misconception from 2012; he is very objective and reliable these days, and to my knowledge does not try to inflate the size of anything in particular. BTW, I know SpinoInWonderland personally and he prefers that if anyone has any issue with him or his work to talk to him about it directly. You can take it up with him on his DeviantArt profile: https://www.deviantart.com/spinoinwonderland (08-25-2020, 10:40 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: 1: To my knowledge the spines on the tail were found somewhat distorted by taphonomy and it's possible there's more than 1 way to articulate them. I'll need to ask SpinoInWonderland to verify what he did, but it's possible that he tried articulating them from scratch instead of just using what the authors came up with. This is not the first time that his happen. Check the Carcharodontosaurus, there is no evidence that it surpassed even the 12 meters and he scaled to almoust 13, even larger than Giganotosaurus! The weights are always inflated, none Carcharodontosaurid weighed more than 7 maybe 8 tons, they were long but more slender than the T. rex. Even worst, Spinosaurus was even lighter and now he and you are bringing weights of over 10 tons, that is insane. The experts like Dr Ibrahim stated that the largest Spinosaurus weighed about 7 tons+, and with this change, if actually add more weight, it will reach about 8 tons, as the largest Giganotosaurus, but again, none reach the mark of 9 tons of T. rex. I don't need to address anything to him, DeviantArt is not my place. Wildfacts IS my place and I will not allow to polute the place with incorrect information from a guy that clearly provide estimations with no base and that had been corrected by other people at DevainArt too, like Franoys or Randomdinos. Even Scott Hartman corrected his previous estimations. (08-26-2020, 12:33 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:1: I would like to disagree - 13 plus meters appears to be a very plausible size for Carcharodontosaurus, judging by these factors:(08-25-2020, 10:40 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: 1: To my knowledge the spines on the tail were found somewhat distorted by taphonomy and it's possible there's more than 1 way to articulate them. I'll need to ask SpinoInWonderland to verify what he did, but it's possible that he tried articulating them from scratch instead of just using what the authors came up with. -It is phylogenetically intermediate between Acrocanthosaurus and giganotosaurines and that may very well be the best way to restore it. See the comments of this for more elaboration. -The primary difference between SpinoInWonderland's and Franoys' Carcharodontosaurus (as SpinoInWonderland has told me and I am inclined to agree with him) is the different dimensional discrepancies the 2 of them got between the holotype and the neotype, 12.5 percent bigger vs 19.2 percent bigger. Both of their skeletals use Tyrannotitan as the primary basis, and the difference in length they got for the holotypes (10.67 vs 11 meters) fall well into the error bars of one another due to differing skull reconstructions, differing reconstructions of caudal vertebrae, and amounts of intervertebral cartilage. Aside from that there isn't really much disparity between them to my knowledge. -Solely using Giganotosaurus as a base, you can get SGM-DIN 1 well above 9 tonnes. I'll quote a statement from SpinoInWonderland himself as well as demonstrate my scaling. SpinoInWonderland's scaling: Quote:I get about ~5.79 tonnes for IPHG 1922 X 46 if scaled based on my unreleased GDI for the old version of my Giganotosaurus skeletal (around ~7.4 tonnes, the deeper chest did quite a bit). Scaling this result up to SGM-Din 1 gives around ~9.8 tonnes (using my best-fit scaling factor). My scaling: According to Carrano et al. 2012, the femur of MUCPv-Ch1 is 136 cm long, compared to 126 for IPHG 1922. As for the size of the Giganotosaurus being used as a base, I'll quote myself from elsewhere: Quote:On his website, Paul estimates the Giganotosaurus holotype at 6.85 tonnes. However, there are 2 issues with his skeletal likely underscoring the mass:This would result in a mass of about 6.5 tonnes for IPHG 1922. For this particular restoration SpinoInWonderland's best fit of 19.2% gets about 11 tonnes for SGM-DIN 1 (this does not mean his best fit is wrong, just that it's not the best to be using for this particular restoration) which is very likely excessive, therefore I'll use the Franoys' best fit estimation of 12.5%. Scaling up to SGM-DIN 1 results in a mass of 9.25 tonnes. Long story short, I quite frankly do not see at all this lack of evidence for Carcharodontosaurus being 13+ meters and 9+ tonnes. Just because it's a large estimate does not make it wrong. 