ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Apr 26, 2011 5:23:15 GMT
liopleurodon black 8m long human black 1.5m tall tylosaurus red 15m long mosasaurus 17m long megalodon grey 16m long The Monster of Aramberri 18m long shonisaurus green 21m long. NO i am not including worms whales and spinosaurus!! Every box is a metre. Correction Mosasaurus/Tylosaurus 13 m Monster of Aramberri 15 m Megalodon 18 m
|
|
|
Post by Megaraptor on Apr 26, 2011 5:26:30 GMT
My feelings for liopleurodon is that it was really 8m long even if it is my favourite. I don't have any likings for giganotosaurus! Er...point being?
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Apr 26, 2011 6:06:48 GMT
liopleurodon black 8m long human black 1.5m tall tylosaurus red 15m long mosasaurus 17m long megalodon grey 16m long The Monster of Aramberri 18m long shonisaurus green 21m long. NO i am not including worms whales and spinosaurus!! Every box is a metre. Correction Mosasaurus/Tylosaurus 13 m Monster of Aramberri 15 m Megalodon 18 m Thanks, but one problem Adam said in his post that the aramberri predator was 18m long!
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Apr 26, 2011 10:38:57 GMT
One problem with that chart is it doesn't accurately take pose/posture into account. For example Shomnisaurus is listed as 21 m but in the chart it look more like 23-25m. 21m is from tip of snout to tip of tail, but in life the tail is sharply down-pointed to form the bottom of the fluke. Imagine the bottom fluke stretched out straight and it's well over 21m.
Shonisaurus also seems to be based on the old 'fat' restoration which is incorrect. It was actually very long and thin, torpedo-shaped in profile, so it's basically too 'tall' here.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 26, 2011 12:11:20 GMT
The Shonisaurus outline looks like it's based directly on this illustration of S. popularis (the smaller species, although still rather large) from Wikipedia:
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Apr 26, 2011 20:15:47 GMT
The 'fat' bodied Shonisaurus is the species s. popularis which is only 13-15m long. The 21m long shonisaurus species is S. sikanniensis, which had a very slender body. Read the section "body shape" in this paper for details: forumlo.cjb.net/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=127525The longest rib of Shonisaurus is 2m. So it's 'width' from bottom to top wouldn't be more than 3m, not 5 or more shown in the diagram here. And that's assuming that the gut protruded nearly a meter below the ribcage or almost 1/3 of the torso depth, which is very unlikely for a marine reptile. I wouldn't draw any Shonisaurus species taller than 2.5m from belly to back.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 26, 2011 20:19:17 GMT
I do love that in this context we can say that S. popularis is "only" 13-15m in length... ;D
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Apr 27, 2011 5:53:12 GMT
Correction Mosasaurus/Tylosaurus 13 m Monster of Aramberri 15 m Megalodon 18 m Thanks, but one problem Adam said in his post that the aramberri predator was 18m long! Not exactly, 18 m is the mediatic size. The realistic estimate is around 15 m. Above, I showed the mail of Marie Celine Buchy (pliosaurs expert and one of the discoverers of the Monster) where she states that the creature wasn't 18 m but more like 15 m. Also, there's no skeletons of more than 13-14 m mosasaurs, although it is possible that larger individuals existed. As for Megalodon, the max size of 16 m was based in 1996 on a large tooth around 16 cm. However, more than 19 cm long and 14 cm width teeth of this shark have been found. The latest studies about paleobiology of fossil lamnids sharks indicate that Megalodon was likely larger than 18 m full grown. Also, the weight of the sharks is depending of several factors but Megalodon was seemingly even bulkier than the modern great white. The weight of an adult female is estimated to be around 100 tons for the largest individuals. This explains, added to the estimated bite force (up to 20 tons, against 2 tons for a living great white), why many experts suggest C.megalodon was one of the most powerful predators in vertebrate history. www.bio-nica.info/Biblioteca/Wroe2008GreatWhiteSharkBiteForce.pdfAlso, you can expect some unique found about from Peru.
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Apr 27, 2011 5:57:37 GMT
The 'fat' bodied Shonisaurus is the species s. popularis which is only 13-15m long. The 21m long shonisaurus species is S. sikanniensis, which had a very slender body. Read the section "body shape" in this paper for details: forumlo.cjb.net/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=127525The longest rib of Shonisaurus is 2m. So it's 'width' from bottom to top wouldn't be more than 3m, not 5 or more shown in the diagram here. And that's assuming that the gut protruded nearly a meter below the ribcage or almost 1/3 of the torso depth, which is very unlikely for a marine reptile. I wouldn't draw any Shonisaurus species taller than 2.5m from belly to back. Totally exact. this is what S.sikanniensis finally indicated about their shape.
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Apr 27, 2011 8:18:36 GMT
This is better... light blue: opthalmosaurus 3.5m dark blue: aramberri predator 18m red: shonisaurus 21m pink: mosasaurus 13m grey: tylosaurus 13m orange: kronosaurus 9m black: liopleurodon 8m purple: elasmosaurus 14m green: megalodon 18m black: human 1.4m tall ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Apr 27, 2011 10:40:34 GMT
This is better... light blue: opthalmosaurus 3.5m dark blue: aramberri predator 18m red: shonisaurus 21m pink: mosasaurus 13m grey: tylosaurus 13m orange: kronosaurus 9m black: liopleurodon 8m purple: elasmosaurus 14m green: megalodon 18m black: human 1.4m tall ;D ;D ;D Shonisaurus still enormously way too big... as I posted above the body can't be more than 3m tall. Here it is 6. The body shape is S. popularis again which is the smaller species. I may try to do my own version of this chart later since this has me interested now Shonisaurus should be snake-like in shape, not whale-like.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 27, 2011 14:05:32 GMT
This is better... light blue: opthalmosaurus 3.5m dark blue: aramberri predator 18m red: shonisaurus 21m pink: mosasaurus 13m grey: tylosaurus 13m orange: kronosaurus 9m black: liopleurodon 8m purple: elasmosaurus 14m green: megalodon 18m black: human 1.4m tall ;D ;D ;D Where do you live that a 1.4m tall person (55"; 4'7") would be considered an acceptable scale for a person? In general it should be 1.70m (5'6"). Using a hobbit is going to make every animal on there appear oversized, because nobody would expect the human to represent someone so short.
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Apr 27, 2011 18:19:52 GMT
Here's my take on it after reading the relevent data:
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 27, 2011 18:26:14 GMT
What's your reason for not including as much as an incipient dorsal fin? (Not doubting you here, as I have next to no knowledge of ichthyosaurs. Just asking.)
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Apr 27, 2011 18:39:53 GMT
What's your reason for not including as much as an incipient dorsal fin? (Not doubting you here, as I have next to no knowledge of ichthyosaurs. Just asking.) There's no evidence to suggest shastasaurs had developed any dorsal fins yet, so any fin would be pure speculation and not based on direct evidence. Not saying they didn't have them, but parsimony and all...
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Apr 27, 2011 21:39:57 GMT
Thanks, but one problem Adam said in his post that the aramberri predator was 18m long! Not exactly, 18 m is the mediatic size. The realistic estimate is around 15 m. Above, I showed the mail of Marie Celine Buchy (pliosaurs expert and one of the discoverers of the Monster) where she states that the creature wasn't 18 m but more like 15 m. Also, there's no skeletons of more than 13-14 m mosasaurs, although it is possible that larger individuals existed. As for Megalodon, the max size of 16 m was based in 1996 on a large tooth around 16 cm. However, more than 19 cm long and 14 cm width teeth of this shark have been found. The latest studies about paleobiology of fossil lamnids sharks indicate that Megalodon was likely larger than 18 m full grown. Also, the weight of the sharks is depending of several factors but Megalodon was seemingly even bulkier than the modern great white. The weight of an adult female is estimated to be around 100 tons for the largest individuals. This explains, added to the estimated bite force (up to 20 tons, against 2 tons for a living great white), why many experts suggest C.megalodon was one of the most powerful predators in vertebrate history. www.bio-nica.info/Biblioteca/Wroe2008GreatWhiteSharkBiteForce.pdfAlso, you can expect some unique found about from Peru. The article says, "jaw adductor-generated force in Carchardon appears unremarkable when the predators body mass is considered." Maybe it has less mass then they think!
