Spinodontosaur4 In reply to SpinoInWonderland [2016-03-23 21:13:23 +0000 UTC]

I haven't watched it for the best part of a decade, and back then I was still in school and considered Jurassic Park 3 to be an accurate representation of dinosaurs. 
So I'm not sure, although from what I can remember I don't think it was too bad. Looking at some pictures of it the skull looks a little odd but that could just be the angle it's at.

This probably wasn't very helpful.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Spinodontosaur4 In reply to kirkseven [2015-12-28 10:09:42 +0000 UTC]

Sure. I think C. saharicus is comparable in size to Giganotosaurus.

Scott Hartman restored to skulls of the two Giganotosaurus specimens at 154 and 164 cm long, whilst reconstructions of the neotype specimen of C. saharicus range from 155-163 cm long (with ~157 cm being my preferred estimate).
This is reinforced by the smaller holotype of C. saharicus having a femur 126 cm long. This specimen is ~15% smaller than the neotype, meaning we can estimate the latter to have a 145 cm long femur. The length of the smaller Giganotosaurus' femur has been reported differently, at both 136.5 and 143 cm long. I don't know which is accurate, but we can estimate the larger specimen to have one either 145 or 152 cm long. Like with skull length, this puts C. saharicus' femur somewhere in between the two Giganotosaurus specimens, thus based on both lines of evidence I consider the two to be similarly sized.

Hartman estimated the smaller Giganotosaurus at 12.4 meters and 6.8 tonnes with the larger at 13.2 meters and 8.2 tonnes.



The separate Saurophaganax specimens all represent animals of comparable size to each other. They are, on average 44.3% larger than Allosaurus specimen MOR 693 ('Big Al') and 26.6% bigger than DINO 2560.
Based on Scott Hartman's skeletals of these two specimens, MOR 693 has a head-body length of 3.4 meters, and 7.2 meters in total, whilst DINO 2560 is 3.9 meters and 8.5 meters in the same measurements.
Thus based on MOR 693 Saurophaganax was 10.4 meters long and based on DINO 2560 it was 10.8 meters long. However, in both cases the estimated head-body length is 4.9 meters, the only real difference between the two total length estimates is a proportionally longer tail, which has little impact on weight and can simply be averaged out to 10.6 meters.
The smaller Giganotosaurus specimen I mentioned above has a head-body length of 5.9 meters, suggesting a weight of 3.9 tonnes for Saurophaganax. Comparing their femur circumference (44 cm and 52 cm) yields a slightly higher estimate of 4.1 tonnes. 

Thus I consider Saurophaganax to be ~10.6 meters long and ~4 tonnes in weight. Note that I think Epanterias is slightly larger than this, ~11.2 meters long (head-body length of ~5.2 meters) and a weight of ~4.8 tonnes. The largest specimen of Allosaurus itself is slightly smaller, total length ~10.2 meters, head-body length ~4.7 meters and a weight of ~3.5 tonnes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

kirkseven In reply to Spinodontosaur4 [2017-06-07 01:08:20 +0000 UTC]

its been a year and a half or so and some new-ish stuff came up regarding C. saharicus that i would like to revisit if you don't mind.

a new T.titan based version of this animal has been reconstructed suggesting its was below 12 meters in length and under 6500 kg in mass (using the same method for estimating size as Scott Hartman).
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus skeletal diagrams.
Mathematical analysis on Carcharodontosaurus mass

i was wondering what your view on this would be, and if you think its more reliable than a ~12-13 meter Giganotosaurus based estimate.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

kirkseven In reply to Spinodontosaur4 [2015-12-29 01:54:03 +0000 UTC]

thanks

I never knew that you where the guy
who was always making cool scales and
size comparisons on carnivora forum
until very recently

👍: 0 ⏩: 0