HOME | DD
TheSpiderAdventurer — T rex and Creatosaurus Size Difference
#ceratosaurus #jurassicpark #trex #tyrannosaurus #tyrannosaurusrex
Published: 2014-10-15 04:57:25 +0000 UTC; Views: 7005; Favourites: 9; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Here's a pic of a T rex next to a Ceratosaurus from the Jurassic Park 3 movie and I admit there pretty close in size with the sub adult T rex being at 37 feet long and 14.5 feet tall and the Ceratosaurus being at 30.5 feet long and 12 feet tall so yeah that is pretty close but any way's I hope you all enjoy the pic and here are two music video's I found that them in it youtu.be/k0zpmUTtX1Y youtu.be/QfgGCI34lqgRelated content
Comments: 60
Reality wise the largest Ceratosaurus specimens known are under 6 ft tall.
i.pinimg.com/originals/9b/9d/1…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay you already it's futile effort. I know that I'll relog back in and YOU know I'll log back in; so why waste your breathe over a victorless victory?
Now where was I? Oh yes now I remember.
Not really. I've done an estimate one of the complete mounted specimens in comparison to its contemporaneous prey, Dryosaurus and the estimates say for it to be over 6ft, roughly about 8-9ft or 3m in height, about the same height as Tarbosaurus and Allosaurus. Also I apologize for including the 10 foot estimate as that is a bit exaggerative unless the Ceratosaurus species was ever exposed to gigantism, which is plausible.
Also I don't see how Scott Hartman reconstruction of Dentisulcatus estimates its size. Instead you should've used a scale chart that represents the Ceratosaurus since Hartman's estimates aren't always the best to reference. And even though the average height of a Ceratosaurus is 6ft AT THE HIPS, the cranial and cervical remains put it at over 7ft so reality wise the estimates were never wrong my friend.
Generic consensus on the average C. nasicornis size range.
commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/F…
My estimate based on the C. nasicornis specimen at Carnegie museum
asuma17.deviantart.com/art/Din…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. Yes, you keep ban evading. That way you keep polluting this site with your bullshit.
2. Source?
3. It has a bloody scalebar you numbskull. Measure it. It is for the largest specimen.
4. Wikipedia charts are not a source (Hartman skeletals are)
5. Why would I trust any of your pathetic height charts?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If only you understood our perspective
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Jesus Christ just stop, can you not see that this is not working?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you think having miserable accounts that get banned after a day to a few weeks, then yes it is working.
Until you get IP banned lmao.
Also, it´s not justice for you to come back every time - you commited a bannable offense, and got punished. Tough luck.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Too bad his comments got flagged as spam, now I can't read his undoubtedly intelligent and well-worded reply
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
1. If that´s your idea of a source, lmao.
2. You can count pixels in some programs, making it very reliable. (It also isn´t an algorithm).
3. And clearly ignored it anyway.
4. But they are wrong when scaled to Hartman´s scalebar, so....they are not right.
(Also I´m cringing at your spelling errors).
5. You are ban evading. It is a bannable offense.
But I´m not the one reporting you, so try again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. The irony is strong with this one.
Are you going to actually adress my point, or does that take too much intellectual effort for you?
2. Which cause? Bringing down the IQ average of DA?
3. It is not discrimination. You really broke rules, hence you were banned. You are too dumb to realize that you keep breaking these rules, hence you keep getting banned. Maybe they should IP ban you, so you can´t come back.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
you just won't stop will you?
you'll never leave after your crime is it? you'll never leave after you've been banned. why would you want to go back here so badly and continue to pollute the place?
1. what sources? only 2 links were given and none are even academic level of evidence (and i had taken IB history and does an internal assessment on that i NEED a historian's words to get some valuable information).
2. already replied for it, i do not need to be redundant
3. how would we know that those charts are based off hartmanns? the wikimedia link does not provide any link or evidence proving that?
