HOME | DD
SameerPrehistorica — Blue Whale Size Comparison 2
#african #balaenoptera #blue #comparison #elephant #megafauna #musculus #size #whale #argentinosaurus #paraceratherium #cetacean #dinosaur #tyrannosaurusrex
Published: 2013-03-28 16:32:29 +0000 UTC; Views: 73123; Favourites: 414; Downloads: 378
Redirect to original
Description
African elephant -> 2.6-3.2 m+ tall / 3-6 tonnes+ ------> The largest land animal in the world today.
Tyrannosaurus rex -> 11-12.8 m long / 5-9 tonnes ------ > One of the largest carnivorous dinosaurs.
Paraceratherium -> 5-5.5 m tall / 10-20 tonnes ?? ------> One of the largest land mammals.
Argentinosaurus -> 30-35 m long / 70-90 tonnes ?? ------ > One of the largest herbivorous dinosaurs.
Blue whale -> 24-30.5 m long / 85-136 tonnes (max 200 tonnes) ------> The largest known animal in the world.
Related content
Comments: 214
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Спасибо .. Я не знаю, возможно ли добавить правильную тень от плоскости. Может быть, я могу, но я не буду сейчас редактировать это изображение.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
WHALE then xD haha get it. thanks for this awesome picture dude
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'd rather replace Spino for T Rex since the latter is vastly heavier in mass which is a much better indicator for size.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
T-Rex is present in the first version of 'Blue Whale Size Comparison'.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
And people still think there's no dinosaur longer than the blue whale
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I believe they think there's no heavier than it, not longer, which is true as of now (probably there wasn't a heavier dinosaur than a blue whale).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There's 5 dinos longer than blue whale
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
The new Chubut Monster appears to be similar to Puertasaurus give or take a few tonnes, while being longer overall. So that could be a rival? As could the giant Barosaurus?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wonder why some dinosaurs are not named when their fossils are known. There is 2 sauropods which comes to my mind. Both those sauropods size was reduced later. One of them is that chubut monster.
Now i remember about it. First of all,that is not a 3 meter femur. Pablo Puerta is short,who is lying next to the femur. I remember when i first saw that picture,the first thing i noted is his height. Then later on i saw a post about this in svpow. They mentioned the same thing about his height and said that this new sauropod was about the same size as argentinosaurus.Here is the link.
www.svpow.com/2014/05/19/the-n…
I am having a feeling of deja vu. I think i already typed this similar reply to you previously.Perhaps you forgot about it and to this day you were thinking that the chubut monster was bigger than puertasaurus.
As for barosaurus,i don't know what to say. Because in svpow,they mentioned it as having a long neck,so on.But there is no new reconstruction of the whole barosaurus anywhere as it seems. So, i didn't updated the old lean barosaurus which i have.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah sorry about that. However, there is a case being made that the largest specimen is indeed longer than Argentinosaurus Which is the general consensus, including with the museum mount. We do know that it was a Longkosaur too, which were more robust than other titanosaurs. So even if Chubut 'only' had a 2.4m femur rather than a 2.6m one (there is an allegedly larger specimen hinted at there) it would still weigh more than Argentinosaurus. Nima also mentioned that the 122 foot museum mount has too narrow a rib cage which would increase the animal's volume.
PaleoP did at least 2, one of which assumed a proportionally grown neck, which SVPOW have argued against. They indeed argue that 50m and 100 tonnes is accurate for now. i.ytimg.com/vi/4hCxLBNgfJ0/hqd… Here's one, i.ytimg.com/vi/4hCxLBNgfJ0/hqd… here's another (this is the one with similar proportions which is most likely IMO) so here's a couple. This is assuming the most likely option that BYU 9024 is a C9 vertebrae. Smaller and larger estimates can come from using other vertebrae.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There is also a large specimen of that chubut monster other than seen in those pics which has Pablo puerta ?
You posted 2 images which are same for barosaurus. It seems massive. Who increased it's skeletal to that size ?
The other sauropod which got reduced is the one which is also shown in a documentary with David Attenborough. It was said to be the largest dinosaur at 77 tonnes and 130 feet long,i think. Later it's weight was reduced and it is unnamed.It was just called as titanosaur.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Here's the second pic: paleop.deviantart.com/art/Fill… . These all assume a C9- based scaling. If you use a C11 scaling, you get a creature "only" 45m (15 of which are neck) and 70 tonnes, while if you use a C8 scaling, you get 56m (19m neck) and ~140 tonnes, so C9 is pretty solid.
And regarding Chubut and Puerta, both Paleoking and Bricksmashtv estimate them in similar weight ranges though with Chubut being like a bigger version of Futalongkosaurus (as the bones are most similar to each other), though Chubut seems longer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That link not working.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
paleop.deviantart.com/art/Susp… Here's one.
