Re: MNHN SAM 124

["Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

Tim Williams wrote-

>This is not to contradict Mickey, but I had considered spinosaurids to be
>quite gracile for their size, which would lower the mass estimates compared
>to the shorter but more massive carnosaurs.

And indeed they are lighter than hypothetical similarly sized
tyrannosaurids.  Though I estimate a 17.4 meter long Spinosaurus to be 12-19
tons, a 17.4 meter long Tyrannosaurus would be 25 tons.  I used several taxa
to estimate spinosaurid mass (Ceratosaurus, Eustreptospondylus,
Piatnitzkysaurus, Yangchuanosaurus), all of which are more lightly built
than tyrannosaurids.  I have yet to see anyone suggest spinosaurids were
more lightly built than other megalosauroids/spinosauroids.

Jordan Mallon wrote-

> Of course, this also depends on whether or not you subscribe to notion of
> fatty/muscular humps in spinosaurids as well.  I'd be interested to see
the
> range of mass estimates calculated for dinosaurs with and without humps...

Because I used relatively short-spined taxa as the basis for spinosaurid
weight, any mass from the hump/sail was not included.

Mickey Mortimer