|
|
Post by Allosaurus89 on Oct 12, 2011 23:35:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by DeadToothCrackKnuckle on Oct 13, 2011 3:13:33 GMT
Incredible, and 18,000 lbs. was the minimum weight for Sue!  And let' not forget the UCMP 118742. This specimen would have a minimum weight of 17,576 lbs. being 12.5 meters, an average weight of 19,173 lbs. measuring 13.64 meters, and an astonishing maximum weight of 20,210 lbs measuring 15.4 meters in length according to the article. Keep in mind that this is the minimum weight for the length of the animal. Tyrannosaurus rex is astonishing paleontologists today 106 years after the great behemoth was discovered. |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Oct 13, 2011 3:38:54 GMT
My original Marx Tyrannosaurus made back in 57 says 50 feet.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 13, 2011 17:00:49 GMT
Soooo... It looks that another "old" theory has been proven right afterall, mh? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Oct 13, 2011 23:38:12 GMT
Incredible, and 18,000 lbs. was the minimum weight for Sue! And let' not forget the UCMP 118742. This specimen would have a minimum weight of 17,576 lbs. being 12.5 meters, an average weight of 19,173 lbs. measuring 13.64 meters, and an astonishing maximum weight of 20,210 lbs measuring 15.4 meters in length according to the article. Keep in mind that this is the minimum weight for the length of the animal. Tyrannosaurus rex is astonishing paleontologists today 106 years after the great behemoth was discovered. Except that the paper explicitly says other contenders for "largest" T. rex specimens are based on length not weight. sue is the most robust specimen known. And, as Tom Holtz has pointed out, this doesn't mean T. rex was larger relative to other giant theropods. it means the weight estimates for ALL large theropods are too low. If T. rex goes from 6t to 9t, then Spinosaurus would go from 9t to 12t. |
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Oct 14, 2011 10:12:23 GMT
Mmm, account for air sacs, and model used? I still have my doubts in ANY weight estimate since the 5 ton elephant was estimated as a 10 ton one by the model used for most dinosaurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 14, 2011 14:30:23 GMT
Mmm, account for air sacs, and model used? I still have my doubts in ANY weight estimate since the 5 ton elephant was estimated as a 10 ton one by the model used for most dinosaurs. I'm sort of in the same mindset--let's see how these estimates stack up for known quantities. And the use of skeleton mounts seems like there could be issues, especially since so many specimens have a fair amount of reconstruction. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 14, 2011 16:42:50 GMT
And the use of skeleton mounts seems like there could be issues, especially since so many specimens have a fair amount of reconstruction. Given the specimen's completeness, I don't think it's fair to say this about their analysis of 'Sue'. |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 14, 2011 18:32:56 GMT
And the use of skeleton mounts seems like there could be issues, especially since so many specimens have a fair amount of reconstruction. Given the specimen's completeness, I don't think it's fair to say this about their analysis of 'Sue'. Perhaps, but how do you conclusively determine that a computer model wrapped over a skeleton mount is accurately calculating the weight? And since we don't have an actual weighed one to compare the model to, how do we define 'accurate' (even if the algorithms prove precise)? I don't know the article, but I would assume that these weights need to be viewed with a grain of salt until the same method is used on animals for which actual weights are known. |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Oct 15, 2011 12:45:56 GMT
Given the specimen's completeness, I don't think it's fair to say this about their analysis of 'Sue'. Perhaps, but how do you conclusively determine that a computer model wrapped over a skeleton mount is accurately calculating the weight? And since we don't have an actual weighed one to compare the model to, how do we define 'accurate' (even if the algorithms prove precise)? I don't know the article, but I would assume that these weights need to be viewed with a grain of salt until the same method is used on animals for which actual weights are known. It's free to read on plos one, so no excuse not to check and see if they address this stuff  www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0026037 |
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Oct 15, 2011 15:00:40 GMT
Well, zero density air spaces are just the nasal passages, the trachea and the lungs; nothing in the bones, and just one mention of air sac in the paper...
Gotta give it a deeper read, and I may be being biased, but still...