You heard of Yunmenlong? It was a Euhelopod even bigger than Daxiatitan. Bricksmashtv estimated it at 26m and 70-75 tonnes in fact.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm sorry, my luck with links on this website has been sucky. paleop.deviantart.com/art/Susp… this is if anything more accurate than the recent one he did. Though that may change.
Ever heard of Yunmenlong? That was another huge sauropod with a crazy long neck- only slightly larger than Daxiatitan, though much more robust as well. Bricksmashtv has some stuff about it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That is the Chubut Monster. However, the media reports are erroneous, relying on shrink-wrapping (using smaller soft tissue than is realistic) and compressing the rib cage at the sides. They estimated Argentinosaurus at 70 tonnes which seems too low, and that was a considerably less robust creature than Chubut or Puerta. So Chubut most likely is comparable to Puerta, rather than what the media claims. The media also claimed that the 1.5m footprints in Plagne belonged to 30-40 tonne creatures, so media statements aren't that reliable IMHO. Bricksmashtv and Paleoking have more info.
Mike Taylor and Matt Wedel. The bone is exactly twice as large (and thus 8 times the volume) of a particular vertebrae of the type Barosaurus specimen, so they just made it twice as big and 8 times as heavy, as that's what the numbers are currently saying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
there are theropods with more mass (bigger) than spinosaurus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Most likely the contenders are t-rex, giganotosaurus and carcharodontosaurus. All their mass seems to be in the range of 8 - 8.5 tonnes. Based on the new spinosaurus reconstruction, probably it seems like, it's weight is similar with those theropods. So it remains as a question that which is the largest theropod based on mass. Everywhere spinosaurus is mentioned as the largest theropod (most likely it should be because of it's length. So obviously i had to add spinosaurus in this image.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Spinosaurus was recently estimated to be 7.6 tonnes while the same method yielded 8.4 tonnes for T.rex
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
www.theatlantic.com/science/ar…
You need to take EVERY estimate for Spinosaurus with grains of salt since it's actual form is still up for grabs. Do you really enjoy the idea of T. rex being uncontested so much, given how much you tried to provoke me recently?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
yes there are estimate lower and higher than ~7.6 tonnes. but its the best we have.
and no.
also i don`t think you should be the one throwing around accusations of bias or things being ''uncontested.''
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"yes there are estimate lower and higher than ~7.6 tonnes. but its the best we have."
...how do you determine that that one estimate is the best we have? Interpretations will vary and not everyone is going to unanimously agree on one.
"and no."
Yeah right.
"also i don`t think you should be the one throwing around accusations of bias or things being ''uncontested.''"
Oh, I am actually in the right position to accuse such biases. You know why? People tend to gangbash me like I'm a crazy biased AF fringe crackpot just because I still have ~17-meter ~10ish-tonne spinosaurs and have Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus as rough equals. If even ONE BIT of whatever thoughts of mine I speak about giant theropods goes against their The Ultimate Divine TruthTM about the Almighty And Holy Divine God King Tyrannosaurus, the vast majority gets up in arms against me and act as if I'm an unrepentant vile heretic that needs to be burned at the stake. And now you recently attempted shots at me to try and provoke me.
👍: 1 ⏩: 3
Listen, Broly. I've had the same feelings (and I still kinda have) about this issue, as I find T. rex overrated too, and e. g. when I saw Hartman got 8.2 tonnes for Giganotosaurus and 8.4 tonnes for T. rex (and it's the safest to assume that Carcharodontosaurus and Mapusaurus was comparable in size to Giganotosaurus), I wanted to destroy my computer's monitor, and I felt the same way again when I saw the new weight estimates for Spinosaurus after 2014, and I still kinda suffer because of that, but now I've accepted that T. rex was likely the heaviest known carnivorous dinosaur. I think you should accept it, too. Just keep in mind that doesn't mean Spino, Carcha, Giga and Mapu a piece of sh*t, as they where perfect predators for the place and time they lived in, and that doesn't mean that e. g. in Giga vs. T. rex, the T. rex would win 100 out of 100 times, but about 60 out of 100 times. Also, maybe we will find a giant someday which was almost definitely heavier than T. rex.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't find it the likely option, and I don't find any good reasons to "accept" it.
About Scott Hartman's result, can people for the sake of sanity stop taking point estimates as absolute values!?
First of all, the specimen Scott Hartman used in his GDI estimates is the largest known Tyrannosaurus specimen out of several tens of individuals, while Giganotosaurus is only known from two specimens. Not all Tyrannosauri were the size of Sue! How about CM 9380? Stan? AMNH 5027? Tristan? Peck's rex? Most known specimens were around ~11-12 meters long and likely ~5-7 tonnes in mass, while the smallest known adult probably massed about ~4 tonnes.
Secondly, the error bars are larger than the difference displayed between them in Scott Hartman's GDI estimates, the "difference" disappears into the error. Density issues, soft tissue issues, potential error bars in scaling (for MUCPv-95), sample size issues, the incompleteness of Giganotosaurus, and the roughness of the GDI method all conspire to make that apparent difference inconsequential. Heck, the reasonable upper bound estimate for the larger Giganotosaurus specimen (~8% larger dimensions than holotype) would be ~8.57 tonnes based on Scott Hartman's ~6.8-tonne figure for the holotype. Oh look, I just turned the tides just by messing around with the scaling within the reasonable error bars! No, wait, I didn't, the other factors make that difference disappear into the error as well. Mass estimation for extinct fauna in itself is an inexact science. Mass estimation for extinct fauna known from incomplete skeletons are even more so.
It would be better if people do not repeat the general dinosaur fanbase' mess up.Because error bars, differing interpretations, the notion that not all Tyrannosauri are Sue, and sample sizes mean NOTHING to them.
Why should I accept that idea, if I have NO REASONS to do so!? I'm so tired of this endless tirade.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Well, when it comes to theropods, I trust nobody better than Scott Hartman.
About average size, yes, we can guess average size for T. rex (though we can't be as sure about it as with living animals), as we have a relatively large number of specimens, but we have just two specimens of Giganotosaurus, so using average size for T rex and using maximum size or even the size of the holotype for Giganotosaurus is biased, as we don't know if the holotype was an average sized Giganotosaurus. When we will have as many specimens of Giganotosaurus as in the case of T. rex, we can talk about average size (which is very unlikely to happen, especially in our lives). And I didn't even mentioned until now that many people consider a species bigger than another if it's largest specimen is bigger than the largest specimen of the other species, even if the average size of the former is smaller than the average size of the latter (I'm not among them, but as I said, we can talk about average size for Giganotosaurus when we will have as many specimens of Giganotosaurus as in the case of T. rex, which is unlikely). So, we can only compare the largest known specimens without being biased.
I know there are error bars in the estimates, but the middle is the one that matters, as it's always can be the most likely relatively safely. Also, in my opinion, believing in a 12 tonne Spinosaurus after 2014 is like believing in a 20.9 tonne Spinosaurus before 2014.
As I said, I think you should accept it, too, even if these results are unfortunate to us. Estimates are not places for personal preferences. You can say you don't put your emotions into your estimates, but don't be surprised if the others don't believe in you. And as I said, just keep in mind that doesn't mean Spino, Carcha, Giga and Mapu were a piece of sh*t, and that maybe we will find a giant someday which was almost definitely heavier than T. rex.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"About average size, yes, we can guess average size for T. rex (though we can't be as sure about it as with living animals), as we have a relatively large number of specimens, but we have just two specimens of Giganotosaurus, so using average size for T rex and using maximum size or even the size of the holotype for Giganotosaurus is biased, as we don't know if the holotype was an average sized Giganotosaurus. "
Statistically, the Giganotosaurus specimens we have now are most likely average individuals simply by virtue of the average individuals far outnumbering the especially large or small ones. Imagine taking 2 balls from a basket filled with 80 gray balls, 10 white balls, and 10 black balls, while blindfolded and in complete randomness. What are the balls you took most likely? More likely than not, it's going to be a gray ball because they outnumber the others by a massive amount.
While it's true that we don't know for certain, assuming that they were average is the safest assumption due to the reasons stated above.
"And I didn't even mentioned until now that many people consider a species bigger than another if it's largest specimen is bigger than the largest specimen of the other species, even if the average size of the former is smaller than the average size of the latter"
That doesn't mean much if anything. This is a bad representation of the comparative size between species. Many people just stick to the largest because exaggeration. Oddly, the very same people don't parrot ~2.7 meters when asked about how tall humans are for some reason.
"So, we can only compare the largest known specimens without being biased."
I really can't see the reasoning behind this. The largest-to-largest comparisons, and also smallest-to-smallest comparisons by extension, are by their very nature nature biased against those with smaller sample sizes simply because larger sample sizes are more likely to snag out the more uncommon large or small specimens.
"As I said, I think you should accept it, too, even if these results are unfortunate to us. Estimates are not places for personal preferences. You can say you don't put your emotions into your estimates, but don't be surprised if the others don't believe in you. "
I am so tired of having to explain the SAME THINGS I have argued for years. I said, I have no reasons to accept that idea. I couldn't care less if you are so convinced by it, but I'm not. My estimates are based on my interpretations of the data. My interpretations of the data is not obligated to 100% agree with what others believe. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean that I "put my emotions into my estimates" or what have you.
