Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 16, 2014 16:25:09 GMT
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?
We should just use a range, we can only use specific estimates for specimens. This thread is sort of pointless since we know Tyrannotitan is more than 40 feet long and will obviously weigh 6 tons at a minimum.
Hatzegopteryx: That's not even the beginning, the whole forum is disturbingly lethargic.
Jun 14, 2014 15:49:29 GMT
Spinosaurus Maroccanus: I'm quite surprised how no one has touched the Argentina 97ma thread
Jun 14, 2014 15:20:28 GMT
Hatzegopteryx: This forum needs some serious attention; I'll be at it for a moment, unless I get other tasks that do not allow me to do so.
Jun 6, 2014 19:13:55 GMT
Hatzegopteryx: It's a genetic fallacy. It's basically an argument that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position.
May 26, 2014 20:47:51 GMT