4. ????? how are they're right and most of them are fairly studied? even in schools they did not recommend wikipedia as a valuable source due to it having an ability to edit. "and have come to consensus by the Paleo-Community on Twitter and just a few Fossil Fridays ago the community approved of my Conchoraptor height chart" link please? oh that chart of yours? the silhouette is stolen from a news media representation of the oviraptorid. not to mention from the himself state that the proportions are absolutely unbalanced.
for anyone who want to know this is the link: comments.deviantart.com/4/1056… , his replies are there.
"You don't like it? That's your fault." so we must accept your pathetic and nonacademic information about dinosaurs? are you an amateur dictator or what? and so is his fault for not trusting a faulty source? what world did you live in?
"Also don't try acting like the hero and ban me everytime I'm in the middle of an important discussion or when I am about to answer the recipient" but the recipient did not ask any question regarding ceratosaurus size, she only want to compare the size of JP3 ceratosaurus and JP3 T.rex. also how do you know this is important for her/him?
"That not only makes you a snitch, but a coward as well, and you damn I'll always come back and advocate in Paleontology" so you're saying that you provide better sources than an actual paleontologist? wow you must have an ego higher than dictators. also what proof do you have to prove this? so rightly banning and him sending much more valuable information is cowardice and makes him a snitch? whats next for him? are you big brother going to send him to room 101? or are you just an officer of the empire in star wars who see rightful acts as cowardice?
"So you can't hide forever Paleosir...I'm ready." he can pretty much take you on fine, you are the one who's constantly on the edge of the cliff. also that mean you're ready to be banned again? well then off you go! just never come back you bile mold
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually, although its a very common theory and seems to be widely likebale by many fans, there is no canon source material that confirms this t-rex being a subadult.
It can easily be a slightly smaller adult specimen with an alternate colour scheme (in JP1 and JW all Raptors were females and look how diverse their colour schemes are!), since there are many adult t-rex specimens known to be about 11 meters long compared to the bigger 12 meter long ones. also, with Rex growth its not as much about length as it is in allosaurus and carcharodontosaurids, but more into the mass and robust factor.
And of course, this ceratosaurus is a little bit overgrown and looks way too beefy for what it really was. But nice comparison though, thank you! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
That has nothing really do with Jurassic Park's raptors. The Jurassic World raptors differed from the original clones so they could easily be identified by individual. The Raptor Squad was trained and bred specifically for security operations in order to secure any escaping dinosaurs hence they were specially cloned to differ from tge actual V. nublarensis to avoid confusion. According to the websites Blue and her siblings were all genetically constructed with lizards such as geckos, monitors, etc, deliberately explaining why the Owen's had their look even since birth as confirmed in the Fallen Kingdom trailer. The JP3 Rex like all the other original clones is made from frog D.N.A. so the genetic make-up seen in the original clones will follow up into the offspring.
There are 6 reasons why this Rex is a sub-adult.
1. InGen's geneticists altered the DNA of the dinosaurs therefore making some species even larger than their actual counterparts
2. All adult male Rexes are dark shades of green with yellow markings on the back, while this individual is lighter in color, ideally most young animals show slight coloration or marking differences before they mature and with birds this is no exception.
3. According to Tresspasser, InGen created 6 Tyrannosaurus on Sorna in 1989. Now running by that since we see Rexy and the Tyrannosaur family at full growth there should be no reason was this buck here is so much lighter and smaller than the others.
4. All Tyrannosaurus in Jurassic Park range from 19-20ft tall, this one is only half its full size.
5. Like in reality all sub-adult animals strikingly resemble full grown adults, this is no exception to the Tyrannosaurus in reality and in Jurassic Park. Merchandise issued a juvenile T.Rex toy (I'm sure you"ve seen it) that resembles the adults in everyway and the reintroduction of juvenile seen in the novel supports this.
In it's logically common sense to believe this T.Rex is a sub-adultv and mind you with introduction of the juvenile Rex in Fallen Kingdom and the next sequel. It's pretty clear that everything will be confirmed to fans soon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again - all fanon and no factual evidence from the franchise confirming it to be so. And the points you listed do not eliminate all other possibilities. You are welcome to your own fan ideas and theories, but im talking about factual evidence within the franchise, none of which suggests this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There is evidence. You just don't see it.
Henry Wu deliberately explains; as well with many easter eggs within the Jurassic Park lore hinting that the clones are the real animals that wandered the earth over 250 million years. Because of Wu's suggestion to reconstruct the genetic codes of every prehistoric reptile, with frog DNA to fully revive the genome, it opened a door of numerous side effects for each dinosaurs; it's one of the reasons why that Rexes and some other dinosaurs are so much larger than their counterparts. You rewatch Jurassic World my friend and look at the official sources again cause many fans could prove you wrong, but luckily I'm one of the few doing it cause I show mercy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My replies are simply addressing facts with facts. Your long responses have pretty much failed to provide anything factual that directly answer any of my points.
"there is no canon source material that confirms this t-rex being a subadult. " - Your response has't addressed this point I made earlier on.
"InGen's geneticists altered the DNA of the dinosaurs therefore making some species even larger than their actual counterparts" - Except that the size of t.rexes in the franchise is actually consistent with it's real life counterparts, so this point does not apply here.
"All adult male Rexes are dark shades of green with yellow markings on the back, while this individual is lighter in color, ideally most young animals show slight coloration or marking differences before they mature and with birds this is no exception." - Sure thing, have you seen me arguing against that anywehre?
"According to Tresspasser, InGen created 6 Tyrannosaurus on Sorna in 1989. Now running by that since we see Rexy and the Tyrannosaur family at full growth there should be no reason was this buck here is so much lighter and smaller than the others." - Tresspasser is not canon.
"All Tyrannosaurus in Jurassic Park range from 19-20ft tall, this one is only half its full size." - Okay, do you have evidence from the canon source material for this figure and that this t.rex is indeed half the size of the others?
"Like in reality all sub-adult animals strikingly resemble full grown adults, this is no exception to the Tyrannosaurus in reality and in Jurassic Park." - okay, how many studies on tyrannosaur ontogeny have you actually done to come to that conclusion about the real tyrannosaurus rex? As for JP, once again - no conclusive evidence or statement that labels the JP3 rex as a sub-adult and does not eliminate other possibilities as to the smaller length or alternate colour scheme, unless you can provide any.
"Merchandise issued a juvenile T.Rex toy (I'm sure you"ve seen it) that resembles the adults in everyway and the reintroduction of juvenile seen in the novel supports this." - toys are not a canon source material.
"In it's logically common sense to believe this T.Rex is a sub-adultv and mind you with introduction of the juvenile Rex in Fallen Kingdom and the next sequel." - by what logic is it common sense? what made you come to that conclusion?
"It's pretty clear that everything will be confirmed to fans soon." - If it gets confirmed, then fine, but you cannot make that assumption and use that rhetoric in support of your point until/unless it DOES indeed get confirmed. If you have future telling abilities of sort, then by all means tell me how you do it. Otherwise, it is rather off the point and irrelevant.
"There is evidence. You just don't see it." - Maybe because your responses haven't provided any in the first place?
"Henry Wu deliberately explains; as well with many easter eggs within the Jurassic Park lore hinting that the clones are the real animals that wandered the earth over 250 million years. Because of Wu's suggestion to reconstruct the genetic codes of every prehistoric reptile, with frog DNA to fully revive the genome, it opened a door of numerous side effects for each dinosaurs; it's one of the reasons why that Rexes and some other dinosaurs are so much larger than their counterparts. You rewatch Jurassic World my friend and look at the official sources again cause many fans could prove you wrong, but luckily I'm one of the few doing it cause I show mercy." - How does any of this answer my original point? Please stop derailing and shoehorning irrelevant topics in this conversation, and actually take time to address the point at hand. If you haven't got anything to say, then just don't say it or admit that there isn't anything out there.