Others not believing me is nothing new to me. In fact, I had to put up with people trying to force their ideals to me and I even had an echo-chamber bashing/character assassination room against me, as if I was some type of crazy fringe crackpot like Peters, Milbourne, and Ken Ham are, just because I did not agree with them.
They don't even target my other differing palaeontological views that much, I have never been attacked for my opinions about Arambourgiania's size, for example. Aside from within the character assassination chamber created against me, I have never been attacked openly for having no rebbachisaurid parts on my Amphicoelias. Nobody spoke out against my sinking of Corythosaurus into Hypacrosaurus.
They only actively target the views I hold that goes against what they hold dear, which is about giant theropod sizes, and at times, my splittings of Stygimoloch and certain Tyrannosaurus specimens from Pachycephalosaurus and T. rex respectively, but even those aren't attacked as much as my views on giant theropods.
There is even at least one person out there who dedicated his whole internet existence just to spite me. People like kirkseven have went out to talk about nothing but their ramblings about large theropods and take a slew of names, taglines, and deviations with the intent to mock me, simply because my interpretations, estimates, and views just happen to differ. Too many people are addicted to the drug called "intolerance".
If you want to find out my view on the whole "what is the largest known theropod" question? It's indeterminate. To me, that is the only reasonable answer. You don't have to agree with me, but I am not obligated to agree with others either just because I get differing results based on my own interpretations.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
The only reason you have a 17 m Spinosaurus is because you go flat out against the reconstruction of the animal suggested by the authors who have directly worked with the fossils, including those that suggested the 17 m length estimation in the first place (Cristiano dal Sasso and Simone Maganuco). This has been explained to you several times both in public servers and in private. You insist on giving the animal a proportionaly puny rostrum and head.
images.discordapp.net/.eJwFwVE…
images.discordapp.net/.eJwFwdE…
^That being said by Maganuco, one of the main authors of the newer paper, and also one of the main authors od Dal Sasso 2005, the paper in which the giant rostrum was described and referred to Spinosaurus Aegyptiacus.
paulsereno.uchicago.edu/discov…
^Sereno has the mass similar to my estimation, only a bit lower.
drive.google.com/open?id=0B-K0…
^The above is Asier Larramendi's estimation using graphical double integration, much as we do. By personal comunication he told me that he does use a Matlab script as well, and that the length of their Spinosaurus could be scaled wrong because the model was hard to scale. Even at 16 m the mass is lower than in my estimation, and if scaled down to 15 m, it would be 6,17 tonnes, similar to the lower bound calculated by the Ibrahim et al team.
Nizar Ibrahim also talks about the possibility of Tyrannosaurus being heavier in this promo video from the Naturkunde museum:
youtu.be/Rz6vF0MyCnQ?t=305
And of course, you alredy know about our estimation, which is also the highest one that respects Ibrahim et al's team research
franoys.deviantart.com/journal…
Perhaps :iconSameerPrehistorica should see this as well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
''how do you determine that that one estimate is the best we have? Interpretations will vary and not everyone is going to unanimously agree on one.''
sure. i don`t need everyone to agree with it, just the majority of people (who actually know what there dealing with however)
some people agree with a 21 tonne spinosaurus and a 18.5 tonne T.rex but why should that concern me? if most people don`t agree with it, its probably wrong IMO.
i actually miss the 17 meter 11 tonne Spinosaurus since it was my favorite version of the animal, but the current consensus suggests it was not that big. and with Giganotosaurus i think it`s a rough equal with T.rex in terms of length at 12.2-12.4 meters.
the dentry is unreliable and is only a few mm bigger than the holotypes anyway. and i showed you how reliable scaling from other specimens can be with a few T.rex specimens.
and i suspect people think your biased because of the things you once said about T.rex on other sites like ''Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, Deinocheirus, Chilantaisaurus, and Saurophaganax are all larger than Tyrannosaurus'' when now its turning out that none of these animals might not actually outsize T.rex. i would seem that you still hold these views to some extent just not as extreme.
i thinks all large theropods except Spinosaurus max out at around 12.5 meters give or take and thus would make T.rex the heaviest since it has a much more bulky body.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
WOW, Pelagornis Sandersi AND Quetzalcoatlus Northropi 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Battle of the eons: Whales vs. Titanosaurs vs. Airliners. The airliners don't get infinite fuel.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hey, waitaminute. The puertasaurus is noticeably longer than the blue whale!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>