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.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---
Original post series Tigerluver has shared first original post series on WildFact.

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The biggest dinosaurs that lived on Earth

India sanjay Offline
Wildanimal Enthusiast
*****
#16

What do you think of Size and weight of Blue Whale when compared to Big sauropods ?
I think blue whale is still world largest creature (verified) living on earth from beginning of time
1 user Likes sanjay's post
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
#17

(06-17-2015, 10:10 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: As anyone used the Spinosaurus specimen in Ibrahim et al. (2014) to reconstruct the famous skull's body?

 
I don't understand. [img]images/smilies/confused.gif[/img]


 
1 user Likes GuateGojira's post
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
#18
( This post was last modified: 06-17-2015, 10:45 AM by GuateGojira )

(06-17-2015, 10:28 AM)'sanjay' Wrote: What do you think of Size and weight of Blue Whale when compared to Big sauropods ?
I think blue whale is still world largest creature (verified) living on earth from beginning of time

 
Well, the estimation of 120 tons of Amphicoelias is based in extrapolation of that single vertebrae that don't exist, apart from the draw, and in the case of Spinosaurus, we learned that draws can be very inaccurate in some cases. The weight of 150 ton for Bruhatkayosaurus is based in.... nothing!, and sadly the original fossil, which was never taken from the ground, was destroyed in a big rain, this and the fact that the terrible draws present in the document where it was published don't show the real bones, sign the dead of this dinosaur, and its existence per se was never corroborated.

For the other giant sauropods like Puertasaurus or Argentinosaurus, weights of 100 tons or less and lengths of about 30 meters has been proposed and I think that anything beyond that is not plausible. In this case, the blue whale, which has been recorded at 170-190 tons and up to 33 meters, is the true largest animal of all times, and one of the most beautiful, by the way.
 
2 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

Switzerland Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
*****
#19

(06-15-2015, 11:21 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: If we made the analogy between the giant theropods and the big cats, then it should be:

Spinosaurus - Smilodon
Tyrannosaurus - Tiger
Giganotosaurus - American Lion
Carcharodontosaurus - Cave Lion
Allosaurus - African Lion

 
Sorry but I'm not agree...
Indeed, in my own opinion spinosaurus was a fishs eater dinosaur. Thus not as powerfully built and performing predator as tyrannosaurus rex...
Did Allosaurus live in prides ?  Constantly in prides as do the african lions today ? OK by opportunism they could be able to hunt together. So could the tyrex. Compared to tyrex, they seem slender (2-4 tons aginst 7-9 tons for an adult tyrex). Much more slender than african lion compared to tiger.
But this is not very important. I don't want to haggle.


 
2 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

Canada GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
#20
( This post was last modified: 06-17-2015, 11:11 AM by GrizzlyClaws )

(06-17-2015, 09:43 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Call me biased if you like, but I think that the best analogy for T. rex is the Bengal tiger. Why? well, check they ecology: In the last part of the Cretaceous of north America, the T. rex was the largest and more powerful predator, unchallenged by anyone, and the largest competitor was Nanotyrannus, IF you think that it was another species. If not, the next largest predator were the Dromaeosaurus! In this context they look like India, where the second largest predator is the leopard and they are nothing for a mighty tiger, also the dholes are pack hunters like Dromaeosaurus, although the difference in weight is ridiculous in this case (tiger 260 kg  - dhole 15 kg; Tyrannosaurus 8 ton - Dromaeosaurus 30 kg [img]images/smilies/exclamation.gif[/img]).

Like in India, larger prey were scarse, with only a few Alamosaurus (gaur-buffalo) over the area, but most prey were smaller than T.rex, with the exception of Ankilosaurus (wild boar) and the mighty Triceratops (Sambar) which were about the same weight.

All the evidence suggest that T. rex was a perfect predator, with a huge brain, large eyes with perfect stereoscopic vision, a great olfactory sense and the most powerful jaws in the land animals. Yes, the arms were short, but if we compare other giant carnivores, ALL have smaller arms, even those of Giganotosaurus are ridiculously small too.

For me, T.rex is perfectly developed predator, created to kill by ambush and direct contact.
 

 

I think the giant T. rex specimen such the UCMP 137538 is like the Ngandong tiger for the Tyrannosaurus family.

