HOME | DD
DrScottHartman — How big is your favorite dinosaur?
Published: 2013-04-19 18:20:34 +0000 UTC; Views: 22596; Favourites: 298; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Now before you start freaking out, note that the T. rex specimen is Sue (i.e. the largest T. rex) while the Triceratops and Stegosaurus specimens that I restored are one the smaller side. For that reason I included silhouettes of known larger specimens to provide a better estimate of the overall size range. I couldn't do this with Apatosaurus or else everything else would have gotten too small.Finally, note that Velociraptor is the actual skeletal, while the gray silhouetted dromaeosaur is Deinonychus, not some giant specimen of Velociraptor.
Enjoy, and if you have some good ideas for other comparisons let me know, I'm officially taking suggestions right now.
Related content
Comments: 193
Is this made from all specimens collected & measured, or from all fully grown adult specimens collected & measured?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
it those sizes 100% accurate?but of course not,tyrannosaurus were a lot shorter
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Let's go with 98% accurate? There's always a little bit of slop around individual pixels, but they should be pretty close.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Add in a Pteranodon and take out the raptors, and you have all the classic Dinobots from the original Transformers series (though, if Sludge were a real Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus, he'd seriously dwarf the others). 
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Guess there wasn't much space for the OMNH mega-Apatosaurus, was there?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then all the non-apatosaur skeletals would have looked like ants.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
And that one wasn't even mature yet. An SVPCA 2013 abstract implies that a hypothetical adult Apatosaurus would probably have been twice as massive.
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
Really? That's quite incredible.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Yeah, if you read that abstract (I posted in on my journal entry here: fav.me/d6rvw8d ), it implies that through the notion that the fusion of the cervical ribs comes after neurocentral fusion, along with comparisons with Diplodocus and Giraffatitan.
Assuming that CM3018 would have had a mass of ~25 tonnes, then, based on the implications of the abstract, the Oklahoma Apatosaurus would have massed in at ~50 tonnes, and a hypothetical mature Apatosaurus would be at ~100 tonnes
And yet, the JPW site depicts Tyrannosaurus as larger than Apatosaurus
But I guess that with their kaiju mosasaur thing, a kaiju tyrannosaur isn't too far off...
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
Haha oh yes I saw that on the site...so many kaiju-sized monsters to up the cheese factor and extremely outdated Knightian sauropods to boot with all the marks of perfect phylotardation!
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
If Deinonychus was the grey silhouette alongside Velociraptor, then who are the other two?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just the largest known specimens (vs the specimens I actually restored).
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
cant wait for stomping lands t-rex this thanks giving
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
suddenly the notion of Tyrannosaurus crunching/munching on adult Triceratops makes more sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Don't know if you still take suggestions, but what about Aucasaurus garridoi?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
No, to heck with Parasaurolophus! Just kidding, I just didn't think to include it. When I get around to doing faunal-level ones it'll get some love.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A question:
Is a comparison of individual bones from two taxa that's only distantly related(like a comparison of an Albertosaurus D5 and a Baryonyx D5) really a good method for estimating the relative/comparative body masses?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not particularly, although you could potentially use them to scale up more complete specimens, which wouldn't be the end of the world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok. But those extrapolations would have monster error bars then, and thus should only be used if closer relatives aren't available. Thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Brachiosaurus made it into the sauropod size comparison: scotthartman.deviantart.com/ar…
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Wow,thank you...I mean I knew this one already (like probably all your work here on dA),but I´m flattered you took the time to answer this,sir...as I´m at it,since I´m a huge dragon fanatic as well as totally in love with really realistic dragons,is it ok to `download´ your pictures (of theropod anatomy,mostly) for my personal use as reference points for drawing/painting?
They could also come in handy when I really go into makin my own maquettes for lighting-the James Gurney way.
I´m somehow very sure you know who that is,don´t ask me why...hm...
If you should ever have some spare time to spend,might I perhaps ask you for the big favour to take a peek over my latest (and therefore best) Dragon picture?
It is a portrait, so-to-say,on which I took 35+ hours to make it as believable I could,even using reference this time,one part of that being the JP-T-Rex of course.
The critical eyes of a real expert would be an inestimable ... ... ... push for my ego as a dragon designer(as long as we let the throat sac aside).
Btw., would you say I´m right with the impression that,when it comes to the illustration of large theropods(especially of course the "Rex" and the Spielb...Utah-Raptor),Jurassic Park was a real "Year 0"?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oops, I missed this for quite a while. Yes, I'm familiar with Mr. Gurney. As for JP being a year zero, I would say no. If anything 1986 or 1988 were year zero for illustrating theropods, as the combined works of Bakker (The Dinosaur Heresies) and Paul (Predatory Dinosaurs of the World) had already shifted paleo-illustration irrevocably onto a different path. What Jurassic Park represents is when mass media brought the new look theropods to the awareness of the general public.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Size comparison between each continent carnivorous dinosaurs
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ALMOST PERFECT!! needs one thing. Maxilla when based if ither t-rexes was 14.4 meters
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There is no maxilla that belongs to a ~14.4 meter Tyrannosaurus, stop perpetuating those oversized tyrannosaur nonsense.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Its a guess: based of other t-rexes. Maxilla's skeleton was a small fragment of the Jaw. nothing else was found. BUT they did say(sorry i didnt put it there) that its no guarantees. t-rexes variate alot in size and shape. they found one they thought was 21 meters long but just had wide hips. heres link with the info.
www.topix.com/forum/science/di…
ps: ive seen ur name, i think. u think t-rex is weaker than spinosaurus and ALOT of big theropods. but im kinda a fanboy. my top three dinosaurs is: 1:T-rex 2:Spinosaurus 3:Giganotosaurus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dude, Topix isn't really a credible source. It's filled with trolls and fanatics. It's a bit like Youtube without the videos.
And you better lose that bit of fanaticism, it's bad for your potential credibility. Fanboys/fangirls don't give others good impressions of themselves.
And I think Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus are rough equals. Spinosaurus is stronger than both because it's larger, and stating otherwise is going against the laws of physics itself. If Tyrannosaurus is truly your #1 dinosaur, then a true Tyrannosaurus fan does not try to exaggerate Tyrannosaurus, but goes for the most likely truth about it.
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
As some kind of a T-Rex fanboy myself,I think I have to contradict firmly here..a true T-Rex Fanboy will (like me) always just believe that,one day,science will find a specimen (completely remaining,of course) of a T-Rex that´s much larger than any Spinosaur reasonably to be assumed.
THE 40 METERS TREX IS NOT A LIE.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It will also find that tyrannosaurian feathers can easily withstand nuclear blasts. Tyrannosaurus can also eat an entire Godzilla-sized kaiju with ease.
(I can only assume that your post was intended to be a joke, so my above reply isn't serious either)
PS: There is a very distinct and wide divide between true fans and fanboys/fangirls.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Well,let´s say it was a half joke.
Of course I don´t believe a 40m theropod is to be found,but,on the other hand,the fact that we have found approx. 1% give or take of the approx. 1% (give or take) of fossils that remained from all the lifeforms that ever existed on this planet leaves plenty of space for fantasy...and wishful thinking
Let´s say the 20 meters T-Rex doesn´t necessarily have to be a lie.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Fantasy, by it's very definition alone, has no room in science. The wishful thinking has a remote chance though, as long as it's plausible, for example: no kaiju-sized brachiosaurids.
And despite the massive amount of undiscovered taxa, they are all constrained by three factors: physics, biomechanics, and lifestyle. There's a reason why there are no spiders the size of a tiger. Tyrannosaurus is a cursorial predator with adaptations for running, so it cannot really get to titanic sizes, because of it's limb biomechanics and it's lifestyle. It's not a therizinosaurid or a spinosaurid which had lifestyles(herbivorous and piscivorous respectively) that have no need of running/cursorial ability, and thus had access to larger potential sizes. Still no ~20-tonne Spinosauri though, for the same reason as why there are no 50-kilogram ants or no 15-meter Tyrannosauri.
If you inflate a Tyrannosaurus to ~12 tonnes, for example, it would be very slow and in no condition to hunt. A ~20-meter Tyrannosaurus would be around ~29-30 tonnes in mass based on AMNH 5027(assuming a ~6-tonne total body mass for this specimen), and you know that such a size is clearly not physically possible for a cursorial biped, or any biped on Earth for that matter(rearing sauropods don't count as bipeds). It's ill-adapted legs would cave in on themselves, the poor creature would collapse and be at the mercy of any predator or even scavenger that came at it for a free meal.
If only the moon had a breathable atmosphere and adequate water, ecosystem, and environment, then you could possibly get a ~20-meter Tyrannosaurus in there and have it thrive. But that's clearly not the case.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Oy...sorry...well,actually I´m aware of all that (ok let´s say most of it),I just wanted to express I´d maybe take my personal T-Rex with me,out of science´s reach..though only closely.
Ya know,my approach to dinosaurs (as opposed to my childhood-before that certain day)is based pretty much on the opposite site of the spectrum,so-to-say.
For that certain day was when we watched the movie "Dragonheart" in school..In my previous comment I even was short before postulating the possibility of live-action dragons somewhen,somewhere..
Which,as I come to think of it leads me to evolution´s "dead ends"..I mean what about a too slow,too heavy TRex that simply disappeared as quick as it appeared,due to it´s lack of adaptation?
That would be pretty much the way evolution works and perfectly in th range fof possibilities,right?
Oh.But that big beast wouldn´t have roamed the earth long enough for a good chance to leave a fossil behind,and it would be a quite "lame" hero-saur.
Guess I´ve just falsified myself.
Maybe I should give up my episteme and become a creationist instead,that somehow seems more promising from time to time...*sniff*
Again,sorry.Guess I wasted your time.But thanks for all the info.For the kind of dragons I intend to make in the future,every bit of a professional scientific view is most valuable,as I told Mr. Hartman before..
So, thank you for takin so much time for me!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Evolution would actually nip the too-slow, too-heavy Tyrannosaurus in the bud before it can result in Spinosaurus-sized Tyrannosauri. The process does not wait for results before eliminating disadvantageous attributes, it favors the favorable adaptations in a continuous process.
Evolutionary dead ends occur when a creature is well specialized, then a drastic change happens and it is unable to adapt in time. It's not about an animal gaining disadvantageous traits, it's the drastic environmental change turning formerly advantageous traits into disadvantageous ones. This mainly occurs in mass extinctions.
Dragons can actually work as actual animals. As long as they're less than something like ~300 kilograms, with air sacs and hollow bones, and with venom as a substitute for fire, they could work. You can look at the dragons by to see what a realistic dragon could be like.
And no, don't become a creationist, just don't, creationism is not really promising. It even gives a bad image of Christianity. You may wanna read this: www.godofevolution.com/christi…
Creationism bases on literalist interpretations, ignorance and in some cases zealotry.
It's okay to like fiction, as long as it and science are kept separate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Thanks for the feature
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well,ok,I´ll give up the idea of the big superbeast and stay with what I actually rather imagined T-Rex and other large theropods anyway.I always had a hard time watching Jurassic Park and seeing that famous scene of Rex´first appearance in which it causes the water to ripple.I rather thought of their steps as hardly to even hear,let alone causing ripples in a cup of water 500 meters away.
Anyway,that sentence about becoming a creationist was a mere JOKE and nothing more,I hate creationist the most out of all the religious sects there are,and for me any theistic religion is a sect of misleaded fanatics with a serious issue of mental lazynes and/or illness.Don´t worry about a bad image of Christianity,those wicked,illicit creationists only light up my little candlelight of anger to a roaring flame of hate in that case.
No need to answer that,sorry.I´m not open for arguments here.
By the way,to see what a realistic dragon could be like,I could very just look at my own ones to see what one could be like.Even though in my case I still keep the sake of a mythological creature to have them possible in a certain size,I try my best to keep a little science in the fiction.
That´s called science-fiction,and I find it ok to like it that way as well even though the two mightn´t be perfectly separated in that case...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't think even Amphicoelias fragillimus can shake up ripples in a water cup half a kilometer away. If you somehow dropped it from a plane it may be able to though.
Sorry about replying to the creationism thing, guess that I've had a hard time telling jokes from serious statements at times. This happens to me more often than you think.
Putting science in fiction is okay. Just make sure that gullible sheeple don't take it as pure science. Think about this: Jurassic Park is science fiction, yet it's influence causes people to deny the true science(Velociraptor had feathers and was quite slender yet many deny it in favor of their "raptor")
About your dragons, these two look scientifically promising:
fav.me/d5twbsp
fav.me/d5rnv8c
On the non-dragons, your idea of Chupacabra as a theropod is quite interesting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I'm going to be random and say that the giant 16-meter tyrannosaur in Jurassic Park 1 was just a few meters away from the water cup. Still it isn't enough to make it ripple, but if you put an A.fragilimus in it's place the situation drastically changes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hey,you do have a sense of humour
Yeah,that thing on creationism was the last for me to tell you had problems with telling apart joking from serious..I´m quite familiar with the problem, both from having it myself very often as well as people not being able to tell if I was joking-all the time.So,no offense taken on that..
Instead, I rather have to apologize for being so grumpy on my last comment,I tend to be impulsive when it comes to (theistic) religions,I have my own,quite special view on that topic,a.o. causing me to find ideas of a "heavenly maker of the universe" spitting on the true wonder of existence,as well as spitting on the graves of all those who have died in last 3 billion years for bringing us where we are now..oh look,I´m ranting again.Sorry.
Jurassic Park kinda caught up on scientific facts (for the feathers at least) with the third installment of JP,it´s worth it for the Raptor appearances if for not much else,imho.But,talking about Moviesaurus,wasn´t there a Raptor that was discovered in Utah during the making of JP with it´s controversal 2m Raptor,which was of the size Spielberg had Stan Winston make?
I remember that one later being jokingly called the Spielberg-Raptor (originally Utah-Raptor).
Thank you for taking a peek at my dragons,it´s interesting which of them are credible for ya.Actually I had both of them in mind with a size that allows for the rather strict regularities of being only possible with about 300 kilos of weight..getting my preferred sizes made,I guess that´s the point where I need the fiction and fantasy to come into play.Although many of the dragons I´ve drawn were actually nothing more than Sauropods with a Theropod´s head,and my guess would be that those 300 kg arise from the assumption of an ability to fly.
The Chucacabra painting,well actually I only wanted to draw a Velociraptor, the title arising from the prologue of the original Dino Park novel by Michael Chrichton (which later got travestied into JP by Spielberg),in which locals in Costa Rica assumed the Chupacabra to be responsible for stealings of babies actually done by a Velociraptor that managed to reach the mainland.As far as I recall it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Just so u know im kinda a t-rex fanboy. I dont freakout about JP3 but i exaggerate sometimes. like for a few days i believed my uncle who says t-rex has a 50 ton bite-force. and im not going in on a fight about t-rex vs Spinosaurus. they are both great and impressive animals. id rather leave Spinosaurus as he is right now. u have ur reasons to believe who wins and i do. can u delete comments btw(the ones u posted so ill delete maxilla ones)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry, comments cannot be deleted here. And you can only hide comments if they are in your own area of control(your account), which is not the case here, just forget about that comment about that maxilla you made there, and make precisions to anyone who replies to you about it afterwards.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It would be interesting a comparison between species of the same length but different bulk.
A Puma concolor is almost the same size as a Panthera leo but I would rather be attacked by a cougar than by a lion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I guess I mean something like this:
scotthartman.deviantart.com/ar…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>