Talk:Giganotosaurus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discovery and Species

This section says,

"The largest Giganotosaurus is estimated to be 14 m (46 ft) long, and weighed 8.2 tons. The specimen's skull was the size of a bathtub, measuring 1.95 m (6 ft 5 in). Giganotosaurus surpasses Tyrannosaurus rex in length by almost 2 m."

However wikipedia's entry for Tyrannosaurus has t rex

..measuring over 13 metres (43 feet) in length

One of the two entries must be in error, since it can't be that Giganotosaurus "surpases t rex by almost 2meters" since the largest g. is 13.7 the only thing it surpases by almost 2 meters would be something 11.7 meters...yet wikipedia says t rex is nto 11.7 but 13 meters. It even says the 13.7 is "the largest" giganotosaurus...so something needs to be clearned up and clarified here...hopefully someone with the facts and references at their fingertipcs can do this.. --Harel 04:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Carnosaur

Made a small but significant change- Giganotosaurus was not very closely related to T. Rex- it was a carnosaur, wheras T. Rex was a giant coelurosaur. The relationship is similar to that of polar bears and tigers.

Polar bears and tigers are in different suborders. They are as related between each other the same as Giganotosaurus and Argentinosaurus.Eriorguez 11:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Since they are both tetanuran theropods, that is probably not a very good comparison. In any case, you can't measure relatedness by what arbitrary groups two animals have been placed in. FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Brain Size

I'm not sure of the source for the "brain of Giganotosaurus was the size of a banana," but this seems like a poor description. A banana is long and relatively thin - unless the brain is shaped like a banana then this size comparison is confusing. I won't edit the page because I don't know whether to replace banana with "golf ball" or "American football" - two items that might compare with the diameter or length of a banana.

As it happened, the brain was shaped like a banana. I think you reacted a bit "mammalocentric" ;o).--MWAK 12:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Is spinosaurus really bigger than giganotosaurus?

Yes, much bigger. The lowest reasonable estimate is about 17 m in length and this hasn't taken into account some yet to be properly studied specimens that seem to indicate a low estimate of at least twenty metres. The high estimate would be thirty :o).--MWAK 08:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If T-Rex weighed more giganotosaurus, and if giganotosaurus was longer than T-Rex, who is bigger?

Most of the official stuff like scientific articles seem to use length as the yardstick for overall size, so Giganotosaurus is technically larger. Maybe MWAK or Dinoguy, who know a lot more about this sort of thing than I do, can further elaborate on that. SMegatron

Depends on what you mean by big. In modern animals, most people go by weight. The blue whale is the biggest animal ever, even though some dinosaurs were longer, because it is the heaviest. The "biggest" land animal is usually given as the african elephant. Obviously the Anaconda is longer, and the Giraffe is taller, but when most people think of sheer size, they think of bulk, which roughly corresponds to weight. If some one asked me what the "biggest" theropod was, I'd say Spinosaurus, with T. rex in second place, and Giganotosaurus in 3rd (though Therizinosaurus were probably bigger than Giga, too).Dinoguy2 15:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Some people think of size as "volume" so to speak. this includes myself. For instance; An animal that is twenty feet long and five feet wide is larger than one with a length of twenty feet and a width of four feet.Dinotitan (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Giganotosaurus once considerd to be 8 tons in weight? In many books I read it says that Giganotosaurus is around 8 tons in weight. When did it get changed to 5.2 tons in weight?

Best reason I can think of is that they overestimated the weight of the dino when it was first discovered, possibly as a result of comparisons with other large theropods. As Dinoguy has pointed out, Giganotosaurus and other Carcharodontosaurids were actually quite lightly built compared to, say, Tyrannosaurus. User SMegatron

You should see the relation size/weight--190.22.7.14 01:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dino Crisis 3

Does anyone know of an official link to a Dino Crisis 3 site? Im trying to find an official list of enemies or walkthrough that says Gig is the final boss, cos I definitely remember there being something in the game that said the big two-headed/three-headed thing at the end was made from Gig DNA. The only site I can find is IGN and Im reluctant to use that as a valid source. I think it would be at least semi-relevant as we've alreadyput in the DC2 stuff. SMegatron 11:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There's the official site here but it doesn't say anything about dinosaurs. The best is this Wikia >over here< OsirisV

Genus?

How come we don't just down-grade Giganotosaurus to a Species??? this would make more sense as Giganotosaurus carolinii is rather a sub-species than a species (for one reason, it has a double name)

No... sub species have three names, like Gorilla gorilla gorilla. A species has two (the binomial), like Gorilla gorilla. This page is talking about all species within the genus Giganotosaurus (which is why the single name is the article title), and currently there is only one species, G. carolinii. That way, if they ever name more species, they can be included on this page rather than make new pages for them. This is useful because most people only know dinosaurs by the first parts of their name, with a few exceptions like Tyrannosaurus rex. Dinoguy2 22:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've been bold and semi-protected this article, as well as Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. I'm tired of seeing the already well-sourced size numbers for these animals changing on a daily basis, and I know that first thing in the morning, some IP is going to change the information without changing the reference. I understand that fanboy-types want their favorite to be the largest, meanest, baddest ones, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is ridiculous to add a few feet in length just to make your favorite the largest. Since the disruption is limited almost entirely to IPs, semi-protection should work fine. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Should it be of similar size or larger?

Should it state that Giganotosaurus is larger than T-Rex when they have the same hip height? With Giga only being longer than T-Rex however T-Rex was more robust than Giga. What do ya'll think? Mcelite (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Size among dinosaurs is almost universally measured by length, not height. Gig's skull is also much longer than that of T. rex (1.5 vs. 1.8 m). All published accounts seem to recognize gig as larger. Also, which cite says rex was "more robust", and what does that mean exactly? Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm gonna have to look but I watched it on T.V. (when they were comparing steve to the 1st giga found) and read it in a book that t-rex was more robust just meaning that it was more heavily built or more muscular than Giga. It's that a little misleading though? Diplodocus is longer than Brachiosaurus but it's not larger or heavier than Brachiosaurus. Yeah I can't argue about it's skull length it does have a big head. Which is kinda funny considering T-Rex has the largest tooth size than any other carnivore.Mcelite (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

- What amazes me the most about the size debate is that an overwhelming majority of people seem to be unwilling to finally let go of the idea that Tyrannosaurus rex was the "ultimate theropod". By now T-rex has long been dethroned, but a lot of people simply don't want to admit that there were bigger and badder carnosaurs. Even recently I've seen on the History Channel and Discovery Channel some documentaries that continue to refer to T-rex with phrases such as "most terrifying predator of all time" or "most fearsome predator the world has ever known", etc. T-rex has been in the public consciousness for so long, and so many people view it as the biggest and baddest, that there's a continuing reluctance to admit the truth. I personally agree with Jack Horner's theories about T-ex being a slow, somewhat dim-witted scavenger, but even he has had to deal with criticism and ridicule over the fact that T-rex has been outgunned and outclassed by Giganotosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus and Spinosaurus. - Myrddin_Wyllt 8/23/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.64.39.28 (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

-You know what amazes me? That you even would turn this topic into some stupid dino fan-boy thing. Mcelite didn't complain that the T-Rex is more powerful or anything, he said that T-Rex is simply more robust-which, judging y the thicker bone structure, does have some truth in it. But you turn this to saying, "OH GIGA R DA BESTEST!!!!" Giganotosaurus was possibly larger than T-Rex, but you can only be satisfied by making Giganotosaurus some super dinosaur who saves puppies and walks old ladies across streets while selling girl scout cookies. At the same, you make Tyrannosaurus some weak pathetic slime that could get beaten in a fight by some pathetic unfit nerd such as yourself. Oh, and before you call me a T-Rex fan-boy, I prefer Giganotosaurus. Oh, and your lack of knowledge of dinosaurs is quite large for all the gloating you do: T-Rex wasn't even a Carnosaur. It was a Coelurosaur-in other words it's more closely related Utahraptor than Giganotosaurus. Than, T-Rex has been proven that it has the largest brain of any large theropod, killing your pathetic excuse of saying T-Rex was dim-witted. How about you don't try to turn nice discussions into some fan-boys wet dream next time, alright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.113.223 (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Right or not, how is posting a confrontational reply to a 14 month old thread productive...? Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Watch out!

There is a guy who has joined Wikipedia that is from a forum that i use, but he claims that Gig was 50ft+ and rex + spino were 30ft. Just better warn in advance. His name is Giganotosaurus Fan. I am seeing this on the Gig, Rex and Spino talk pages cause those are the 3 he will likely vandalise. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Pack Behavior?

What happened to the section on pack behavior?

Vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polish Winged Hussar (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's under Paleobiology. J. Spencer (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay

Polish Winged Hussar 15:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Polish Winged Hussar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polish Winged Hussar (talk • contribs)

Weight

Why does this article totally ignore the weight figure given by the study into Mapusaurus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.220.88 (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Because that article does not provide a weight figure for Giganotosaurus, only for one specimen of Mapusaurus. J. Spencer (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry my bad. It's a length for Giganotosaurus the article gave right? Thats just what ive been told as i haven't read it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.141.126 (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article does have a length figure for a Giganotosaurus individual (12.2 m). J. Spencer (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Size

Apparently the femur of Giganotosaurus compared to T. rex was 5 cm longer but if you combine the tibia measurements in, too, then Giganotosaurus is actually shorter than T. rex by 3 cm. Watch this video, he has proof. --Taylor Reints 21:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk • contribs)

If he has proof he should publish it. Then we can talk about changing Wikipedia entires ;) Also, what does femur and tibia length have to do with body length? If anything this would indicate T. rex was taller (or at least longer-legged), not longer or heavier. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just wait until (if) it gets published. Emphasis on "if." :) Crimsonraptor (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

By "shorter" I meant in terms of height and if you have smaller legs you generally would have a smaller body. --Taylor Reints (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really follow. Plenty of dinosaurs had proportionally short legs relative to their bodies,compared to their relatives, including apparently some carcharodontosaurs but also diplodocids and abelisaurs. Tyrannosaurs are noteworthy for having somewhat longer legs compared to their bodies than other large carnivorous dinosaurs. (Tom Holz once used this, in part, to ally them to the ornithomimosaurs). MMartyniuk (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Length

I thought Giga was 52 feet long? A Troll (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What? That's waaaaaaaaaaaaay to huge. I don't think even Giggy was this big. Mr. Anon515 04:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The estimate was that it was about 43ft long, with a 1.8m skull. But then they discovered a 1.95m skull, which would make giganotosaurus roughly 50-52ft long — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergei Debrovski (talk • contribs) 14:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Bite Force

I find the bite force of Giganotosaurus an interesting subject however I have been unable to find any information for this article. Has anyone seen a website with this info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diesel 10 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge no studies on Gig bite force have been done. Bite force studies have usually focused on well-known genera like Allosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Its bite force was estimated in: Therrien, Francois; Henderson, Donald M.; Ruff, Christopher B., 2005, "Bite Me: Biomechanical models of theropod mandibles and implications for feeding". In: Carpenter, Kenneth. The Carnivorous Dinosaurs. Life of the Past. Indiana University Press. pp. 179–237. Apparently it was five time more forceful than that of Alligator but three times less compared to Tyrannosaurus.--MWAK (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Confusing weight statement

You can clearly see at the end of the Discovery and Species section that it says, "Giganotosaurus surpassed Tyrannosaurus in mass by at least half a ton (the upper size estimate for T. rex is 9.1 t)". From what I've been hearing, Giganotosaurus was more lightly built than the rex. Making it more confusing, the sentence definitely states "mass." Are we talking about actual body mass, or genuine weight? (I know the terms are often confused, so I guess it's not too surprising there's a statement like this.) Crimsonraptor (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Where have you been "hearing" Giganotosaurus was more lightly built? Scientific studies, or internet chatter? (what is the distinction between mass and weight...? In biology mass=weight, it doesn't mean muscle mass).MMartyniuk (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was actually in a Prehistoric Times Magazine issue (#86 with carcharodontosaurids) where this was. I suppose this could just be an error on the author's part. Or it could just be one of those facts from some kids book still stuck in my head (which I'd say is a 50/50 chance...). I'll dig PT out and get a better look at it. Crimsonraptor (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd put PT much above internet chatter, they're certainly not a peer-reviewed journal publishing actual studies. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on the Acrocanthosaurus model from here, i dont think Giganotosaurus would be any bulkier than Stan. Granted Giganotosaurus =/= Acrocanthosaurus, but then again, Sue is bulkier than Stan. If the mounted skeleton shown on the Giganotosaurus page is accurate, then yeah, Tyrannosaurus seems bulkier.Spinodontosaurus (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I fear the statement gives undue weight to the Therrien 2007 publication. The high weight estimate in that article was the effect of a highly problematic methodology in which it was assumed that skull size was a good indicator for body mass and that the latter increased more rapidly than the former. For a large theropod with a disproportionately high skull length, such as Giganotosaurus, this results in a strongly exaggerated weight estimate as that disproportion is not compensated for. Besides, because of compression of the braincase the skull is possibly reconstructed too flat and long to begin with.--MWAK (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Size

Can someone please answer my question. The page says that giganotosaurus went to about 13m in length, with the skull estimated at 180cm. But it then goes on to say that they found a skull which was 195cm long. Does this mean that giganotosaurus was 15cm longer or 9% bigger overall? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergei Debrovski (talk • contribs) 18:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody knows. The second "195cm" "skull" is really just the tip of the lower jaw. It might come from a 9% bigger animal, or it might have a slightly longer jaw than the holotype. Note that 13m is the maximum possible length of the holotype, not most likely. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The authors describing the second jaw specimen, in: Calvo, J.O. & R.A. Coria, 1998, "New specimen of Giganotosaurus carolinii (Coria and Salgado, 1995), supports it as the largest theropod ever found", Gaia 15: 117-122, assumed it meant a 8% higher total body length.--MWAK (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Spinosaurus

The article says Giganotosaurus is smaller than Spinosaurus, but isn't Giganotosaurus the biggest carnivorous dinosaur? Dora Nichov 03:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Afraid not. It was for a while, but new estimates place Giganotosaurus at 46 ft and around 5-6 tons, while the Del Sasso estimate featured heavily on the Spinosaurus page page puts Spino at 52ft - 60ft and 9 tons in weight. Hope that helps.SMegatron 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't 52-60ft a slight exaggeration? I don't think of the spinosaurus as being that large. And what evidence is there to support the idea of such a large creature? The size doesn't even sound practical.Dinotitan (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest reading the researched cited in the article. Basically, if it wasn't that big, it had stranger proportions than any known theropod. Either it was that big (and why is it impractical? It's only a few feet longer than T. rex) or it had a massively fat spinal column more like a sauropod. The size of the individual bones alone relative to other spinosaurs is enough to give us a reasonable size estimate. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I always heard that giganotosaurus was the biggest too. I have a book that says it is. it was written a year ago. Where did you see that spinosaurus was bigger?They found some bone late last year that proves that spinosaurus was bigger than giganotosaurus. Despite this Gig was probably smarter than spino because they found bones that shows that they lived in packs.

