Conclussions , methodology, and anatomical references:
For those who don't know which method was used, I recommend reading the previous journal entry, about a mathematical anaylsis on Spinosaurus mass
A mathematical analysis on Spinosaurus mass.Description of the method:, another legendary carnivorous dinosaur; and this excelent post by SVPOW. svpow.com/2011/01/20/tutorial-…
Graphical double integration performed by Matblab program.
We calculated the mass of the North african theropod dinosaur Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, using a graphical double integration method. We believe GDI is in itself, and without a doubt, one of the best methods to calculatte the mass of extint organisms, and the best that can be used using a multi views silhouette from the animal. The method averages a big amount of eliptical sections to aproximate the volume of a complex 3D object. The more eliptical sections, the more accurate the result will be, when a number of slices made is surpassed the result will be almost real life-like.
This matlab program utilizes digital image processing technology to analize two silhouettes from different views. It counts the number of non white pixels in every pixel-wide column from the image, and produces one slice per pixel. In response, the program is extremely sensitive to irregularities in the silho
Overall the method intends to construct a simplified 3D model of the animal by building eliptical cross sections and adding them up, given two views of each of it's body sections. The analysis is performed by a matlab mathematical script with pixel accuracy.
The skeletal used is my own bet on the animal. Sadly, and despite more than 22 years having passed since the animal was first (and very briefly) described, most of it's material is not described in detail, specially the axial skeleton. No photographs, ilustrations, measurement tables, nothing. So even if I used my skeletal for the GDI, the axial skeleton ( the vertebral column) had to be scaled after work. I didn't have much of a choice in that regard.
Most of the skull and the apendicular material has however been mentioned, briefly described, and has several measurements published in the literature (Coria 2003, Coria and Currie 2006, Carrano 2012, Canale 2014, Canale& Carbajal 2015, and other studies, a good deal of them are compiled in the theropod database) I tried for the skeletal to be as up to date and to match as many of the measurements and the descriptions in Coria and Currie 2006 and the other studies as much as possible. The missing elements of the skeleton, like the forelimbs or the feet, were restored after my Tyrannotitan skeletal.
The top view is scaled and drawn after Acrocanthosaurus (Bates 2008) , a similarly sized Carcharodontosaurid, edited to have similar proportions to those of Giganotosaurus. By superimposing Hartman's Giganotosaurus top view with the dorsal view of Bates et al Acrocanthosaurus, it seems to be what he did, or at the very least the results are pretty much identical. I used Hartman's dorsal view to have an idea of how much soft tissue should I add for it to be a fair comparison with other theropod GDIs.
The results pretty much replicate his estimation (6800 kgs), despite several bones differing a substantial deal from his version. They are also coherent with other mass estimations published for Mucpv Ch1 (Mazzeta et al 2004; 6510 kg , Campione et al. 2014; 6349 kg, Seebacher 2001 ; 6,594.8 kg)
Link to Giganotosaurus restoration: