#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 Apr 22, 2014 19:03:03 GMT
The post below was made by me in another forum: Tyrannotitan chubutensis is a bit controversial when it comes to its size, so I made this thread for you guys to debate. At the upper part, FMNH PR2081 and MPEF-PV 1157 have their femurs compared. MPEF-PV 1157 has a ~140cm femur, while the Giganotosaurus carolinii holotype specimen, MUCPv-Ch1, has a ~143cm femur. MUCPv-Ch1 has a ~2% larger femur in axial length, and according to Novas et. al., 2013, both are very related. Having this in mind, we scale MPEF-PV 1157 down, having in mind that MUCPv-Ch1 is ~12.4 metres in axial length. So from scaling it, MPEF-PV 1157 is ~12.1 metres in axial length. Considering MUCPv-Ch1 is ~6800kg; 6800*(12.1/12.4)³ = 6318.296 So seeing as we got ~6.3 tonnes, we can guess it would be a bit larger than that based on the fact that Tyrannotitan chubutensis is more robust. So, in my opinion, that would give it some extra ~200kg. I say ~12.1 metres and ~6.5 tonnes for the MPEF-PV 1157 specimen, and ~6-8 tonnes for a general range for the whole species. What do you guys think?
|
|
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 Apr 22, 2014 19:33:06 GMT
The measurement of Giganotosaurus’ femur is problematic. It was given as 143cm (Coria & Salgado), but later as 137cm (Carrano et al.).
|
|
#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 Apr 22, 2014 19:44:26 GMT
Yep, a difference of ~4.2% in length, based on my mass evaluation Carrano et. al.'s 137cm femur would make the animal ~12.8% smaller if scaled down isometrically.
|
|
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 Apr 22, 2014 20:54:28 GMT
I think its just an issue of how the femur was measured, or perhaps one of them made an error. The rest of the animal as we know it shouldn’t be affected by this. But that’s important as to whether the Tyrannotitan paratype is smaller or larger than MUCPv-Ch1. btw here are the cranial remains scaled based on Acrocanthosaurus: Now, I wouldn’t actually use this to infer body size–its very likely that being more basal, Tyrannotitan may not have such a long skull in proportion to its body (but likely not a lot when going by the size of the postcrania)–but I think its good to visualize its skull size. We could use data from the recent osteological paper on T. chubutensis, but we need something to compare it to. Giganotosaurus remains underscribed, but Mapusaurus may work too.
|
|
#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 Apr 22, 2014 21:09:58 GMT
Yeah, and even though it is a length difference of less than 5%, the animal's mass would change by hundreds of kilograms.
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2014 11:01:05 GMT
I forgot to add, the skull would end up a few cm longer if we restored the quadrate as long as it is in Giganotosaurus.
|
|
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 May 2, 2014 13:54:27 GMT
A common misconception regarding Siats meekerorum is that the recovered specimen was only the size of a normal Allosaurus. That seems to be a major underestimate, even judging from the weight estimate of almost 4t that itself based on the conservative estimated femur lenght, which produced conservative estimates for other animals. The size of its ilium, vertebrae and fibula and comparison to related genera such as Aerosteon, Neovenator and Mapusaurus points out to an animal above 11m, most likely ~12m long. The ilium for example is at minimum 1.3 times the size of the corresponding element in Aerosteon (the measurement was preserved ilial acetabular circumference, other metrics were even bigger: Scaling the ilium to fit the lenght of the postacetabular blade resulted in a scaling factor of 1.51, straight-line measurement of the acetabulum yielded 1.42, however both seem excessive unless Aerosteon was much smaller than previously thought). Here it is about 11.8m long in axial lenght. Made by deviantart-user yty2000 (MysteryMeat on Cf)Its body mass was likely around 5t.
|
|