Side note: This sassy attitude you're trying to pull here with me won't make your response anymore convincing, only undermines everything you say and insults mine and other readers' intelligence. If you actually want to make a case and make this conversation worthy of my time, you should stay on point and address subject properly, clearly showing how you arrived to your conclusions. Facts alone speak louder than the crazy amount of mental gymnastics I'm observing here, but first you have to present facts. But this chaf you threw in there in that rhetoric was very cheap and is beneath you. Just my two cents.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
See that's your problem AK. You are too ignorant understand about to dinosaurs...if it was under circumstances and you got off your high horse because you talked to Thomas Carr....you see that right.
I am here to help Paleontologist lovers become more open-minded and become a Cope and Drinker. And judging from you....you've definitely shown the Cope and Drinker side.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Comments like this should be erased. It does not bring anything to the subject.
And it did not make any sense at all.
Why not reply in a good manner and answer some simple questions?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because sometimes directness is the key. It's what makes the breakthrough in a person's development whether they like it or not and sometimes that key needs to unlock it. The world didn't grow from just being sugar coated with peace, love and understanding. No direct approach was always there to compliment the three.
If you are going to arrogant or stubborn to no recovery like some type of wall, then there are other, BUT the direct approach. You of all people should know that by now Blowman, the world didn't grow off of good manners. Remember that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"If you are going to arrogant or stubborn to no recovery like some type of wall, then there are other, BUT the direct approach" - does mental gymnastics, arrogant rhetoric, chaf and avoidance of addressing the point directly fall into that definition of the direct approach of yours?
"the world didn't grow off of good manners" - sure, what did it grow on then? please be as specific as possible, im all ears.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Sorry i cant take you serious when you google words to use as example of ignorance.
You make no sense at all and your whole concept emberassing.
Bye.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's just sad dude.You know I use to think you were cool.._but now I see you're just like those other upstarts.
You're being ignorant for not taking those quotes to heart. You stay on the fence if you want...but I will continue to mature...I'll evolve
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"but I will continue to mature...I'll evolve" - who are you trying to convince here, him or yourself? if you are so sure of it, then why scream about it and just not do it instead? could start by conducting a discussion in proper manners and perhaps see how rewarding that is in contrast to what you have been doing here so far? Just my two cents.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cause I'm telling him to grow up, like I was telling you. Got that? Ok
We could do that I personally, like so I am passively aggressive right, but I am being humble with manners, I am listening to you and Blowman, but you're being disrespectful which ironically what you guys are to claim; you don't listen as you don't listen to facts which is why I brought out my acid tongue and am addressing you directly as a fellow to Paleontology, you're being childish. If your regard is to disrespect the Dinosaurs and distort Paleontological evidence...then I have no real respect for you, and I've met a lot spoiled upstarts like that and you and I are very aware of this. The only line of respect I can give my regards to after that much is the acknowledgement of your work, as long as theoretical claim is not an illusion of science...then I'll give you have my best regards. That's my two cents in.
It's one of the Paleo-community hates me. Because they know what I am addressing is true no matter how I express the matter. In the words of Winston Churchill
"You have enemies? Good. That means you stood up for something, sometime in your life".
I exclaim this because people in Paleontology have done more harm than they have done good. You won't get this probably...but in someday...you will E)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Can you define "disrespectful" please? How is asking you to provide actual facts and back up the claims "disrespectful"? If I follow through with that logic, then debating and discussing things openly with people is "disrespectful", which is obviously wrong, counter
Can you just stop derailing from the main topic and stay relevant to the discussion? What is the evidence of JP3 t.rex being a subadult? Your responses have repeatedly failed to provide any official movie source material that tells us that this t.rex is a sub adult. I have addressed why your examples fail to answer that questions and backed up, you can easily trace it back earlier on and re-read it. I am not interested in hearing any theories or wishful thinking being passed off as evidence, I heard that billion-trillion-bazillion times by now. So one more time: could you please stop derailing and address the main question at hand providing factual evidence based on the official movie source/lore material? The right answer is, there is none, but I was trying to get you to come to that conclusion yourself. I don't mind you debating my points at all, you are welcome to prove me wrong at any time. But so far, none of the things you said hold up to scrutiny and they dont stand up to that level. If you want to debate facts, then bring facts as well. Unless you have a very specific definition of "facts", in which case this calls for a whole different conversation. One that I am personally not interested in having, I just want you to either prove me wrong or accept that my point is valid. You are welcome to either. But if you want the former, then you know what you need to do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
just stop talking with him
you'll be having a debate with a brick wall
he's an awesomebro who had stolen art from people in DA and other sources
victims include Scott and
he had posted charts with silhouette from other sources which he does not credit on Twitter too
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I kinda saw that already, but I always try my best to give the other person a benefit of a doubt to recover in case they see or realise where they are failing to get on point. Oh well, here's to another lost soul in all this mess! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
where's that ale?
another mug for this lost soul! he'd already drown himself in rum made from vain grapes from the royal palace!
at least the ale is just a pain reliever as opposed to bath ourselves in gold
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well well, now thats what I'm talking about! XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If you are so sure, then backup your claims? Bring actual facts to the table, that's all I am asking. So far I have not seen any of your responses address my main point at hand. You have invested all this time into this sassy arrogant rhetoric, mental gymnastics and chaf, instead of actually bringing something useful to the table. I will ask you again - do you have anything to address the point I made, or are you gonna make me beg now?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've been backing this claim for the longest now, providing you evidence from last thing I could find, in addition to what know from fossil records. But YOU are always exclaiming "Oh I need official sources", "I don't take this into consideration", "This doesn't count", "It's all speculation, there no evidence", "You haven't shown in your responses where you address my point at hand". Well then I've been showing to then?
I've explained my claim the best way as possible, but the problem of the matter is YOU because you put off this facade that you're a professional in Paleontological knowledge, but you're more rhetoric, cringeworthy, and arrogantly stubborn, you can't even as much not cringe or rant about a dinosaur's inaccuracy in your own videos. I was there spectating and bringing useful info while advising keynotes to a little more open mindful in this profession. But your problem is you inconsiderately don't listen, which makes you look bad.
Providing all the evidence I've presented to you, I have nothing else to address with you. I've done my job well enough to educate you, but I refuse to waste my time on a person whom fails on how to grow, so beg if you want, but I'm giving you a cent worth my time. In the reference to Maya Angelou, Eoin Colfer, Aldous Huxley, Daniel J. Boorstin, and Martin Luther King Jr...
"We are only as blind as we want to be" - Maya Angelou
"Confidence is ignorance. If you're feeling cocky, it's because there's something you don't know" - Eoin Colfer
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored" - Aldous Huxley
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge" - Daniel J. Boorstin
"Nothing in this world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" - Martin Luther King Jr.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No you have not provided anything, I only see you derailing further and blabbling. Can you provide any factual evidence that a T.Rex from JP3 is a subadult? Yes or no? Period.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I like I said. I'M. GIVING. YOU. NOTHING! Got that? You're not getting bupkus!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sure, quite a way to conduct a discussion, eh? I'm certain a lot of folk here have learned quite a bit from this encounter. Good day to you, sir.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Say what you want AK. I gave you the evidence and you spat at it, so I'm giving it to somebody. Work on your conducting your conscientious priority.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your responses have simply presented your own point of view. Saying so =/= making it so, unless you have solid facts supporting it. In this case, I will return to my orignal point - there is no official lore in the franchise that confirms or labels that t.rex as a sub adult. For all intents and purposes it is just a nerfed adult t.rex, which is a couple feet shorter than the others. End of.
You may like the theory that it was a sub adult, and that is fine. But it is what it is - a theory. It is not a fact at all and no matter how you try to explain it - it doesnt cease to be a fanon. Just because you want that to be real does not make it real. To be real, it has to have real facts behind it. Not ideas or explanations, which you simply find appealing however plausible they amy or may not be. FACTS. That's the core issue that you seem to be consistently missing in this conversation and that's what I have been trying to get out of you this whole time. If you simply do not have any facts to dispute my point, then my point is valid - this is how debates work. If you dont have any facts to dispute my point, then stop claiming that you do. Or else - present them. anything outside of that is just mental gymnastics and is going nowhere. It's your call.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes. Just like how you agree it's not a juvenile? The only Mental gymnastics troubling here are your own.
Gotcha. It's a pitiful world you live in, AK. Or better yet maybe I should just call you Tim the Bear since you sound somewhat like him. Honestly you use to be a cool dude until started going the ways of Arvalis. I was thinking "FINALLY some justice put on DeviantArt and the Paleo-community, about time somebody put that dude in his place!", but no you're just like all the upstarts I fought with no reason of listening what so ever.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again, derailing and throwing more chaf. Nice try to trigger me with the whole comparison to Arvalis, but not buying it. Maybe if you invested as much effort into actually answering my question and addressing the points properly, and perhaps reading what I am saying carefully we would have already reached a resolution? Or is there going to be more derailing and chaf from you onwards? Can you answer simple question please (one more time gonna ask you) - where is the factual evidence in the movie source material that clearly states that t.res in JP3 is a subadult? Answer this please, thank you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
one question
my theory of the JP/JW franchise is that it has 2 canons seperate
one is the film adaption canon started from the first Movie of the franchise which was an adaption of the original novel
the second canon is the JP novels which technically ended in the second book since there is no prequel or any other source material to this canon directly given from the original author Crichton. not to mention at the end of the first JP novel *spoilers* isla nublar is nuked. also he was not happy of being to forced to write a continuation, hence some of the morality of the protagonist is questionable in the second novel not the first, meaning it is intended to be a standalone novel/series.
so according to what i brought up
is it true that there 2 canon in the JP/JW franchise? one of which has ended by the original author .
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Good topic indeed and here is how I see it works:
Novel canon is basically the original novels, and that's really it. Movies are their own respective universe and although they are adaptations of the novels, their events and fluff are treated as independant because of the vast differences in pretty much a large number of things, to say the least. That also goes with the dinosaurs and etc. Some things that happen in the novels or get introduced in them never get adapted to the films, and vice versa.
To finalize with answering your question - yes, they are completely separate universes based off the same intellectual property, and are to be treated as such as well. Hope this helps!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
and judging
from your conversations with this guy
he has yet to proven anything really ( )
he's describing himself more than anyone
he has yet to cite his sources
strange that he just jumped into an actual Paleontological science rather than finishing the JP/JW debate which was the topic that started
hell even in anything everything needs citation
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, you may have noticed I kept trying to get back on point multiple times now, but obviously with no luck lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Here hopefully your bald-headed ego can take the time to compare this lifecycle of real Tyrannosaurus with the ones from Jurassic Park. And next time don't be so damn chafe yourself Tim.
arvalis.deviantart.com/art/Sau…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
but that evidence just contradicts your statement that ALL rexes both reality and JP version are similar in a sub adult age
as by your own quote
"5. Like in reality all sub-adult animals strikingly resemble full grown adults, this is no exception to the Tyrannosaurus in reality and in Jurassic Park. Merchandise issued a juvenile T.Rex toy (I'm sure you"ve seen it) that resembles the adults in everyway and the reintroduction of juvenile seen in the novel supports this."
never the fact the Juvenile in the novel was actually an Isla Nublar Tyrannosaur not an Isla Sorna
one of her/his scenarios was replaced by Roberta (film name not stated in JW but it is in JP)/Rexy (novel name) like the breakout scene in the rain.
yes merchandise and other adaption are not canon to either universe (novel and film)
also that saurian you brought up, it does not show that sub adults are similar to adults in any way, the adolescence represented are still lightly built and have a function more like a cheetah in terms of the possible way it hunts due to lacking a strong jaw and heavy sturdy build.
i'll use the same evidence you brought up to prove that
also there has never been any source that supported your claims for the JP one
as there needed to be shown on all ages
Junior in still a baby in the second novel and film
the rex in JP3 was very vague in age but the size should be similar to that of rexy and other tyrannosaurs due to having the same gene pool
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You absolutely make no since and obviously misinterpret what I was saying. I want AK to contrast and compare the differences between the Tyrannosaurus lifecycle in Jurassic Park and in reality. You're completely distorting evidence .