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 15, 2011 18:13:59 GMT
Having read it (or most of it) I am not entirely convinced that they've given definitive answers for anything. In fact, they even admit that the weight estimates are contingent upon the model produced--which is subjectively produced by people. In fact, there is even mention that one of the modelers was more conservative/lean in their model, and came up with weights close to the existing estimates. Yet, of course, the press release and media grab the part about how much bigger they should be, even though 1) there is no reason that their model is definitively better than the models used for decades based on bones' measurements and 2) their own estimates vary wildly with subjective causes and are (by their admission) difficult to accurately reproduce results (first test of science and all).
In other words, let's see their methodology used against known quantities--test it on mounted crocodile, elephant, hippo, manatee, and ostrich skeletons (and any others they can come across) and see how the method works. Of course, being subject to the whims of a modeler, they would have a predisposition to the appearance of the animal in question and so model it that way. Perhaps a blind test--I don't know how, but there must be some way to provide skeletons that they can't identify.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowheadwhale on Nov 9, 2011 19:36:17 GMT
Having read it (or most of it) I am not entirely convinced that they've given definitive answers for anything. In fact, they even admit that the weight estimates are contingent upon the model produced--which is subjectively produced by people. In fact, there is even mention that one of the modelers was more conservative/lean in their model, and came up with weights close to the existing estimates. Yet, of course, the press release and media grab the part about how much bigger they should be, even though 1) there is no reason that their model is definitively better than the models used for decades based on bones' measurements and 2) their own estimates vary wildly with subjective causes and are (by their admission) difficult to accurately reproduce results (first test of science and all). In other words, let's see their methodology used against known quantities--test it on mounted crocodile, elephant, hippo, manatee, and ostrich skeletons (and any others they can come across) and see how the method works. Of course, being subject to the whims of a modeler, they would have a predisposition to the appearance of the animal in question and so model it that way. Perhaps a blind test--I don't know how, but there must be some way to provide skeletons that they can't identify. AMEN! It's indeed too easy to put out a "sensationnal" article based on suppositions just to sell magazines. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Nov 9, 2011 19:40:53 GMT
AMEN! It's indeed too easy to put out a "sensationnal" article based on suppositions just to sell magazines. Well, it's a scientific paper. But I guess you could argue that it's just attention seeking... |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 9, 2011 19:53:36 GMT
AMEN! It's indeed too easy to put out a "sensationnal" article based on suppositions just to sell magazines. Well, it's a scientific paper. But I guess you could argue that it's just attention seeking... It's the subsequent press releases--not just the journalism spins--that are the problem. Right in the paper it mentions that one author, using their methods, came up with estimates similar to existing. But that doesn't even get mentioned--even though, to me, when a second method finds a similar value as previously used methods, that should be the validating one. It's also a useless method, since it relies on mounted skeletons--how practical is that? |
|
|
|
Post by DeadToothCrackKnuckle on Nov 10, 2011 17:11:23 GMT
Incredible, and 18,000 lbs. was the minimum weight for Sue! And let' not forget the UCMP 118742. This specimen would have a minimum weight of 17,576 lbs. being 12.5 meters, an average weight of 19,173 lbs. measuring 13.64 meters, and an astonishing maximum weight of 20,210 lbs measuring 15.4 meters in length according to the article. Keep in mind that this is the minimum weight for the length of the animal. Tyrannosaurus rex is astonishing paleontologists today 106 years after the great behemoth was discovered. Except that the paper explicitly says other contenders for "largest" T. rex specimens are based on length not weight. sue is the most robust specimen known. And, as Tom Holtz has pointed out, this doesn't mean T. rex was larger relative to other giant theropods. it means the weight estimates for ALL large theropods are too low. If T. rex goes from 6t to 9t, then Spinosaurus would go from 9t to 12t. Yes, but I assume that fully mature Tyrannosaurus rex' were as robust as 'Sue.' |
|
And let' not forget the UCMP 118742. This specimen would have a minimum weight of 17,576 lbs. being 12.5 meters, an average weight of 19,173 lbs. measuring 13.64 meters, and an astonishing maximum weight of 20,210 lbs measuring 15.4 meters in length according to the article. Keep in mind that this is the minimum weight for the length of the animal. Tyrannosaurus rex is astonishing paleontologists today 106 years after the great behemoth was discovered.