T. rex: big teeth, lb for lb stronger bite, loner, proportionally shorter skull, and few giant specimens such as UCMP 137538 have helped it to retain its prestige against its Carcharodontosauridae rivals such as the Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus.

Tiger: big teeth, lb for lb stronger bite, loner, proportionally shorter skull, and few giant specimens from China and Indonesia have helped it to retain its prestige against its lion clade rivals such as the American Lion and Cave Lion.

So T. rex and Tiger are indeed the best analogy for each other.
1 user Likes GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

Canada GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
#21
( This post was last modified: 06-24-2015, 10:00 AM by GrizzlyClaws )

(06-17-2015, 10:55 AM)'Spalea' Wrote:
(06-15-2015, 11:21 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: If we made the analogy between the giant theropods and the big cats, then it should be:

Spinosaurus - Smilodon
Tyrannosaurus - Tiger
Giganotosaurus - American Lion
Carcharodontosaurus - Cave Lion
Allosaurus - African Lion


 
Sorry but I'm not agree...
Indeed, in my own opinion spinosaurus was a fishs eater dinosaur. Thus not as powerfully built and performing predator as tyrannosaurus rex...
Did Allosaurus live in prides ?  Constantly in prides as do the african lions today ? OK by opportunism they could be able to hunt together. So could the tyrex. Compared to tyrex, they seem slender (2-4 tons aginst 7-9 tons for an adult tyrex). Much more slender than african lion compared to tiger.
But this is not very important. I don't want to haggle.


 

 

Some large Allosaurus species can grow up to more than 40 feet, so they are not too small to be the analogy for the African Lion.

So the large Allosaurus species are only slightly smaller than their Allosauroidae cousins such as the Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus, just how coincidentally similar that the giant specimens among the African Lion are also only slightly smaller than their Pleistocene lion clade cousins.
1 user Likes GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
#22

Just imagine this thing roaring and looking directly at you:

*This image is copyright of its original author


It is imposible not to love it, or be afraid of it, at the same time! [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
 
3 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

Canada GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
#23
( This post was last modified: 06-18-2015, 01:00 AM by GrizzlyClaws )

(06-17-2015, 11:19 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Just imagine this thing roaring and looking directly at you:

*This image is copyright of its original author


It is imposible not to love it, or be afraid of it, at the same time! [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
 

 

Well, Rexy AKA the Empress T. rex should be the one to kill that hybrid abomination, but it was a pity that they have used an oversized Mosasaur to steal her show, lol!
1 user Likes GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
#24
( This post was last modified: 06-20-2015, 10:56 AM by tigerluver )

One liners don't work, sorry about that one. 

I was referring to Sasso's 988 mm upper jaw (as always, I've attached the paper) and whether or not someone took the Ibrahim et al. find a step further to more correctly reconstruct the Sasso specimen. I don't think anyone has. I took the Ibrahim et al. (2014) figure and came up with a total skull length of around 1500 mm. I picked up a ruler and measured the relative total length of the Ibrahim et al. spinosaurus specimen and related it to the head length. The body in the figure isn't straight but I found a conservative ratio of 8.7 head lengths:1 total length. Applying this ratio to the Sasso specimen, its total length would be 13,050 mm (42.8 feet).

At a glance, Spinosaurus's vertebrae and rib cage looks a bit thinner than the other large carnivorous dinosaurs. The distal long bones are also relatively shorter compared to the proximal long bones, a trait of cursorial, lighter built land species. So from this, I'd think Spinosaurus is lighter for its frame.

The aquatic lifestyle theory of course makes such implications invalid. The denser bones also shred the cursoriality and lightly built theory apart. Spinosaurus looks more like a crocodile than the bipedal therapod to me. So much so, I think those interested in Spinosaurus's most accurate weight estimate should get their hands on crocodilian length and weight data. 

I'll give an amateur go, but I've no problem admitting I don't know enough or much about specific dinosaur morphology. 

