Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
As always, the results first:
carchGDI2 by Franoys

CarchyGDItable by Franoys

Here you have the previous calculations made with the method used; graphical double integration, a type of vollumetric estimation:
A mathematical analysis on Tyrannotitan mass.

A mathematical analysis on Giganotosaurus mass.

A mathematical analysis on Spinosaurus mass.

The method consists in constructing a simplified 3D model of the animal mathematically, 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. More information about the method itselft here:

www.deviantart.com/users/outgo…

I'll discuss a bit about Carcharodontosaurus here, but briefly since I believe I'll dedicate one more journal, or even more, to it.

The Carcharodontosaurus skeletal is again original research and work. Carcharodontosaurus is a largely incomplete animal, the holotype was only known by a couple of broken nassals, some pieces of a broken maxilla, bones of the occipital region, a braincase, two cervicals, a caudal vertebra and two partial chevrons, partial pubis and ischium, a femur, and a fíbula (Stromer 1931). Furthermore and with like Spinosaurus, Bahariasaurus, and Aegyptosaurus, it's remains were destroyed in the second world war.

The neotype consists of fragments of a skull, that when put togheter, is very big ( Sereno 1996) . When using Tyrannotitan to reconstruct the rear of the skull and Acrocanthosaurus to reconstruct the rest it ends at about 1.53 m long in maximum metric measurements (Currie and Carpenter 2000, Canale 2014) (far from the 1.6+ m that was reported to the press)
The skull is not only not as long as reported; it is also very narrow, and as a result, it's length alone is missleading to judge it's total size, and in fact the head does mass little compared to the more robust heads of other giant predatory dinosaurs. According to my best fit of the skull elements of the holotype and the neotype, the Neotype is an animal that would have a 12.5% bigger skull (roughly). With a skull about 1.35 m in length, the holotype of Carcharodontosaurus was not small headed, and had a similar skull/body ratio than all other Carcharodontosaurines.

The missing elements are based on Tyrannotitan, the animal that is most closely related to Carcharodontosaurus according to the latest phylogenetic analysis (Canale 2014) and also one that shares with it a bunch of very interesting characters that will be discussed in another journal. Carcharodontosaurus is NOT out of the clade that bounds Tyrannotitan, Giganotosaurus , and Mapusaurus togheter, it is in fact strongly bounded to them in Carcharodontosaurinae, a clade of derived, giant Gondwanan Carcharodontosaurids, even if another smaller clade, Giganotosaurini, bound the south american Carcharodontosaurines even more strongly. 

Carcharodontosaurus is barely any bigger than Tyrannotitan in linear dimensions according to how most of the bones compare, the Carcharodontosaurus holotype has a femur smaller than that of the Tyrannotitan holotype, it's extrapolation to SGM din 1 size is barely any bigger than the same element in Tyrannotitan paratype, and the jugal of the Tyrannotitan paratype fits almost perfectly in SGM din 1 skull. Here it is scaled to be a vague (and optimistic) 0.5% bigger in linear dimensions based on marginal differences, and is also given a slightly lengthier tail to fit the only known caudal of the Carcharodontosaurus' holotype better.

However, that couldn't prevent Tyrannotitan being more massive than Carcharodontosaurus, even when Carcharodontosaurus is based mainly on it.  
The difference, although almost negliable, is due to Tyrannotitan having a bigger pubis ( as discussed in the last journal) and a possibly wider skull and neck. The difference in skull width is conservative, because Tyrannotitan could have had a wider head that I gave it credit for; if it's skull was built similarly to Giganotosaurus. For theese journals, I took the middle ground approach for Tyrannotitan skull width. Giving Tyrannotitan a skull similar to the one I used for Giganotosaurus would augment it's mass about 50 kg, augmenting it's mass advantage over Carcharodontosaurus from 75 kg to about 125 kg. 

So, is Carcharodontosaurus the enormous, small headed 8t or 9t+ ultra-giant that some people wanted to see in it's fragmentary ( and not that impressive) remains? It seems like it isn't, but further discussion on that will be for another journal.

Here you have the Carcharodontosaurus restorations:

Carcharodontosaurus saharicus skeletal diagrams. by Franoys


References:

Stromer 1931 II. Vertebrate remains from the Baharîje Beds (lowermost Cenomanian). 10. A skeletal remain of Carcharodontosaurus nov. gen. 

Paul C. Sereno, Didier B. Dutheil, M. Larochene, Hans C. E. Larsson, Gabrielle H. Lyon, Paul M. Magwene, Christian A. Sidor, David J. Varricchio, Jeffrey A. Wilson (1996): Predatory Dinosaurs from the Sahara and Late Cretaceous Faunal Differentiation. Science, New Series, Vol. 272, No. 5264 (May 17, 1996), pp. 986-991 

Juan Ignacio Canale, Fernando Emilio Novas & Diego Pol , Historical Biology (2014): Osteology and phylogenetic relationships of Tyrannotitan chubutensis Novas, de Valais, Vickers-Rich and Rich, 2005 (Theropoda: Carcharodontosauridae) from the Lower Cretaceous of Patagonia, Argentina, Historical Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology.

Fernando E Novas, Silvina de Valais, Pat Vickers-Rich, Tom Rich (2005): A large Cretaceous theropod from Patagonia, Argentina, and the evolution of carcharodontosaurids

Currie P. J. & Carpenter K. 2000. — A new specimen of Acrocanthosaurus atokensis (Theropoda, Dinosauria) from the Lower Cretaceous Antlers Formation (Lower Cretaceous, Aptian) of Oklahoma, USA. Geodiversitas 22 (2) : 207-246.


Add a Comment:
 
:iconanonymousllama428:
AnonymousLlama428 Featured By Owner Edited Feb 6, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Fantastic.:)
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017
Thank you!
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017
Few years ago I do the sa e with a very similar result, you can check the description of My "se penso a Carcharodontosaurus" (If I think to Carcharodontosaurus)
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017
Yeah I saw your skeletal and your calculation, it was my reference before I did mine.
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2017
excellent.

i am looking forward to seeing the next journal on Carcharodontosaurus.  
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2017
It will be a long read, be ready.
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Mar 2, 2017
When do you plan on releasing It?
Reply
:iconoxalaiaq:
Oxalaiaq Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2017
Do you pretend doing this for every giant theropod?
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2017
I wanted to at least weight the skeletals that I have done; although I have mass estimations for other giant theropods (and for a lot of stuff really, not only theropods) too, yes. In fact I considered uploading a GDI based on Scott's Acrocanthosaurus in this journal but it didn't really fit, so probably for a near future.
Reply
:iconoxalaiaq:
Oxalaiaq Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2017
Ohhh, I'm already waiting :D
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2017
I'll try to not dissapoint :p
Reply
:iconoxalaiaq:
Oxalaiaq Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017
XD
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

:iconfranoys: More from Franoys





Details

Submitted on
February 5
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
3,857 (44 today)
Favourites
10 (who?)
Comments
12
×