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Apr 28, 2011 0:59:57 GMT
Not exactly, 18 m is the mediatic size. The realistic estimate is around 15 m. Above, I showed the mail of Marie Celine Buchy (pliosaurs expert and one of the discoverers of the Monster) where she states that the creature wasn't 18 m but more like 15 m. Also, there's no skeletons of more than 13-14 m mosasaurs, although it is possible that larger individuals existed. As for Megalodon, the max size of 16 m was based in 1996 on a large tooth around 16 cm. However, more than 19 cm long and 14 cm width teeth of this shark have been found. The latest studies about paleobiology of fossil lamnids sharks indicate that Megalodon was likely larger than 18 m full grown. Also, the weight of the sharks is depending of several factors but Megalodon was seemingly even bulkier than the modern great white. The weight of an adult female is estimated to be around 100 tons for the largest individuals. This explains, added to the estimated bite force (up to 20 tons, against 2 tons for a living great white), why many experts suggest C.megalodon was one of the most powerful predators in vertebrate history. www.bio-nica.info/Biblioteca/Wroe2008GreatWhiteSharkBiteForce.pdfAlso, you can expect some unique found about from Peru. The article says, "jaw adductor-generated force in Carchardon appears unremarkable when the predators body mass is considered." Maybe it has less mass then they think! Megalodon's weight was calculated from the basis of 175 several types of lamnids sharks. You can even simply scale up a great white shark of 7 m, 3 tons, to a 20 m large Megalodon. Also, the shape in the new comparison of lio99 is too slender. And as far is concerned the Monster of Aramberri, it was no 18 m.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 28, 2011 1:34:03 GMT
The article says, "jaw adductor-generated force in Carchardon appears unremarkable when the predators body mass is considered." Maybe it has less mass then they think! Megalodon's weight was calculated from the basis of 175 several types of lamnids sharks. You can even simply scale up a great white shark of 7 m, 3 tons, to a 20 m large Megalodon. Also, the shape in the new comparison of lio99 is too slender. And as far is concerned the Monster of Aramberri, it was no 18 m. I highly doubt they had 175 'types' of lamnids, unless that term is really stretched to include megamouths, threshers, goblins, basking sharks, etc. If instead you mean 'individuals', that really doesn't impress me, unless one of them has similar dentition-size. It has been routinely demonstrated that tooth design does not correlate well with feeding behaviour; and that sharks are very non-linear in their growth patterns, so simple, or even complex, scaling from only teeth--the only evidence we have--is at best a well-reasoned guess. What we need is a few in situ vertebrae+mouth.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Apr 28, 2011 1:42:45 GMT
Well in that case I guess they had relatively weak jaws compared to their size.
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Apr 28, 2011 2:00:47 GMT
Megalodon's weight was calculated from the basis of 175 several types of lamnids sharks. You can even simply scale up a great white shark of 7 m, 3 tons, to a 20 m large Megalodon. Also, the shape in the new comparison of lio99 is too slender. And as far is concerned the Monster of Aramberri, it was no 18 m. I highly doubt they had 175 'types' of lamnids, unless that term is really stretched to include megamouths, threshers, goblins, basking sharks, etc. If instead you mean 'individuals', that really doesn't impress me, unless one of them has similar dentition-size. It has been routinely demonstrated that tooth design does not correlate well with feeding behaviour; and that sharks are very non-linear in their growth patterns, so simple, or even complex, scaling from only teeth--the only evidence we have--is at best a well-reasoned guess. What we need is a few in situ vertebrae+mouth. I said several types of lamnids, but 175 individuals. The closest being the great white yet. This method was established by Gottfried et al and is confirmed and used by most of the others fossil lamnids experts. I've put in several links about it above.
|
|