HOME | DD
yty2000 — Carcharodontosaurids
Published: 2013-02-22 04:04:00 +0000 UTC; Views: 4430; Favourites: 54; Downloads: 26
Redirect to original
Description
Some of the largest carcharodontosauridsfrom top down:
Mapusaurus rosseae, MCF-PVPH-108.169, skull length about 157cm
Mapusaurus rosseae, maxilla scaled to MCF-PVPH-108.115, skull length about 137cm
Giganotosaurus carolinii, MUCPv-95 154cm~
Giganotosaurus carolinii, MUCPv-CH-1, skull length about 151cm
Giganotosaurus restored conservatively.
Edit: slightly altered Giganotosaurus skull proportions, mainly the anterior part of the maxilla.
References:
Coria, R.A. and Currie, P.J. (2006). "A new carcharodontosaurid (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Argentina."
R.A. Coria and L. Sagado, 1994, "A giant theropod from the middle Cretaceous of Patagonia, Argentina
Currie, Philip J.; & Carpenter, Kenneth. (2000). "A new specimen of Acrocanthosaurus atokensis (Theropoda, Dinosauria) from the Lower Cretaceous Antlers Formation (Lower Cretaceous, Aptian) of Oklahoma, USA"
Eddy, Drew R and Clarke, Julia A. (2011). "New Information on the Cranial Anatomy of Acrocanthosaurus atokensis and Its Implications for the Phylogeny of Allosauroidea (Dinosauria: Theropoda)"
Sereno, P. C., D. B. Dutheil, M. Iarochene, H. C. E. Larsson, G. H. Lyon, P. M. Magwene, C. A. Sidor, D. J. Varricchio, and J. A. Wilson. (1996). "Predatory dinosaurs from the Sahara and the Late Cretaceous faunal differentiation."
Related content
Comments: 18
While I prefer the ~1.53 and ~1.56 m estimates for the skull of Giganotosaurus, this is one of, if not the most beautiful, not overly elongated version of the skull of Giganotosaurus I have ever seen, easily surpassing Hartman's version, and possibly surpassing GetAwayTrike's version too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you very much! 153/156 is less that 2% longer than what I estimated. The skulls could easily be 2% longer or shorter in either direction; we cannot know for sure.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very good work!
I' m natural sceptical about giant size est. Based on very frammentary specimen but the 2 most complete recostruction are really amazing!
Anyway I agree with you about the probably size of Giganotosaurus carolinii paratype
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
MUPCv-ch1 has a skull of ~ 1.54 meters, while the largest fragmentary specimen may have has a ~ 1.64 metters skull. The largest Mapusaurus has a skull of ~ 1.69 meters.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
151cm is his own estimate, the same goes for the other measurements, as long as the complete skulls of this taxa remain undiscovered he doesn't have to make his own reconstructions fit those of others.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mapusaurus skull is in any ways longer than that:
1.51*1.10=1.66
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
His reconstructions are based on cranial material while the supposedly 10% bigger Mapusaurus is a fragment of a pubic shaft so its understandable that he doesn't have a 10% bigger one there, on top of that, that it belongs to an specimen actually 10% bigger than Giganotosaurus is conjecture, it implies that the pubis of Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus are exactly the same that its thickness is an absolutely perfect indicator of overall size, said pubic shaft is 10% bigger in the minimum dimensions which might sound like much but we are actually talking of 7mm and 9mm of difference, which is nothing, about 0.6% of the total length of the pubis of Giganotosaurus.
The best we can get from that sole fragment is that it might have come from an individual of similar size to the holotype of Giganotosaurus and that's it, accepting an exact "10% bigger" based on it requires a lot of assumptions and only looking for the best case scenario which isn't very scientific. What if later we find out that Mapusaurus has a pubis that's proportionally thicker by 20%?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Hey Blaze, I think it would be better to compare that famous enormous Mapusaurus specimen to another Mapusaurus, not to another species. Do we have any other Mapusaurus pubis we can compare that specimen with?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hi! sadly there are no complete pubis of Mapusaurus, the only two other fragments are proximal ends of a left and a right pubis so they are not directly comparable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So it's a unwise thing to compare the same part in two different species, isn't it? It's like scaling T.rex size from Gorgosaurus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It will definitely give you an idea of its size but IMO the possible error bars are too big to claim with complete certainty one being bigger than the other, specially when we are dealing with literally millimeters of difference, others disagree of course and given the lack of data I don't think we can really say whose "right", if we had this kind of measurements for say, T. rex, I think that'll be helpful in see how variable "pubis thickness" can be.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for the reply. I believe that something like a vague 'similar in size with Giganotosaurus paratype (if the latter is really bigger than the holotype)' is the best we can say about this specimen's size.
On a side note, I noticed that Sinkonnen's Mapusaurus had a proportionally longer pubis than Hartman's Giganotosaurus: is that supported by something?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, since we lack anything close to a complete pubis as far as I know, then it seems it isn't based on anything. Sinkonnen also makes other mistakes in the shoulder girdle/arm, they are way too small, specially the humerus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for all your replies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It’s not a best case scenario, it’s a middle ground assumption. The real Mapusaurus may have had a proportionately thicker pubis, or a proportionately thinner one, we don’t know.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
It's also possible that is an ontogeny affected feature, pubis size also appears to be variable within individuals, like how Sue is bigger than the type specimen by double digit percentages in several bones but overall is only ~3-4% larger. I admit my previous reasoning is faulty but I still think a thicker pubis is not good evidence in either direction and prefer to put it under "unknown" but that's just me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very cool, a real shame they are so fragmentary though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0