I'll use a simple isometic relation. A captive crocodile measuring 6 m long and weighing 1,114.27 kg and Lolong, measuring 6.17 m and weighing 1,075 kg. Using the equation (body length a/body length b)^3=body mass a, we get an estimate of ((11,464 kg + 10,172 kg)/2) 10,818 kg. A sensible estimate I suppose. Keep in mind I'm not sure of the true allometry in total length and body mass, nor the bone density disparity between Spinosaurus and crocodilians, and also that I probably underestimated the Sasso specimen's total length. Therrien and Henderson showed that skull length and body mass were strongly postively allometric, but it looks like they used estimates to derive that formula, and that really is not a valid method in my opinion.


 

Attached Files
.pdf   Sasso2005.pdf (Size: 682 KB / Downloads: 18)
1 user Likes tigerluver's post
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
#25

The most recent estimate on Argentinosaurus is 83 tonnes. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article...0078733#s3

Dreadnoughtus most recently estimated at no more 40 tonnes. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/c...6/20150215 

Paralititan, mentioned in Burgess and Flannery (2001), has been estimated to weigh 59 tonnes from a 1.69 m humerus.

More later. Keep in mind sauropods have hollower vertebrae, so I wonder how many of these estimates are accurate.
4 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

United States genao87 Offline
Member
**
#26
( This post was last modified: 10-10-2015, 08:47 AM by genao87 )

Man I hope that Spino study gets proven wrong.  I don't like that Spino is so short that it is practically  a walking crocodile.    I remember a poster who's name is TheRoc mentioned about some future evidence coming about Spino being larger and not so low on the ground.  However he disappeared it seems.

Scott Hartman the guy who drew Spino was also disagreeing with the latest results for Spino.

Also has Spinosaurus Marroccanus been proven to be its own species or no evidence yet found?
2 users Like genao87's post
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
#27
( This post was last modified: 10-10-2015, 09:10 AM by tigerluver )

Hmmm, I never really looked into the debate regarding the Ibrahim et al. study. I think I've found what you are talking about @genao87, you've opened the doors to a good discussion.

I found this critique by Scott Hartman: http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/ther...rus9112014

Then it looks like Ibrahim et al. made a skeleton out of different specimens, that's a major problem. 

"John Hutchinson, a palaeontologist at the Royal Veterinary College of the University of London, is less convinced. He worries about the reliability of cobbling together different specimens to create a single picture of an animal. “We have to be careful about creating a chimera,” he says. “It’s really exciting speculation, but I’d like to see more-conclusive evidence.” - Source
2 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
#28

Come on, this people is just scared.  Lol This arguments against Ibrahim and his team (including Paul Sereno) are not based in scientific postulates but in feelings. They don't "like" the form of Spinosaurus and that is why they are against it. But face it, how much we know about the fragmentary dinosaurs? How we accept the "true" form of other specimens like Deinocheirus? They don't look at all like our previous images, check how many changes are been made in the form and size of the giant sauropods!!!

However, I don't see any heated argument against the changes in these other animals simply because they don't have such a large "fan base" like Spinosaurus. If these large carnivore dinosaur were not so famous, those ideas of Harman and Hutchinson would not even exist.

By the way, Ibrahim already answered against those weird ideas: http://markwitton-com.blogspot.de/2014/0...l?spref=tw

There are no "chimaeras" here, Spinosaurus was what it was, a long and slender four legged predator specialized in fishes that normally avoided fights against true land predators like Carcharodontosaurus.


*This image is copyright of its original author



*This image is copyright of its original author

From left to right: Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Tryrannosaurus and Suchomimus.
2 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

Canada GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
#29

The skull of the Spinosaurus still looks quite impressive as the teeth are very large that perhaps rival those of the Tyrannosaurus Rex.


*This image is copyright of its original author
4 users Like GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

United States genao87 Offline
Member
**
#30
( This post was last modified: 10-11-2015, 11:58 PM by genao87 )

@tigerluver,   yeah i know...i hope some new found evidence such as new fossils helps prove Spino to be more upright and weighing more.   With this new model if it stands then I don't have a leg to stand on in  Spino vs T.Rex,  Spino vs Giga,  etc.    This new Spino would not win on land against these other giant theropods.  


@Guate,   Yeah I know but I hoping for some new evidence hopefully to surface.   Right now I have to accept this new current Spino (I cant believe I just said that)
1 user Likes genao87's post
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB