Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Mucpv 95 vs FMNH PR2081 'Sue' by kirkseven Mucpv 95 vs FMNH PR2081 'Sue' by kirkseven
a completeness comparison between Mucpv 95 and 'Sue' 

not much more to say really.

T.rex Skeletal by scotthartman.deviantart.com/
Add a Comment:
 
:iconchristina1969:
Even the dentary of the holotype looks bigger than that in Scott Hartman's version...
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner May 10, 2017
going by its known measurements, its not.

and its only 3 mm larger  than the one found from the holotype so you can't really tell off of size alone.
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2017
So, I guess Scott Hartman is an amateur compared to you (sarcasm): img04.deviantart.net/27aa/i/20…
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2017
I mean, he gave ano estimate girl the silly dentry weras I left it there way It was.
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Apr 11, 2017
But he compared MUCPv-95 and Sue in the picture I sent to you, and the dentary looks bigger than that in his version.
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Apr 11, 2017
well, using the figures in the actual paper describing the dentary me and a few others found that it was only 3 mm (or 2.2%) thicker than the Giganotosaurus holotypes.

i don't have any clue how Scott Hartman got his 0-6.5% figure.

one thing that basically everybody agrees on is that the dentary is not 8% bigger, though it is 7.5% more complete.   
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2017
Using the same "logic" used in this "deviation", you could ridicule PUERTASAURUS in favor of Sue, and unless you're a theropod fanboy, which I assume you're not, hopefully, you know how ridiculous that is.
Reply
:iconveterufreak:
Veterufreak Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I don't know what kirk's intentions are, I am not kirk, but the way I interpret it as is that it is stupid to try and use random skull fragment to represent size and make giga huge when we have a quite complete holotype of large size. All I can say of MUCP v95 is that it's large, and probably similarly sized to the holotype. I'm not going to advocate trying to get an "accurate" size for this animal just to try and beat Tyrannosaurus in size, because depending on how you measure it, it differs a lot. Really it's just extremely slight differences in measurements of the dentary that vary depending on where you measure that tell us almost nothing about any exact size, and thus it's pretty much just the holotype Giganotosaurus in size for the time being.

I'm not accusing you of anything, these are my general opinions on this scrappy specimen.
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2017
Well, let me tell you something: kirkseven has been deliberately trying to provoke me lately. He attempted to post this on my server and is it a coincidence that he posted it here on dA just shortly after a heated "discussion" with him under my GDI journal? I don't think so. He made a comment parodying and mocking my views in my very own profile, and even made his tagline just to spite me.

This is simply not a fair comparison, not, nope, never, nada, never was, never will be. At least try to include MUCPv-95's body, whether it be +2.2%, +6.5%, or even +8%, I don't care, just make it a fair comparison! Comparing the lone dentary to Sue's whole body, flesh silhouette and all, is a biased comparison no matter how you look at it. I currently trust Scott Hartman's best fit but I wouldn't hold it against anyone if they use +2.2% or +8%.

I am not trying to make Giganotosaurus larger than Tyrannosaurus, no, not at all. I was arguing for them to be rough equals, not one over the other. Considering sample sizes, error bars, the massive size overlap, individual variation, and the notion that not all T. rex are Sue, I haven't been given a good reason to think otherwise, and honestly, I think trying to argue that either one is larger and stronger than the other only shows little regard for how complicated the situation really is and wreaks of carnivoraforum-style mindsets, of trying to "prove" that "my animal is better than yours". However, certain people, with a lack of thinking that there are more options than a dichotomous A or B, misconstrued my stance and claimed that I was trying to make Giganotosaurus larger instead.

Normally, I wouldn't have such an issue with people having differing views and interpretations from me, but kirkseven has proven himself to be very intolerant of my view. He doesn't even target my other differing palaeontological views which don't have to do with giant theropods, I have never been attacked for my opinions about Arambourgiania's size, for example. 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 really target the views I hold that goes against what they hold dear, which is about giant theropod sizes, and at times, my rejection of the Hornerite Pachystygimoloch construct and my view that the concept of the species "Tyrannosaurus rex" is currently overlumped, but even those aren't attacked as much as my views on giant theropods.
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Edited Feb 26, 2017
Alright, I'll say this.

I think we need to stop using fragmentary specimens for all, if not most theropods and this is to show how unreliable it can be, some people think that little dentry is a 13.5 meter 8.5 tonne behemoth of a theropod when it likely wasent based on comparisons with the giga holotypes.

If you think the Giga holotype is the same size as a normal T.rex that's fine, but other reserch suggests that it's a bit larger.

And that comment was targeting spinosaurus14 not you.
And I'm fine with your views, but when you leave a reply on one of my comments concerning them I will answer back.
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2017
yeah i would say so aswell.

xD
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2017
Still going on with this shitty spite show kirk?
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2017
?

www.yourdictionary.com/spite

this was meant to be funny yet, serve an important message.
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
It fits that definition as this was CLEARLY made in an attempt to annoy me.

That "important message" is TRASH. Using the same "logic" used in this "deviation", you could ridicule PUERTASAURUS in favor of Tyrannosaurus, and you know how fucking ridiculous that is.
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2017
no, it was to show how unreliable the dentry specimen was for representing giganotosaurus.
especilly considering its about 2.2%


a meter tall vertebrae would look very impressive next to any theropod.
static1.squarespace.com/static…
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×



Details

Submitted on
February 22
Image Size
174 KB
Resolution
1042×424
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
298
Favourites
8 (who?)
Comments
17
Downloads
1
×