2: I do not agree with that either. Aside from the Carcharodontosaurus scalings by SpinoInWonderland and myself, I feel we have sufficiently good skeletals that suggest Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus could have reached 9-10+ tonnes. Furthermore, on carcharodontosaurids being slender, I think it should be noted that much of this supposed 'slenderness' comes from most Giganotosaurus skeletals taking the incomplete scapula as complete and therefore the very shallow chest, which would increase the 'slenderness' factor. As you can see, compared to Scott Hartman's skeletal, the skeletals that have this corrected (SpinoInWonderland's, GetAwayTrike's, and SpinoInWonderland's GDI of GetAwayTrike's (I would even argue that based on the rest of these, GetAwayTrike's original skeletal may have the scapula too far up in the neural spines and needs to be shifted down somewhat, thus deepening the chest and decreasing the slenderness even further)) have a considerably deeper chest than that and thus mass more. For example, Scott's skeletal is 12.4 meters and 6.8 tonnes, compared to 12.32 meters and 7.53 tonnes for SpinoInWonderland's GDI - thus 12.9% heavier at length parity with the corrected version, or maybe even more with Greg Paul's corrected skeletal, though admittedly I do not know what the axial length of his MUCPv-Ch1 is so I cannot yet make a precise judgement on that. 3: I recommend checking out this in regards to Spinosaurus' size. While you are correct that both myself and SpinoInWonderland agree with those size estimations, we didn't come up with them - Ibrahim et al. 2020 did. But that's not all, nowadays Ibrahim supports 10-12 tonne sizes for Spinosaurus, as you can read about here and here. (Also I usually go with masses of 7.47-8.4 tonnes for the largest Tyrannosaurus specimens, but that's a story for another time). 4: If you don't want to address him so be it. But where, may I ask, have Franoys, randomdinos, and Hartman 'corrected' his skeletals of large theropods? As far as I am aware that has not happened, period. No one has 'corrected' them. Heck, maybe I should even ask him about these supposed corrections. That may be useful. Though, if absolutely necessary, we can agree to disagree. I have no issue to continue this but if it needs to be done, agreeing to disagree is not such a bad idea.
Anyway, since this is the size comparison thread, I think I should get back to posting some.
Purussaurus vs Torvosaurus, max vs max (UFAC 1403 vs MB.R.3620). Purussaurus is scaled to 10.3 meters TL and is 6.2 tonnes, while Torvosaurus is scaled to 13.66 meters TL and is about 5.24 tonnes. Skeletals by randomdinos and GetAwayTrike.  *This image is copyright of its original author
I believe the average mass for adult large theropods such as Tyrannosaurids, Allosauroids (including Carcharodontosaurids), Spinosaurids, etc. were around the same (9 tonnes-10 tonnes) solely by judging at their body volume (all of them are a little larger than African elephants) despite different results stemming from different methods of calculations. Anyway, I'm trying to be non-bias here.
Different people have different opinions, so agreements/disagreements are to be expected. I think the modern weight estimations for Tyrannosaurids, Allosauroids, Spinosaurids, etc. (not just one group of dinosaurs, I can see some people are underestimating this particular type of dinosaurs while overestimated the weight of another type of dinosaurs) are slightly underestimated.
That's possible. In one of the hyperlinks of my big post above, Ibrahim suggests most dinosaurs are being underestimated sizewise.
American mastodon vs Triceratops, max vs max (595BS71 vs AMNH 5040)
American mastodon is scaled to 325 cm SH and is about 11 tonnes, while Triceratops is scaled to 275 cm skull and is 14+ tonnes. Credit to Asier Larramendi for both views of the mastodon, GetAwayTrike for the lateral view of the Triceratops, and Greg Paul (modified) for the dorsal view of the Triceratops.  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
.
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 16 Guest(s) |