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
no since? lol
but we have no definite evidence of what JP T.rex ontogeny looks like
since the only one who's confirmed non adult in the movies is Junior in the second film
where-areas in real life there are juvenile specimens of T.rex and adult specimens
I.e Sue is obviously an Adult specimen
Jane is Juvenile well at least older compared to junior due to her size and the fact that Junior is a baby
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tyr…
not to mention one of the most complete sub adult specimen still have differences compared to sue the Adult specimen
T Rex Specimen Scale
feathered but my point stands since i am talking about the anatomy
misinterpret....
but you just use that to forward the point of the REAL sub adults are similar to the Adults which is not shown there and does not prove your claim, judging by the oldest non adult represented there is not even sub adult at all its adolence
distorting the evidence...
yet you're the one contradicting your own claim by using the wrong evidence
but i'm probably talking with a brick wall at this point
no wait brick walls listens to people better than you
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, this guy's rhetoric is at most a nice comedy show at this point. Got his profile booted and made another one quickly lol.
Also, to answer his point. Saurian is not a scientific peer reviewed material if one wants to demonstrate a point and draw a parallel to the real life dinosaurs. The ontogeny study is currently being worked on by Tom Carr and will be published no earlier than summer this year at its best.
Even young adult specimens have differences in features of skulls. From what is known so far, Sue and Scotty are both at the top size, yet they are younger than the specimen from LACM and the type specimen from Carnegie. Scott and Sue are actually young adults (not yet mature!), who simply reached their full size, but their skull features are still those of younger individuals, not older. Age and size are not always directly in proportion. You can be smaller and older and vice versa. We discuss this with Dr Carr over here: youtu.be/rWtNROsFwDs
The rex in JP3 was 37 feet long, and others were 40-41 feet or so (trying to remember what the current lore in JW states, i think it was 40 feet). Note that Jp3 t.rex has a somewhat smaller tail compared to the designs of all other models as well, but thats just my personal observation and should not be taken for granted. However, this difference alone in length is not enough to determine the age of the specimen. Not to mention, that filmmakers made it clear that they nerfed the rex so that spino could be the new badass. Thats really all their is, its no point trying to establish consistency between anything that came after JP3 (inclusive) and the first 2 films. Anything after the first two films starts going bonkers at that point. And lastly, the whole "it was a subadult!" and bla bla bla was just a way for some of the fanboys to deal with the trauma caused by that fight with a spino, just so they have a convenient excuse to lean on, instead of looking at what really happened in this whole situation. Preferences over facts - always a bad recipe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah i guess because people see to much awe in T.rex than it actually is in both cases
Saurian while very educational in its own right and created by actual paleontologist and enthusiast, it has its own outdated standards which will change in future updates.
Sue is a young adult?! well i just learned something new. so sub-adults are more than size similar its just they had reached their maximum or average size for an adult yet contain features that juvenile has and size and age-size is not always in proportion.
i'm confused by this quote of yours:
"Anything after the first two films starts going bonkers at that point"
would you mind clarifying it for me, its not clear for me.
also what do you think of the backlash of a T.rex killed by Spinosaurus in JP3.
yeah there consistency after the 3rd film has been quite an issue. especially with fanboys reasoning that unestablished film canon dinosaurs should not be accurate due to consistency (as long it make sense in canon). but the stegosaurus in JW has a tail dragger like stance compare to the one seen in the second film. not to mention the sauropods are more tamed compared to the second film (mamenchisaurus scene being able to crush by using a stampede). no idea what happened to the other raptors of Isla Nublar after JW take over. Mosasaurus anatomy wise is one of the best represented. also the carnotaurus in JWFK is one of the best represented dinosaurs by accuracy according to JP canon to date as an unestablished film canon dinosaur before its debut.
I.rex has way too much plot armor nearly rival-ling mary sue powers of Spino in JP3 in terms of narrative (though that's how i see it no relation to consistensy but it is an issue present in the 4th film).
but that guy ( ) can bring out the comedy gold from his trash
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>