#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Sept 12, 2014 18:07:53 GMT
ornitholestes ninja'd me, rendering my post above somewhat unnecessary...
|
|
inherit
95
0
Nov 21, 2016 16:13:36 GMT
173
spinosaurus1
┌∩┐(^o^)┌∩┐
710
April 2014
spinosaurus1
fredrick alexander
spinosaurus
komodo dragan and tegu
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Sept 13, 2014 15:48:59 GMT
|
|
inherit
9
0
Feb 21, 2017 11:58:22 GMT
79
es1001
1,498
October 2013
es1001
http://www.youtube.com/user/Entersandman1001
esandman1001
TheSandman
Tyrannosaurus
Great White Shark
|
Post by es1001 on Sept 19, 2014 8:35:20 GMT
I just can't imagine Spinosaurus like this. This is such a huge change. Even if the quadruped model is changed, it has still been downsized quite substantially. This is incredible.
|
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Sept 19, 2014 11:06:19 GMT
Its size hasn't been discussed as much as its appearence, though. We can't do much about its size when we still don't know for sure what proportions it truly had, mainly because there is a lot of disagreement surrounding the new model.
|
|
inherit
95
0
Nov 21, 2016 16:13:36 GMT
173
spinosaurus1
┌∩┐(^o^)┌∩┐
710
April 2014
spinosaurus1
fredrick alexander
spinosaurus
komodo dragan and tegu
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Sept 19, 2014 14:43:13 GMT
a shorter legged spinosaurus doesn't mean smaller size. remember, there is another paper coming hopefully soon to provide reasons why spinosaurus was the largest theropod ever. and might I add there's really a substantial amount of problems with this new spinosaurus skeleton pointed out by many people. Scott Hartman addressed that the limb proportions were over 20% too small. and I have yet to see them provide substantial evidence for these spinosaurus elongated vertebral columns being in that orientation. at least not disproving the orientation seen in Hartman's skeletal drawing.
|
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Sept 19, 2014 18:00:15 GMT
He was likely referring to the size comparison, which if true would definitely make it a bit smaller, but it's worth noting that the size comparison didn't show really accurate proportions to start with.
|
|
inherit
95
0
Nov 21, 2016 16:13:36 GMT
173
spinosaurus1
┌∩┐(^o^)┌∩┐
710
April 2014
spinosaurus1
fredrick alexander
spinosaurus
komodo dragan and tegu
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Sept 19, 2014 20:49:02 GMT
no, it's not making the spinosaurus any smaller. it's proportionally shorter, but it's still overall proportions are larger and denser then other theropods. heck, if you had looked at the skeleton, this spinosaurus is pretty bulky. it's girth looks to be just as wide as it is tall. and might might I add that spinosaurus bones are nearly completely solid, were as tyrannosaurs have an airspace that accounts to around 60% of the vertebra size. so no, spinosaurus is not made smaller. the only difference is the spinal cord orientation and shorter limbs. and even that is questionable
|
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Sept 19, 2014 21:26:17 GMT
I'm talking about the model and the dimensions in the comparison I posted before, where it looks rather skinny and far from impressive. Plus, volume equates to size better than mass due to the fact density isn't always the same.
|
|
inherit
95
0
Nov 21, 2016 16:13:36 GMT
173
spinosaurus1
┌∩┐(^o^)┌∩┐
710
April 2014
spinosaurus1
fredrick alexander
spinosaurus
komodo dragan and tegu
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Sept 19, 2014 21:31:03 GMT
have you not see how I also stated that this spinosaurus is also very bulky? it's ribcage is WIDER. you seem to just go by the side view. might I also add that this is a juvenile skeletal mount.
|
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Sept 19, 2014 21:38:24 GMT
It is, but in compensation, it's also really skinny in side view. And regardless of what it is, which I already know it's an immature specimen, I've already stated that if it looked like that and was that size, it would definitely have less volume than the previous model, and would likely weigh less than the 11-13 ton estimates that used to be so common a while ago.
|
|
inherit
95
0
Nov 21, 2016 16:13:36 GMT
173
spinosaurus1
┌∩┐(^o^)┌∩┐
710
April 2014
spinosaurus1
fredrick alexander
spinosaurus
komodo dragan and tegu
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Sept 19, 2014 21:48:09 GMT
which is why it's important to point out the fact that this isn't an accepted idea. as of now, numerous problems are being appointed in this skeleton. and it seems that they had made the limbs far too small. Hartman adjusted their model and given what looks to be a real theropod again making it likely that it can still be in that weight range. again, this is just too new to take up in accordance right now, and this study has not given any weight estimate for spinosaurus to my knowledge. I suggest waiting until Hartman's GDI before making claims like" it likely did reach 10- 13 tons" or " it likely didn't reach 10- 13 tons."
|
|
ornitholestes
Yutyrannus
Posts: 69 Likes Received: 15
Joined: Apr 20, 2014 8:31:00 GMT
inherit
91
0
15
ornitholestes
69
April 2014
ornitholestes
|
Post by ornitholestes on Sept 19, 2014 22:20:12 GMT
It actually is not skinny in side view either. Given that the authors’ interpretation is correct, the ribs come nowhere close to encompassing the whole body cavity, and the ribcage is about as wide as the ribcage+gastral basket is deep. In life the back would extend up the neural spines (the anteroposteriorly expanded part which is so prominently visible in the new skeletal) for at least a quarter to third of their lenght, and as in the chameleon previously used as an analogue the rest would likely taper gradually–something the palaeoartist of the comparison seems to have dismissed in favour of restoring the back as if more than just the upper 30-50% were skin-covered.
Mass is the best indicator of size overall. Volume has its effects too of course; specifically it sometimes correlates better with the size of certain body parts (take pterosaurs and birds of prey for example, whose beaks and talons respectively are unusually large for their mass and which appear unusually voluminous due to low density, wings and integument), but that doesn’t mean mass is to be ignored, as it’s rather a general thing and a matter of envisioning things the right way than of changing the sizes of the animals. Also this kind of size is not really the point here–we can actually compare sizes of certain body parts by comparing their osteology much more easily among theropods than we can figure out their overall masses.
Visual size surely plays a role but you have to keep in mind that other theropods are baloons when compared to Spinosaurus, the latter being at least 10-25% denser which equates to additional compact bone, musculature and intestines where other theropods have pneumatic diverticulae and trabecular bone. It’s like comparing a flying bird to a penguin of similar body dimensions. I.e. if we go by visual sizes in the first place, we should probably count the crest in exchange, which many people are not doing for understandable reasons (it’s rather thin).
It also isn’t considerably shorter by lenght compared to previous restorations. I actually doubt the total lenght will chance much between Hartman’s previous skeletal and the upcoming updated one, as the (already minor) difference is attributable to debatable differences in the interpretation of axial morphology (for example tail lenght–the rostro-iliac lenght of the clearly immature neotype is already close to sue’s). See Headden’s "The Bite Stuff"-post on that matter.
|
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Sept 20, 2014 0:52:45 GMT
spinosaurus1: I was just saying, though, not bringing up any kind of relevant point to the thread. It's not that I agree with the model and/or that I think the individual portrayed in the image is based on a mature specimen, but I was saying that it could actually be smaller in terms of volume if that model represented an accurate, mature individual. And concerning its mass, I do agree that we need to be rather skeptical about estimates running around. Just clearing out that I wasn't agreeing with any mass estimate. ornitholestes: I should've explained myself better. What I meant is that if the comparison was correct (both in proportions and morphology for all species portrayed), Spinosaurus aegyptiacus would look rather skinny laterally in comparison to other comparable theropods in terms of dimensions, in which case it would definitely take a bit from its volume in comparison to a more laterally robust individual, with volume being the size measurement I originally meant to refer to. Regarding volume, I usually prefer it over mass as a size measurement. I'll give you an example why I think so; A cube is made out of solid osmium (which has a density of ~22.59g/cm³). It measures one metre. So its mass would be 100³ = 1,000,000*22.59 = 22,590,000g. That's over 22.5 tonnes. And then we have a 2 metre cube, made out of rubidium (~1.53g/cm³). Its mass would be 200³ = 8,000,000*1.53 = 12,240,000g. That's over 12 tons. Of course, the cube in the first example is bigger in mass, but it has less volume, meaning it occupies less space. It's not hard to imply that it's smaller due to the space it occupies.
|
|
ornitholestes
Yutyrannus
Posts: 69 Likes Received: 15
Joined: Apr 20, 2014 8:31:00 GMT
inherit
91
0
15
ornitholestes
69
April 2014
ornitholestes
|
Post by ornitholestes on Sept 20, 2014 17:23:48 GMT
Sure, smaller by volume. It looks bigger. One could also argue that the 1m cube is bigger even though it is less voluminous, because there’s actually more matter in it.
And one could argue that there are about 7.2×10^28 atoms of Osmium and 8.7×10^28 atoms of Rubidium respectively in the masses you posted–which is highly relevant if you want to make them react with something else but not really relevant if you want to check which one would create the deeper impact crater or take more work to move.
And of course by the same means one could be considered larger because it is longer, or taller, but that’s generally considered to be unrealistic because it ignores the factors of other dimensions, just like volume ignores density.
I think it’s the physical concept of size=mass that’s most relevant to us, since it’s the one most closely linked to biomechanics.
My point is that mere volume doesn’t necessarily convey a realistic idea of size. Sure, volume makes things look bigger, but so do height, or lenght, and nobody really cares about those. It’s mass (minus airspaces)/weight what actually determines the amount of biological tissue the animal has, so for me it’s what matters for my concept of size.
With most animals volume and mass have a constant relationship of course, but saurischians are an exception to that rule because they show great variation in terms of skeletal pneumaticity.
About the image; it isn’t really relevant imo.
|
|
inherit
288
0
114
superhamdav
Hainosaurus is now congeneric with Tylosaurus. I guess that means that it's Tylosaurus bernardi now.
3,381
January 2016
superhamdav
Macrophyseter Pictures
Discord>Skype, whatever that is.
I heard inhaling it helps your nose congestion and all.
Whatha's dayuinausoar?
Tylosaurinae mosasaurs
http://i.imgur.com/Ai7iPV0.png
003CFF
|
Post by superhamdav on Jan 25, 2016 23:23:25 GMT
now there goes the first and probably only known water dinosaur revealed
|
|