|
Size comparisons
|
The longest snake in the world, reticulated python (largest reported dimensions)
 *This image is copyright of its original author being real, meeting in the wild an alleged 10 m long and nearly 180 kg snake would be an amazing experience credits https://www.instagram.com/p/CBM52p-l5Cl/...mMyMTA2M2Y=
very large specimen here
 *This image is copyright of its original author
IIt seems captive specimens are overfed and thus weigh a lot more than a healthy wild adult.
@Bitishannah
About #1640: " IIt seems captive specimens are overfed and thus weigh a lot more than a healthy wild adult. " Boredom is rarely mortal, and seldom makes decreased the weight.
Two female Persian leopardesses (first one is huge) compared to wild boar and a man in north iran.
 *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  *This image is copyright of its original author if you want to see the video check here https://en.mehrnews.com/news/167504/VIDE...nal-Parkto wild
brown hyena and male leopard
 *This image is copyright of its original author
 (11-02-2022, 11:59 PM)AndresVida Wrote: Sadly it's time to update this my friend. No problem, I can make the update, but I will like to know the source (document or person) of the new corrected size of Zygophyseter. Where are pubished the measurements or who made the calculations. Also, Brygmophyseter is also a close relative from Livyatan and using its body size it was got an estimated of over 15 meters:  *This image is copyright of its original author I also made an estimation from my own and I got about the same body length. So the body size of Livyatan is far for been fully resolved because we are using "close" relatives for its reconstruction, is like using cougars (Brygmophyseter and Zygophyseter) or Smilodon (modern sperm whale, very specialized predator) to re-build a tiger! Also, we need to remember that we only know ONE specimen, and we don't know if that was a male, or a female, of it was a young adult or an old adult, we don't even know if that was its maximum size or just an average. So, what we can say is that based on its close relatives known its body length could be between 12 - 16 meters. In body mass, that is another story and I will not touch that yet. However, I will like to know the sources of the new body size estimated for Zygophyseter, just to make sure. (11-12-2022, 12:52 AM)AndresVida Wrote: The longest snake in the world, reticulated python (largest reported dimensions) Very nice comparative image, I love to see them. Definitelly the wild specimens are lighter than the captive ones, that is why using captive specimens is not a good factor of comparison. Interestingly an anaconda of only 5.2 meters in Los Llanos already weighed 30 kg more, showing that while the phyton is longer, the anaconda is substantialy heavier. The snake fo 10 meter is just a "fish story", just like the anacondas of the same size. When we check to the original reports they are full of "plot holes". (11-14-2022, 09:09 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: No problem, I can make the update, but I will like to know the source (document or person) of the new corrected size of Zygophyseter. Where are pubished the measurements or who made the calculations.of course, I got it from here https://twitter.com/fishboy86164577/stat...3694159872 (11-14-2022, 09:09 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: No problem, I can make the update, but I will like to know the source (document or person) of the new corrected size of Zygophyseter. Where are pubished the measurements or who made the calculations. (11-14-2022, 10:54 PM)AndresVida Wrote: of course, I got it from here So, the estimation was done by an artist, not by the Paleontologists. Honestly that concerns me, as I have the original paper of Bianucci & Landini (2006) and they do not provide exact measurements from the bones, just about the skull and a few random measurements of some vertebrae. Unless that this artist has a document that we don't have, I will take that representation like his interpretation, and like a grain of salt. This is the only picture that I found of the real fossil (entire body) of Zygophyseter, housed in the Museo dell’Ambiente dell’Università del Salento (MAUS):  *This image is copyright of its original author Here is a draw of how it was found:  *This image is copyright of its original author And here a reconstruction based in that fossil in the same museum:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author If you check its size, definitelly is over 6 meters long and it doesn't look like the "funko" image created by the artist. I know that many people is happy and accepted this "new" reconstruction without hesitate, but honestly I will like more details before fully accept it. PLEASE don't missunderstand me, is not that I am saying that the image of "Fishboy" is false or incorrect, is just that with no backup data, it is really hard to me to accept that reconstruction, but if he provide the source of his measurements that will be great. Now, I really hope that the measurements that he used are those taken in the real fossils and not estimations based in pictures using the scale bars in the paper, because that is not a correct form to estimate the size, after all the pictures can (and often do) provide incorrect dimentions. That is why all reconstruction must use the measurements taken by the scientists and published. Using only pictures is not correct, and believe me, I know it from first hand. Let me use the example of another raptor sperm whale Brygmophyseter. Most of documents and even Wikipedia quote its size as between 6-7 meters and compare it with Zygophyseter, however there are some contradictions that honestly confuse me, let me start..... In this image it says that the skull is of "about 140 cm":  *This image is copyright of its original author This of course do not provide any detail as if this is the "real" length of the fossil (incomplete) or if is the estimated size when complete. Also, is not an official document. Now let's check a published and per-review document:  *This image is copyright of its original author This is from Bianucci & Landini (2006) and Naganocetus is just a synonimus of Brygmophyseter. Here it says that its skull was "at least 1.5 m", so this suggest that this is the estimated length of the skull "reconstructed". Kimura et al. (2006) provided a series of measurements from the bones, but sadly did not do the same with the skull, so here is the table where all the known vertebrae are reported:  *This image is copyright of its original author Please check that no cervical vertebrae (neck) is known:  *This image is copyright of its original author So, IF I am reading the measurements correctly, the blue square has the vertebrae in line that we can use to reconstruct the body length of the animal. About the neck, as we don't know its size we can check this image from a modern female orca of 6.7 m long, please take in count that the neck is small and the space presented here is just because the neck is still not joined to the column:  *This image is copyright of its original author I know that this is a completelly different Genus, but we can estimate a "neck" of 15 cm for Brygmophyseter. So, with a vertebral length of 3209 mm and a neck of 150 mm, there is an estimated body length of 3359 mm, and adding a 10% for intervertebral discs, the body length between neck to tail could be about 3694.9 mm, or about 370 cm in round numbers (remember that many bones are estimated and less than the true value and also that the intervertebral disc percentage is just a conservative estimation. Now, if we use the c.140 cm from the webpage, the total length for Brygmophyseter in the skeleton will be about 5094.9, or about 510 cm, but if we use the figure from the published paper of "at least 150 cm", the total length will be of 5194.9, or 520 cm. This is far from the 6-7 meters ofter quoted and is just a raw estimation based in the available data. Now if we take in count muscles, fat, other conective tissues and the cartilaginous part of the tail (the flipper), we can estimate a total length in life of about 5.6-5.7 m depending of how large we estimate the flipper (50 cm in this case). So, in few words, the best raw estimation of size "reconstructed" will be between 5.5 - 6 meters. My problem here is which is the correct estimated size for the skull, 140 cm or 150 cm? Personally, I go for the paper on this, but if some can present more information, or correct the measurements used, be my guess. Now, why I have done all this process? Well, to show that take measurements from images is not the correct one, now we going to check the images in the internet: 1 - Jaime Bran: This is a reconstruction from Jaime Bran, a reliable artist and a good source:  *This image is copyright of its original author In the DevianArt page, he says that the size is of 5.5 m, which match with the information that I provided previously. HOWEVER, when I started to measured the draw I found something interesting. I measure it three times using pixels and the result is 6 meters from tip of reconstructed skull to the last caudal vertebrae along the centra, and a skull lenght of 140 cm, milimeters more - milimeters less, not an exact size as it depends of who measure it, after all is just a draw and not the real skeleton. So, this bring the problem again about the size of the skull, as based in this, and using the scale bar, the size that he used was 140 cm, but it gived the same size that I gut using the skull of 150 cm. Definitelly I will love to talk with him just to clarify some points. Here we can see an example of the issues to use a draw to estimate a size. Now another example. 2 - Kimura et al. 2006: We all know the picture at the end of the document of Kimura and team, here it is:  *This image is copyright of its original author This is the image used for many reconstructions but sadly the authors do not provided any scale for reference. If I use the raw skull (broken) the total length of the animal range between 632.9 cm (skull of 140 cm) and 678.1 cm (skull of 150 cm)! Certainly an unlkely size based in the real measurements and the fact that the skull is broken, but this is just to give you an idea. Now, if we estimate that the skull is a bit longer, just slightly longer than the lower mandible, the total length of the animal range between 603.4 cm (skull of 140 cm) and 646.5 cm (skull of 150 cm). The lower figure is more realistic, but again, we are just guessing from the air, if you know what I mean. Also, the skull is shorter than we think and this image is misleading in this part, check the third image.... 3 - Picture of Shiga Fossil Museum: And here is a recent picture of 2018 that I found and check the skull:  *This image is copyright of its original author Now compare it with the picture from Kimura et al. (2006) and we can see that the skull is shorter than we think and that the mandible is bigger. This demostrate that using pictures is NOT a good form to estimate sizes as the pictures are misleading in many cases. But just for FUN, let's see what we can get with this image:  *This image is copyright of its original author I completed the last part with the image of Kimura and this is what I got. Now we can see that a piece of metal completed the estimate length for the skull and here is my result: With the skull of 140 cm, a total length of 560 along the centra. With the skull of 150 cm, a total length of 600 along the centra. Again, all depend of the skull size and also the angle of the picture. This confirm that using pictures to estimate a size is not a good indicator and we must use only the published measurements. Check that while the calculated sizes range between 5.5 to 6 meters, it change depending of the angle of the picture, the measurements and the source quoted. That is why I will like to know which sources they used for they calculations, just the make sure of the results. And take this in count, if all this confusion can happen with specimens where we know more or less the body size and proportions, imagin how problematic is to build an animal that we only know the skull!!! So, the "new" size of the Livyatan, for me, is not the final stone in the grave, not at all. (11-16-2022, 10:18 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: That is why I will like to know which sources they used for they calculations, just the make sure and the results. And take this in count, if all this confuson may happen with specimens where we know more or less the body size and proportions, imagin how problematic is to build an animal that we only know the skull!!! So, the "new" size of the Livyatan, for me, is not the final stone in the grave, not at all.I very much agree (12-27-2021, 12:21 AM)JurassicDD Wrote: I barely post on here anymore because of discord and i do not want to cause anymore issues here or derail the thread further, but i will add this. There is quite a clear reason to why not just me but a few others have brought up the issues regarding user DinoFan83 (or Chocolatecake 123 as he sometimes goes by) because there is clearly an issue that is sadly being ignored/enabled by the mods here. Im not saying he mods here are doing a bad job not at all. A lot of people here are not quite as paleo crazy or as interested in the subject as me or some others here, so you might not see what he's doing. But anyone who does have an interest in it and does not have a huge bias can see what he's doing and what he has been doing for a while. completely disagree with you, you can not throw me A SCIENTIFIC article where the Tyrannosaurus rex would be estimated at over 10 tons. But Nizar Ibrahim said that Spinosaurus specimens weigh more than 10 tons The words randomly don't mean anything, since an amateur work does not compare with a peer-reviewed article. And in what sense is the tyrannosvr, according to the calculation of the GDI, larger? It depends on the reconstructed Animal proportions (11-29-2022, 12:05 AM)caninecat Wrote: completely disagree with you, you can not throw me A SCIENTIFIC article where the Tyrannosaurus rex would be estimated at over 10 tons.The Neo-paleontologist Dan Folkes building up a Skeletal model of Scotty with a 3D model that estimates the body Mass of the specimen at 10624.895kg aka 10625 kgs or 10.6 tonnes, with also a very reliable study saying : An Older and Exceptionally Large Adult Specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex “Here we describe an extremely large and relatively complete (roughly 65%) skeleton of Tyrannosaurus rex (RSM P2523.8). Multiple measurements (including those of the skull, hip, and limbs) show that RSM P2523.8 was a robust individual with an estimated body mass exceeding all other known T. rex specimens and representatives of all other gigantic terrestrial theropods” Scotty was a massive animal its femur measures around 133 cm in length with a circumference of 59 cm. Sue’s femur measures 132.1 cm in length and only has a circumference of 57.5 cm the femur is a very important weight bearing bone. While Scotty’s skull is mostly complete, the possible length estimate of 161 cm that’s 9 cm more than Sue’s estimated skull length. Based on the skull and femur size its likely Scotty measured between 12.67 and 13.08 meters and could have weighed anywhere from 8,870kg (9.7 tons) to possibly 10,490 kg (11.5 tons). This makes Scotty the new record holder for largest T. rex and the largest land predator just surpassing the previous record-holder that was originally Sue. Scotty exceeds Sue in 84.6% of the published measurements. All of Scottys weight bearing elements are larger than Sues are. Measurements, where Scotty surpasses Sue. Spreadsheet, created by Franoys on Deviantart https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1xbuGjf_PaBcJNKJSu4sEixEqZzEc-wyvfrg1iTnCSno/htmlview#gid%3D0 The pubis has a direct coalition with the torso of an animal and is important when determining of torso depth. So it is highly likely that Scotty had a even deeper wider torso than the Sue specimen. Scotty also has a larger ischium bone along with multiple caudal vertebrae that are thicker than Sues are. Scotty's whole hip girdle is more robust than Sues is and this is important because the hip girdle is the centre mass bearing structure for a theropod dinosaur. So its highly possible that Scotty carried around more weight than Sue did. The rest of Scotty's body collectively implies a much brawnier body shape than other big Tyrannosaurus specimens and other big theropods. Plus a comparison of cubic femoral dimensions gives a much greater overall weight. The latest study regarding Scotty describes its shoulder bones, hips and it's leg bones and they are all larger with Scotty than the corresponding bones in the Sue specimen. Scotty's bones were also examined and show higher levels of stress from carrying around more weight when compared to the bones of Sue. Using the study by Snively et al 2018 we can compare the cross sectional of the sacral anterior vertebra. This is the method used to show the relationship between the animals body mass and the cross section area of the animals spine by showing the mass of an animal but also the stress of the upper body. The results are once again higher for Scotty than they are for Sue. Scotty's cross sectional area was found to be 650 cm ^2. This means that Scotty was 4 percent larger when compared to Sue who's results were 625 cm^2. Quote from W. Scott Pearsons “It wasn’t until now we’ve been able to take a step back and look at the specimen as a whole, “And doing so there’s an oh gosh moment because the specimen really is enormous.” “We looked at this from a number of different angles. Obviously the best way to do it is the direct one-to-one comparisons through the various skeletal elements,” Persons said. “When you look at everything from the shoulder to the hip to the leg to portions of even the toe bones, yes, Scotty the Tyrannosaurus rex comes out consistently just a smidgen-bit larger than Sue.” ‘I think there will always be bigger discoveries to be made, but as of right now, this particular Tyrannosaurus is the largest terrestrial predator known to science.’ While Persons is very happy about presenting Scotty to the world, he believes Scotty won’t be the largest for long. Both Sue and Scotty had their weights estimated in the latest study both specimens were directly compared. The method used to calculate the mass in the latest study was the same for both of the specimens and the data shows that Scotty is more massive than Sue is. is not scientifically enough for you? There's more than clear evidence of Science quoting the largest tyrannosaurus to be estimated at over 10 tons, not only if we consider this weird unverified SCIENTIFIC study claiming that tyrannosaurus could be 70% larger than we previously thought https://www.livescience.com/how-big-coul...us-rex-get While I don't buy this study at all, it's another clear indicator that the Tyrannosaurus specimen Scotty is estimated to be over 10 tons unlike you tried to frame there with a very big claim that obviously was based on thin air. Moreover, there's no OFFICIAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER with a GDI of Volumetric scan estimating Spinosaurus to be 10+ tons, and Nizar's Ibrahim was just a guess-estimate based on new densities that would have later been applied for theropod mass estimantions. More over, when looking at the dorsal view made by the same dan folkes it's clearly visible how the largest reported Spinosaurus (not largest verified, because I remind that the largest verified Spinosaurus is the estimated 3.7 ton holotype, while studies list the largest specimen as even another species or just don't classify it as Spinosaurus Aegyptiacus) does not compare in any department to a 10+ ton tyrannosaurus rex or a 9+ ton Giganotosaurus Carolinii (and Dan allegedly GDIed the Spinosaurus at 7+ tons), as it's much more gracile and narrow in built, not only its ribcage is light years far from being as wide as the other two megatheropods, but even when comparing the vertebrae the difference couldn't be more clear:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 98 Guest(s) |