The estimates come from the primary sources: in this case, paleontological papers. These are referenced in the text. Firstron of Ronchester 04:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes--while dinosaur books may sometimes be pretty good on general facts and concepts, keep in mind that even if it was published last year, it was probably not finished until a year before that and was in development for several years, during which time the author may or may not have updated their facts. Actually this might not have made a difference--Spinosaurus was recognized as being larger than T. rex going back as far as the early 1900s, and was simply ignored in the media since, while new discoveries like Giganotosaurus have gotten big press by people who, inexplicably, continued to ignore the existence of Spinosaurus until the new skull was described last year (probably because the actual bones were lost in WWII). It's a situation similar to Amphicoelias, actually. Every new gigantic sauropod that's been found since Supersaurus or even Brachiosaurus has been hailed as "the new biggest dinosaur", when a dinosaur that was larger than all that have been found before or since by an order of magnitude was ignored due to the fact that the evidence was lost, though the descriptions survived. Dinoguy2 05:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's pretty funny, the part where you say whenever we find something new we call it biggest. Dora Nichov 08:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, just think that its a little fishy (no pun intended). I mean, we see a gigantic, steroid-induced spinosaurus in Jurassic Park III, and a few months late, we hear that scientists have discovered a spinosaur that would have measured over sixty feet in length. I can see that happening once, with Utahraptor, but twice? It just seems off. In addition, the specimen is a maxilla, and spinosaurs had normal tails, not these insanely long things that they put on them to get a one-over on T-rex and the carcs. In reality, I think that there were some gigantic spinosaurs, and some may have been Mapusaurus or Giganotosaurus sized (I mean they had to fend off Carcharodontosaurus and Sarcosuchus after all), but a spinosaur that blows everyone else out of the water? Not likely.Metalraptor (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. The spinosaurus in JP3 was made larger because scientists consulting on the movie knew of the large specimens which would be described later (I remember an interview with Horner where he discussed the dal Sasso specimen), and knew that as far back as the 1920s size estimates for Spinosaurus exceeded 50ft (a fact ignored by the discoverers of Giganotosaurus, Sue, etc.). I don't know why a hunch based on a movie is enough to trump published science for you, but it's not for me. All the published studies right now say it blew those other forms out of the water. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

...And Wikipedia requires Reliable sources. We can't base our editing on how people feel about Jurassic Park III. This is a serious scientific topic. And regarding your suspicions about the lengths: if you've seen the Stromer documentary, you'd know that (as Dinoguy says) Spinosaurus was believed to have been larger than T. rex since the early 20th Century, despite T. rex's domination of the popular literature. Firstron of Rochester 01:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, Tyrannosaurus is still the largest known theropod dinosaur. Sure, Spinosaurus and Giganotosaurus specimens are larger in comparison, but Tyrannosaurus is the largest one in confirmed size. Paleo Kid (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes it the largest known from a complete skeleton, yes. The same way Giraffatitan is the largest known dinosaur of all time, based on a nearly complete skeleton. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know whether or not the "sail" of the Spinosaurus is included in figuring the height. I don't think so, but you never know.Dinotitan (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing, When comparing both dinosaurs on the biggest meat-eating dinosaur, Spinosaurus is the biggest creature, however, Spinosaurus was actually had a diet consisting on fish, while Giganotosaurus was a predator and hunted for dinosaurs so we could call Giganotosaurus the biggest predator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Marín (talk • contribs) 06:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

A predator is an organism that kills another to feed on it. It doesn't matter if the organism being killed is a dinosaur or a fish. Albertonykus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Drsven DTD hey the giganotosaurus is the biggest carnivore dino because spinosaurus is a piscivore

Total Size

In the article, it is mentioned that the holotype of Giganotosaurus is estimated at 12.2-13 meters in length, and that there is an 8 percent larger specimen known from a lower jaw or tooth. As a simple convenience issue, could someone (since the page is protected)add in that if it is proportionally similar to the holotype, the length of this specimen is between about 13.2 and 14.1 meters? I believe this would help some readers not willing to do percent calculations to get a grasp of the total dimensions this dinosaur grew to. Palaeontology Article Editor (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Those figures can't be added because we need them to come from a reputable source (in this case, peer-reviewed papers preferably), just adding them would be original research, therefore, against the rules of Wikipedia, sorry. Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

T.rex and Giganotosaurus weight difference:

Hello, I have been studying dinosaurs for years and i found this article, when i realized i found this statement: "Giganotosaurus surpasses Tyrannosaurus in mass by at least half a ton (the upper size estimate for T.rex is 9,1 t) which was confusing to me because the heaviest estimate is not 9.1 but around 9.5 tonnes (Carl, Hutchisson 2009) or even more: 10875.5 (Henderson & Therrien),12000.8 (Celestis Fang 2010). So as you see The upper Estimate of T.rex was not 9.1, but between 9.5 and 12 tonnes.--Dinoexpert (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Therrien & Henderson (2007) estimated 9.1 tonnes not 10.9 and a Google search for "Celestis Fang 2010" doesn't find anything related to dinosaurs so you have to be a bit more specific there, also, the 9.5t estimate actually comes from Hutchinson et al. (2011). Anyway you're right, the 9.5 tonnes estimate has to be used, if you can find the full citation for that "Celestis Fan 2010" and it really mentions such mass then we might use that one instead. Mike.BRZ (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

well, i have a copy of the paper of henderson and therrien and the maximum weight estimate was 10800 kg using the maximum skull size possible 1.43 m, 9,100 kg was obtained using the estimate of 1.394 m for the skull and was the weight they estimated. but in the same paper you can see one estimate exceeding 10 tonnes you can check it out. also other estimations like that of Henderson and Snively concluded in a weight of 10.2 tonnes, this is also mentioned in the article My theropod is bigger than yours or not in the paper i also found its mentioned that Celestis Fang in 2010 estimated a range from 10039 to 12000.8 Kg for the famous specimen of Tyrannosaurus FMNH PR2081 "Sue" with the best estimate around 10.6 tonnes. i am telling the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinoexpert (talk • contribs) 00:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I admit I didn't searched enough in the Therrien & Henderson (2007) paper but, 9.1 tonnes is still the mass they estimated, 10.2 tonnes is also cited and that was estimated by Henderson & Snively (2004), there is however, no 10.8t estimate nor mention of a 1.43m skull... I sincerely don't know where you got those numbers from. I also can't find in the references any mention of "Celestis Fang 2010" and frankly, "Therrien & Henderson (2007)My Theropod is Bigger than Yours... or Not: Estimating Body Size from Skull Length in Theropods" is from 2007... how can it cite a paper from 2010? I do not think you're lying but you aren't being clear about that source, if it's really mentioned in the paper then why can't you share the full citation? Mike.BRZ (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've found the source you're talking about, is some biased amateur (not a real paleontologist) from "allexperts", I'm sorry if you've been deceived that said individual is an accurate source, just, stick with the scientific literature. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The mass cited by Therrien&Henderson is in excess of 10t for a 12m T. rex, obviously a ridiculous weight figure, as are their other estimations. They assumed all theropods could be reliably estimated by a single skull to body length regression. The figure from Hutchinson et al. is 9,5 metric tons or 9,1 short tons. Most other figures are much lower anyway. and as far as the "at least half a ton heavier" is concerned, excuse my phrasing, its BS, there is no way that is true. While I think it is likely even more than that, the weight estimates are far too debated and if you use the lowest estimates for giganotosaurus it is not as heavy as a more liberal T. rex. --Ornitholestes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 March 2013

please change the size of giganotosaurus Because it is outdated and has changed Cyrvise38 (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

What part of the size is outdated and what are your sources? if you mean the size of the skull, yes, I said I'll change that but I have to finish something for the Sarcosuchus article, maybe someone else could do it in the meantime (or maybe not, I haven't seen any activity here in a long time). Mike.BRZ (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: Hi, please write exactly what you want inserted into the article and the source of the information, then reopen the request. Thanks! — Bility (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

New-ish information on bone lengths

Dunno if Scott Hartman's reconstructions can be classified as a 'reputable source', but his recent one had a revised skull for Giganotosaurus ~150cm long. May be worth at least a mention (worded "the holotype's skull was estimated at 180cm long fully restored, although a recent skeletal reconstruction by Scott Hartman give a much shorter skull ~150cm" or something). This is extremely significant as the upper size estimates for Giganotosaurus are from Therrein and Henderson 2007, which is based on skull length alone.

I am also informed that the femur length has been revised to 136.5cm rather than 143cm as reported (which isnt mentioned in the first place) which would have a knock on effect on hip height and mass estimate derived from femur length (ie Christiansen and Farina 2004) Full ref. for those who have access to it (which I do not)

Carrano, M.T., Benson, R.B.J. & Sampson, S.D. (2012) "The phylogeny of Tetanurae (Dinosauria: Theropoda)" Journal of Systematic Palaeontology

Carcharodontosaurus saharicus skull revised to 142cm in same paper too apparently.

I also feel the article is to pushy on the idea that Giganotosaurus is larger than Tyrannosaurus. The only studies that compare them are based on skull and femur lengths, which are both large in Giga relative to its body. Yeah state it has been estimated as larger, but the article seems to take every opportunity to say 'Giga is larger'.

Crazy Fish IV (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Minor edit to reference Crazy Fish IV (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

His skeletals are among the best but he hasn't specified the length of the skull in his skeletal in order to at least cite him as an unpublished estimate, measuring ourselves would be original research sadly.

That the skull was smaller than the initial estimations of 1.8m has been known for a long time, Currie & Carpenter (2000) in their description of Fran (the biggest known Acrocanthosaurus) say that Giganotosaurus holotype skull is estimated at 1.6m; in Greg Paul's book, the Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs from 2010 his Giganotosaurus skeletal also has "small skull" though no dimensions are given; in Carrano et al. (2012) they say that the original reconstruction was of 153cm (?) but that it's too long and they consider that it's more likely to actually be almost exactly the size of Tyrannosaurus, previously in the paper they made a similar claim about Carcharodontosaurus skull (yes, to 142cm) and mention the Tyrannosaurus skull at 1.39m so they're talking about Sue, meaning that they estimate the skull of the Giganotosaurus holotype to be around 1.4m too... you know what? I hadn't realized that we actually had published estimates for the smaller size of the skull, I do think this should be added, I might do it later today. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Even if published, will the "estimates" really be reliable? It seems that the skull is incomplete in a way that we will never be certain.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

They are as reliable as the previous estimates and probably more as we can complete it based on more complete, related genera (ie. Mapusaurus) though, it is true, for the moment, the estimates are not set in stone but they should at least be in the right direction. Mike.BRZ (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I got my hands on the original description paper from 1995; the skull is estimated to be "about 1.53m", just as cited in Carrano et al. (2012). There are gross errors in the scale bars, the reconstruction of the skull appears as 171cm and quadrate length, reported at 44cm in Coria & Currie (2003) appears as 50cm, meaning the scale bar is wrong by around 13%, so that the skull was supposed to be ~150cm, in line with what the paper actually says.

This same scale bar error is reproduced in Calvo & Coria (1998), is as if they completely ignored the text of the original description and based the total length on the skull reconstruction with incorrect scale bar, even then, the improved reconstruction doesn't quite get up to 180cm as they claim, the holotype's skull is shown at around ~172cm, mandible length however is ~180cm, which I find suspicious. Sue's skull is correctly scaled so I don't think we can claim the skull is underestimated by the scale bar, I find very likely they tried to pass off mandible length for skull length, even then their reconstruction was already wrongly scaled.

All in all the 1.8m estimate for the holotype's skull (and in consequence, the 195cm estimate for the larger dentary) look to be nothing more than a big mess derived from wrong scale bars, it is weird however that, although this wrong belief has persisted up to very recently, the issue seems to have been cleared up long ago in academic circles because save for Eddy & Clarke (2011) every mention of the length of the holotype's skull since 1998 has been "160cm" which is probably just rounded up from the original 153cm estimate. Mike.BRZ (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The 1,8m figure is cited by Coria & Calvo (1998) to be from Coria & Salgado, 1996. I have no idea what they did and how accurate it is, but the skull obviously has vastly different proportions. I personally think it is unlikely to be accurate, but that's jsut my opinion. This is the reconstruction seen in "a new specimen of giganotosaurus..." and also in the mount and various casts. Based on quadrate lenght from Coria & Currie 2002 ("the braincase of Giganotosaurus..."), the original is about the 1,53m figure reported in the description and cited by Carrano. The same papaer cites it as "1,6m" which I suppose is "roughly 1,6m" which probably applies to the same estimate. If that's true, they themselves must have revised Corias previous work. Or they might have done a new reconstruction. Anyway, and figure in that general area could potentially be correct, because what it really breaks down to is how much longer you reconstruct the andorbital part of the skull, in other words, how much you assume is missing of the posterior end of the maxillary main body.

So the figures (for the MUCPv-ch1) are:

1,53m (probably max. skull length based on the shown reconstruction)=~1,6m?

1,8m which is possibly incorrectly scaled and furthermore very strangely reconstructed.

Hartman seems to show a skull somewhere between 1,5m and 1,6m, I didn't measure it

Overall, I have no idea how to best explain all this chaos in the article, but this is what I have figured out so far. If anyone is interested in my personal view, i've made two reconstructions based on quadrate length with different lengths of the reconstructed maxilla, and they ended up at 1,49m for the lower end and 1,63m for the upper end (and I know about the original research stuff, don't take these pictures as source, but they might help to get a comparison). link1link2Ornitholestes (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Look at this picture: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6fVePgcYTJc/Sd8_3uhbCNI/AAAAAAAAB2Y/b0eRKdQhN6g/s400/Giganotosaurus+skull.JPG. It shows why the skull of giganotosaurus could be in length 1,8 m. I think that it is better to write about this estimate because the skull is incomplete, so we can't exactly say about it's size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha970 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly; the different lengths are a result of different hypotheses about the position of the respective skull elements and the angle of the quadrate. Luckily, it is not our duty to conclude anything, just to cite the various sources :o).--MWAK (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not true, the image that Alpha970 linked is the exact same reconstruction in Coria & Salgado (1995) it even says so right there, that is the 153cm reconstruction, they however failed at putting a properly scaled scale bar, artificially enlarging it to 172cm long, this same mistake is repeated in Coria & Salgado (1996) and Calvo & Coria (1998) where again the skull turns up at 172cm long and the only 180cm measure is including the lower jaw, that paper is also the last time anyone claims that the holotype had a 180cm skull, any other subsequent paper talking about the holotype of Giganotosaurus says it is "about 160cm long". Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is not simply a scaling problem (if it ever was): if you compare the 1995 with the 1998 images, you see that in 1998 they rotated the snout about ten degrees upwards and that they assumed a much longer maxilla, increased from about ten to sixteen tooth positions! So it is a fundamentally different reconstruction. Also, all those casts they've sold definitely do not have a 153 centimetres long skull :o). In Novas' 2009 The Age of Dinosaurs in South America, he accepts the 180 centimetres estimate for the holotype. You are right that this seems to refer to the total head length, including lower jaws, not to the cranium in the strict sense.--MWAK (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And pondering whether the 2002 paper could be seen as a "retraction", I noticed that this paper still gives an estimated maxilla length of 92 centimeters. Which is exactly the same length the maxilla would have had if the 172 centimetre cranium reconstruction of 1998 was used. The reduction to 1.6 metres must have been the result of a different angling interpretation, perhaps by the South-American workers themselves. This also might mean that their claim was not so much ignored as replaced.--MWAK (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The maxilla in the original reconstruction is not supposed to be shown complete, as it's composed of photographs of the preserved bones arranged to their possible position in the skull, though as you can see in this comparison I made, the skull in Coria & Salgado (1998) also has approximately 11 small teeth in the same space were there were only 9 bigger teeth in the original so the number of teeth argument is moot. The length of the maxillary toothrow while yes is said to be 92cm in the 2003 paper there's no methodology given and judging by both reconstructions, it might even include curves so its safer to just take the length of an actual completely preserved bone, the quadrate, which is at the same angle in both reconstructions meaning that the differences in length of the estimates (153cm vs ~172cm) can only be blamed on the scale bars, Coria & Salgado (1998) reconstruction is just a refinement of the original reconstruction with a bit of an artistic license since some bones don't quite look the same as the actual fossils. What Novas says in his book doesn't matter, books are not peer-reviewed and of course all those casts are not 153cm long, they were made oversized. I find more likely that they spotted that error and went back to 160cm (either 153cm rounded up or still including the mandible) otherwise is impossible that you can cram those elements in a ~140cm long skull as is claimed by Carrano et al. (2012). Mike.BRZ (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the changes you made though. Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I find your image highly helpful and now agree that there probably is not an angling difference between the 1995 and the 1998 reconstructions. However, the "artistic licence" to me seems an effort to compensate for craniocaudal compression of the fossil: they made the orbit much wider and changed the quadrate-squamosal and postorbital-lacrimal contacts. They also positioned the postorbital much further to the front; in the fossil its rear process reaches a point above the quadrate, which is improbable. Also, in 1998 they assume a jugular process of the maxilla with a length incompatible with the 1995 profile. In the latter the large curve of the upper jaw edge reaches a point close to the rear of the antorbital fenestra; in 1998 it is well in front of it. The combined effects might have brought the length from 153 to 172 centimetres. The 2012 study contains no arguments why the skull would be so short; an alternative reconstruction is hinted at but not provided. The only way to shorten it would be to make the quadrate more vertical, creating a higher profile in which there is room for snout elements moved to the rear — but they claim to accept the strongly angled quadrate!--MWAK (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Image should be changed:

Hi, I recently checked out this article and I though it was great, however, the comparative image is wrong because Sue is drawn about 12,8 m while in fact it was only 12,3 m and Giganotosaurus has the outdated skull figure, I think it must be changed.--Dinoexpert (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Not much I can do about the skull without access to the source file, but I corrected the length of Sue (which consisted of shaving about 10 pixels off the tail). MMartyniuk (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Size

This says Giganotosaurus was 13 m long. Phil Currie has stated that it was probably closer to 15 m long. Can anyone explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.73.194 (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

When (and where) did ne say this? There are actually very few published estimates and Phil Currie has published this paper [2] which states the holotype was around 12.2m. Gig isn't 100 percent complete so differences in estimates might be due to different reconstructions. It might bt an early size estimate, these often get often get revised. See mounted specimens of the holotype, it isn't that big. [3] [4]. There is one other specimen, known only from the front part of the lower jaw, which suggests and animal 8% larger (assuming the proportions don't change maybe 13.2m). Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Deinosuchidae (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC) The most recent estimates put Giganotosaurus at 13.8-14.8 m (45.8-48.8 ft) long and a weight of 8.6 tons. 13.2 m is just the average size now.

(Just so you know I have moved your comment down so it is in chronological order.) Do you have a published source stating that? When there are only two specimens how can you know the average size? Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're making the common mistake of confusing average size with average estimate. Different estimates may or may not use different methods of measurement, so compiling an average based on them is simplistic and misleading. Only two specimens of this animal are known. One is a fairly incomplete skeleton, one is a piece of jaw bone. Obviously, the size of either, let alone average, will be subject to debate unless a good specimen is ever found. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say the size of the incomplete specimen which i believe is 13.2-13.7m long depending on who you ask. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, none of the people you asked have ever published such a length (or any length) for the jawbone fragment, only an estimated skull size, which is in the article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Though that apparently comes from a ~13.5m animal [5]. I thought there was a size estimate based on the size of the skull but i guess not. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Mickey Mortimer has produced a length estimate based on the skull, ~13.2 m [6]. He's never published this though, and by his own admission, extrapolating length based on the extrapolation of a skull based on nothing but a partial jaw is extremely imprecise. Note that the DinoData entry you linked is based on an older version of Mortimer's estimate, which he has since revised on his own site. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

She, not 'he.'  :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok 13.2m then. but yes it is very prone to inaccuracies. (though you cant really ever be PERFECT without a complete skeleton). Spinodontosaurus (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, and if anybody ever publishes the 13.2 meter size officially I wouldn't have a problem including it. But we shouldn't include data that's only been put online with unchecked methods. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Feathers

It's pretty well agreed upon that all these large theropods had feathers so maybe we should remove the old pic and replace it with a feathered version. ScienceApe (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on by who? There is only evidence of feathers within coelurosauria so far. Which means either could be correct for other theropods. Yes, feathers are likely, but the opposite is not incorrect, and all theropods were necessarily alike in this regard. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2016

DravenDTD (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Please specify what you want inserted into the article. Amccann421 (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2016

The giganotosaurus could be 46ft long and 22ft tall DravenDTD (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Giganotosaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 19:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

• I think you use the word "subsequently" incorrectly in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead. Subsequently is sort of a transitional word, relating the preceding text to the proceeding text; in this case, the preceding text is about assigning teeth and tracks before its discovery and the proceeding text is about maximum theropod dinosaur size

Changed wording. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest converting metric tons (MT or t) to short tons (ST) instead of metric tons to pounds

Thanks for reviewing! Note that I still need to add conversions to the last three paragraphs under history. As for short tons instead of pounds, is there a particular reason for this? Not really a unit-guy... FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Short tons, or U.S. tons, are equivalent to 2,000 lbs. Basically it's the imperial unit equivalent of tonnes, as the pound is the imperial equivalent of grams   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I changed it in the intro and under description as a test, does it look ok? If so, I'll change the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll continue the review a bit later   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• halfway down the History of discovery section you stop using converting from metric to imperial

Yep, was waiting for your approval of the conversion above, will fix now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Conversions done, phew... FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• "shared between these genera include a the lacrimal"

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• "gigantism in theropods in could have"

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• "found that the presence of charcarodontosaurids" you also do this in the Feeding section

Whoops, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• What mammalian carnivore weighs more than a ton?

I think it is just a hypothetical animal, to show that mammals have faster metabolism. But the source doesn't specify. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Is "newton" supposed to be capitalized? It's not capitalized in the corresponding article either

Decapitalised. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• what is tortsional stress?

Removed t. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• change "...suggested that though this could be the due to a long term..." to "...suggested that though this could be due to a long term..." or "...suggested that though this could be due to the long term..."

Removed stray "the". FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

References

• Use {{cite journal}} for ref no. 4 (Calvo and Coria)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• For ref no. 6 (Holtz, Jr.) add the |date parameter as 13 January 2012 (when it was last updated)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• ref no. 8 (Carrano and Benson) has a doi (10.1080/14772019.2011.630927), and currently it reads "Matthew T. Carrano, Roger B. J. Benson & Scott D. Sampson" but it should be "Carrano, Matthew T.; Benson, Roger B. J.; Sampson, Scott D." Also there's a free version at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230808558_The_phylogeny_of_Tetanurae_Dinosauria_Theropoda

Fixed citation, but see below for Researchgate... FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• ref no. 10 (Coria and Currie) has a free version at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228655543_A_new_carcharodontosaurid_Dinosauria_Theropoda_from_the_Upper_Cretaceous_of_Argentina
• ref no. 11 has a free version at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233661959_Cranial_endocast_of_the_carcharodontosaurid_theropod_Giganotosaurus_carolinii_CORIA_SALGADO_1995 and a doi of 10.1127/0077-7749/2010/0104 . Also, it reads "Ariana Paulina Carabajal & J.I. Canale" but it should be "Carabajal, Ariana Paulina; Canale, J. I."
• ref no. 12 (Novas and de Valais) has a free version at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7901883_A_large_Cretaceous_theropod_from_Patagonia_Argentina_and_the_evolution_of_carcharodontosaurids
• ref no. 13 (Canale and Novas) has a free version at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273143583_Osteology_and_phylogenetic_relationships_of_Tyrannotitan_chubutensis_Novas_de_Valais_Vickers-Rich_and_Rich_2005_Theropoda_Carcharodontosauridae_from_the_Lower_Cretaceous_of_Patagonia_Argentina

I'm not entirely sure if research gate is accepted on Wikipedia? It seems to be "unofficial" uploads, that circumvent the publishers? FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• remove the url for ref no. 14 (Calvo) because it does not link to the entire article, only the abstract

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think ref no. 18 is cited incorrectly. I looked up the title and it came up with something completely different

Sure you mean ref 18? It is two completely different papers, the one in this article is a conference abstract[7] announcing Giganotosaurus from 1994, the one you linked is the 2005 description of Tyrannotitan, which is used here as ref 12. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• for ref no. 23, add the parameter |language=Spanish

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• add a url parameter to http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157793 for ref no. 30 (optional)

The DOI field is already a link to the same free article (same for all PLOS One and other CC licensed articles). I don't think we need duplicate links in a single ref. FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• for ref no. 32, replace the current url with http://palaeo-electronica.org/1999_2/gigan/issue2_99.htm

They're already the same? FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• ref no. 33 has a free version at https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app46/app46-193.pdf

It is a free journal, that pdf is linked already if you go to the current url. FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, this passed? FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

dino crisis 2

Am I correct? Is the Giganto's size too exaggerated?Triple-Quadruple 14:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Massively. The game places it at 21 meters in length, 8 meters tall and probably 20 tons in weight. That's 7 meters longer, 3 meters taller and around 15 tons heavier than the largest Giganotosaurus yet discovered. In the game it's throwing the T-Rex around like a chew-toy, when in reality they were around the same size. In fact, T-Rex has been estimated to be lighter, even though it was shorter. SMegatron 09:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Dino Crisis 2, why is the DC2 section on Giganotosaurus continually being removed? --SMegatron 13:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Good question. While adding every little appearance may be pretty useless, it's just as or less useless than the other pop culture trivia listed.Dinoguy2 15:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We need to try to find some sort of settlement for such editorial 'ping-pong', please, so that the article can start to stabilise. - Ballista 16:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems my watchlist is full of Giganotosaurus, these days, with the DC2 text gone, back, gone, back etc. and now gone again. What's going on? - this is worse than watching Wimbledon. - Ballista 04:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think this needs a democratic Vote', to settle things once and for all. I expect to see all the above writers and reverters voting below.Cas Liber 06:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Dinocrisis 2 reference staying?

1. Cas Liber 06:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (I feel there won't be many for Giganotosaurus, so it is interesting when pop. cult. uses an unusual dino)
2. Ballista 08:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Here am I - I don't really like any of the 'popular culture' stuff but, if one's in, all should be in, if accurately reported.
3. SMegatron 12:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Agree with Ballista, as I feel that we shouldn't leave anything out if it is properly done.
4. Dinoguy2 16:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
5. (late vote, sorry)--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Object to dinocrisis 2

Right then, I guess that settles it? Cas Liber 03:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I reckon it does - now all we have to do is hope that it sticks! - Ballista 04:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If we could get the idiot who keeps reverting it to at least say why he's doing it on here that would be a great help. After all, a vote to kkep it isn't going to mean anything if he keeps rving it and we have to change it back (as I notice Spinosaur had to do again).--SMegatron 09:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cas left a message for user 142 on his/her talk page. Hopefully, that will end the dispute quickly.--Firsfron of Ronchester 10:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I know. I don't get it. I mean a Creation/Evolution debate I could understand but getting worked up over a Playstation game? If it happens again I recommend asking for a semi-protection.Cas Liber 10:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the Evolution/Creationism debate at all. Christianity and evolution are not mutually exclusive, and I just don't understand why people keep wanting to add "and they didn't evolve!" to Wikipedia articles, like that will somehow make them right. :/--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, if we could possibly do the same on the DC2 page itself, as I notice the same user deleting the Giganotosaurus bit there too. --SMegatron 10:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If the group decides a semi-protect isn't needed.--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

May be a plan, in view of the frequency of 'raids'. I also fail to understand the problems. Such extremism does nothing for religion and nothing for those who feel such things. Why can people not feel their way through the grey areas of life (which, in reality, is all there are), instead of trying to force everything into 'black & white'? Buckland & Steno, to name just two, appeared to be able to reconcile religious feeling with scientific enquiry. So do the folk in church of San Lorenzo in Florence, who have put up a plaque, recognising Steno's great scientific contributions. He was a great scientist and canonised. - Ballista 08:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Firsfron if you could stick a semi-protect on both pages that'd be great, as it means any registered user can still edit anyway. Cas Liber 09:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I cannot do so just yet, per sprotect policy. You've left a message for the user, and, as far as I can tell, this is the only time the user has been directly contacted about removing the text. Assuming good faith, s/he will not remove the text again. Semi-protection is only used as a last resort, and we haven't heard back yet from this user, who may not even be aware of WikiPolicy. Plus, you have asked this user to come here and vote on the talk page. Even though the text has been removed multiple times, the user has never actually been contacted about it. Let's give this user a chance and see what happens. --Firsfron of Ronchester 10:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, hopefully it'll subside. --(substitute some diagram for fingers crossed here) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casliber (talk • contribs) .

Fair enough. Perhaps I overreacted a bit: it's just that it's getting a little annoying reverting this constantly. I mean, all right the DC2 bit may be slightly irrelevant, but it's not for me to judge whether it should be removed. --SMegatron 19:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we move all of the Dino Crisis 2 and 3 Facts about this Dinosaur to this wikia about the games

Giganotosaurus also appears in the recent game Ark: Survival Evolved, and just like in Dino Crisis 2, it's size and power is completely exagerated, in fact it's as big as a Brontosaurus. Since Ark: Survival Evolved is a popular and a succesful videogame, I think it could be mentioned too. --Zevlag (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Restoration with size comparison

This image was briefly removed on grounds of it being inaccurate, I agree that the arguments given were not correct but I got curious and checked how well it matched with Scott Hartman's Giganotosaurus and did find some inaccuracies. The head is 10% too big proportionally and lacks the lacrimal crests. The neck starts over the 3rd dorsal and in a rather abrupt manner. The forearms are about 50% too long (though this is debatable since no actual arm of Giganotosaurus is known). The body shape seems accurate but if that's the case then the head of the left femur articulates at the middle of the ilium, completely missing the acetabulum. The way the tail exits the body requires the tail to be broken in the articulation of the sacrum and first caudal. The ischium is too short, does not project far back enough, ends about 1 vertebrate position too early. The pubis, judging by the protuberance behind the knee, seems to be rotated about 30 degrees forwards with respect to Hartman's skeletal (where the shaft of the pubis is nearly vertical), invading 3-4 vertebral positions of the torso. Those are all the anatomical mistakes I could find. Mike.BRZ (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, since we do have other restorations, it may not be worth it correcting that one. Any comments for the one by DB[8] and NT[9]? I have already slightly enlarged the head of the latter. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

On NT's, it has a little crest over the eyes, it shouldn't have, otherwise the skull seems fine, perhaps making it more obvious that the lacrimal crests are on the side of the skull? at first I thought it was a single midline crest. The arms are about 20% too big but the hand is alright, the arms are also rotated forwards 40 degrees too much, that requires disarticulating the humerus from the glenoid. There is a hump over the dorsals, it shouldn't. I'm not quite sure about the tail, I think it can articulate that way, at last the legs are about 25% too long.

As for DB's, the lacrimal crests are downplayed by a large, what I suspect is supposed to be the ridge on the dorsal side of the maxilla? or is it a single nasal ridge/crest? this reminds me more of Todd Marshall's Giganotosaurus rather than any museum reconstruction of the skull. The arms are also about 40 degree too forwards and seem to come out from below the chest rather than from the sides, the ischium seems to be forgotten and that's all, the pose is awkward but possible I guess. Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't the spike above the eye of DB's image appear to be a continuation of the dorsal frill? I might try to correct all the images at some point, since I'm planning to get the article promoted... FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed up the authors, the first critique is for Nobu Tamura's, the second is for DB's, I think Nobu Tamura's would be the easiest to correct, I made an attempt, it's missing an arm though. Link. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I think you can definitely upload that when you're done, both images are freely licensed, and both artists have given permission for modification in the past. None of them are active here anymore, so we can't ask them to modify the images themselves. NT's images are easy to modify because they are low res. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, then I'll upload it when I fix the missing arm, I'm not very good for this kind of thing haha.Mike.BRZ (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, should we remove, for now, the other artist impressions? Mike.BRZ (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Heh, I'd prefer just to fix them! Looks good, I'll do DB's tomorrow (unless you want to take a stab), but seems Durbed's could be a bit harder to change... Our most prolific paleoartists aren't active anymore, so if no replacement images are available, it's nice to just modify what we have... By the way, wasn't there some issue with the skull maybe having been reconstructed as too long? FunkMonk (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll do a much better job than me haha. The issue with the skull, of Tamura's? or DB's? if the latter I checked again and yes it seems to be a little too long, Tamura's all right though. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, DB's. So is it mainly the broken hind part of the skull that is reconstructed too long, or is it the broken part right in front of the lacrymal horn? Or both? FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I can try to hack away at Durbed's, see what I can do. IJReid ^discuss 23:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

In front of the lacrimal, the snout is a little too long.... though, now that I superimpose the skull on it, the shape of the fenestrae are wrong too but that doesn't matter that much if we are removing the shrink wrapping, I guess.Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Durbed's has been mostly corrected, but I don't understand how the femur misses the acetabulum, and where the tail/sacrum articulation would be messed up. IJReid ^discuss 23:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ignore that, I first thought the thigh was too short but I can't replicate it now, the legs where fine after all. Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I did a bunch of changes on the DB image, and found a few more issues than mentioned earlier:[10] I changed the placement of the nostril, made the "chin" more distinctive, and straightened the tail a bit. I don't think the shape of the fenestrae was a problem, since they aren't known from the actual fossils, but I've smoothed out the outlines so it isn't really visible anyway. I made the arms smaller, but I think the reason why they seemed to be coming out of the chest is due to the perspective, the chest simply overlaps the side of the arms a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Could someone point me to where arguments for a shorter skull reconstruction has been put forwards? Hartman's skeletal only seems to show the bones reported in 1995, but this photo[11] indicates more have been found since? Also, the dentary of the holotype seems to be placed in the background of the photo, so what is that dentary tip shown with the rest of the holotype skull? FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The Latest Disruptive Behaviour Trend

@FunkMonk: For multiple times now I have suggested you to discuss your ideas before making further changes, but yet again for the fourth time in a row you have replaced an accurate scientific statement with an opinion that doesn't reflect what the source suggests. Your behaviour is now bordering on vandalism despite all the goodwill I have shown by altering sentence forms and shortening them based on your request, over and over again, yet you are persistent on reflecting your personal opinions and trying to present them in a way as if those were suggested by the source itself.

Take this as a last warning, if you continue this behaviour I will have to resort for 3rd party intervention. This is the last thing I want, I don't like reporting other editors. There is a reason why there are talk pages for each article as well as user talk pages. I have made my case very clear but you chose to overlook the reasoning and persisted on putting dubious claims in the article.

I will explain it one last time, so that it stays here in the talk page for anybody who tries to challenge it in the future.

1) Speed: The quoted source does NOT suggest Giganotosaurus itself ran at the said speeds, instead the source provides a kinematic maximum for the morphological design; i.e. a speed where there would be no risk of falling. This means that this is the maximum possible speed the design itself can support, regardless it being biological or mechanical. What determines the actual speed is the animal's weight, its effect caused by gravity and muscle mass in the legs. The source does NOT provide an actual speed estimate for the animal itself. Therefore saying the source suggests a running speed of X for the animal that actually existed is scientifically inaccurate. The point of the source is not assigning Giganotosaurus a speed estimate, instead providing insight on large theropod design in general and how suitable their design is for high speeds. And the source concludes large theropods are not very suitable for high speeds. However you claim the source suggests Giganotosaurus was very fast for a theropod at 31 mph. This contradicts the very conclusion the given study has reached. Actual top speeds are always below kinematic maximums for any given biological entity or manmade design, since actual speeds are affected by a ton of factors other than limb proportions. An animal can have a kinematic maximum of 100 km/h but the actual top speed can be as low as 40 km/h due to low muscle mass and other factors. Persisting on presenting a kinematic maximum as an actual running speed value is misleading for the reader, therefore utmost caution is necessary when forming such sentences in a scientific article.

As for the length of the sentence in the intro, it is understandable, and I have reformed it twice already shortening it based on your request. However the sentence should not lose its meaning while getting a review. Your version means something completely different. Even the last proposed version was not satisfactory for you since you want the said speed to be presented as a running speed estimate instead of a kinematic maximum. If your concern was the accuracy of the article you wouldn't replace the final shortened accurate form with a sentence that is inaccurate and of the same length.

2) Sauropods as Prey: You are only referring to a single source in the article body, I would suggest you to review the article before charging someone with WP:original research. There is more than one source cited in the article that suggests sauropods as prey. I have already told you that not all sauropods are titanic like the Argentinosaurus, and adults of some species weigh as low as a few hundred kilograms. That single source you are referring to probably used the term juvenile taking Argentinosaurus as reference, since in the case of Giganotosaurus, this species in particular is almost always the species in question in amateur discussions. However sauropods are much more varied and adults of many species are a lot smaller than juveniles of Argentinosaurus. This is why by logic sauropods are all inclusive, Argentinosaurus is not. Thus saying "juvenile sauropods" would be inaccurate and misleading in an intro paragraph. Further discussion can take place in the body, differentiating large species from smaller ones.

In this argument I have only repeated what I have already told you, but hopefully publishing it in the article talk page will change your disruptive behaviour. Quite honestly this wasn't all that necessary, but you leave me with no other choice.

I will give you some time to elaborate on these ideas before restoring the article back to its accurate form. Regards. Berkserker (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Berkserker you are being ridiculous about this. 1. You are repeating material, which FunkMonk is reverting, for good reason. 2. You are making things overly complicated, which FunkMonk is reverting, for good reason. 3. You decided to blow this whole thing up. I have looked over the revisions being changed and reverted, and there is NO information that has been removed that is needed. IJReid ^discuss 00:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@IJReid: You are not addressing the discussion. There is no way a consensus can be reached just by reacting. Berkserker (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Berkserker About kinematics, delving into this concept is too advanced for the wikipedia, and thus reverting the changes doesn't effect the readability or correctness in a major way. If could be possible for a note to be added to that effect however, which would be a fine compromise IMO. With regards to the sauropods, you are being OR, with anything that doesn't get taken from the sources. Sources say "juvenile" sauropods, they probably have more a reason that just size to guess that. If we disagree and say that its sauropods under a certain size, we become OR and risk mis-interpreting the published information, and lacking information is better than knowing false information. IJReid ^discuss 04:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@IJReid: I think while reading my reply you missed the part where I said there were multiple sources in the body. Berkserker (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Since I pretty much wrote all of this article myself and nominated it for Featured Article, I'm not sure how I'm the one who's disrupting it. But let's go through this point by point.
• 1: The cited article is called "A new approach to evaluate the cursorial ability of the giant theropod Giganotosaurus carolinii", and the abstract says "This indicator was used to estimate the maximum speed of locomotion of Giganotosaurus (about 14 m s-1)". The conclusion says "estimation of maximum speed obtained for Giganotosaurus carolinii by means of the kinematic mode". If you don't understand this means the authors indicate this is supposed to represent the maximum speed of the animal itself, then you don't understand the paper. If you want to go into further detail about kinematics, do it in the appropriate section in the article body, not in the lead section, which should only be a brief summary of the article.
• 2: None of the sources mention this specific animal preying on adult sauropods. It's up to you to prove they do or find a source that does, since I have actually read all the cited source. Your own speculation about what the animal could have preyed on are irrelevant here, since they are not published, but simply WP:original research. Coria states giant theropods in general could have hunted giant sauropods if they hunted in packs, but he does not mention this genus specifically, so we cannot state that he does.
• So since you are not accurately reflecting the sources with your edits, I'll have to revert them, until you propose or accept a compromise. The one proposing big changes to an already reviewed article is the one who has to discuss them on the talk page first, not the other way around. As for your ranty threats, they don't exactly help your case or create a good foundation for cooperation, and I'm pretty sure a supposed third party would agree the article text should reflect the sources rather than your personal opinions. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: It is commendable that you have spent countless hours to contribute to this article and Wikipedia in general, and I appreciate the hard work and dedication that has helped the nomination process. However there are two problems in saying "Since I pretty much wrote all of this article myself and nominated it for Featured Article, I'm not sure how I'm the one who's disrupting it."

1) A lot of editors have had serious contributions and helped carry articles into the spotlight, but this is done for the good of Wikipedia so that its readers can access unbiased and accurate information and not for those editors to boast about their achievements. If you would like to be acknowledged, I would suggest you to become a researcher and use your real name to be acknowledged by the scientific community. However, here, all editors are equal, no matter what they do in real life or how much to a specific article they have contributed to. I am a researcher myself and I have serious contributions to Wikipedia on both my personal and faculty accounts for over 12 years, but I never for once advertised this anywhere on Wikipedia, because it is irrelevant. Instead I talk purely on the topic of interest that needs discussing, and I do not apply double standards to anybody whether they are academics or high school students. Even if the editor is just an IP address I give them the same credit. I would suggest you to do the same. Being low key is the key.

2) Unfortunately spending too much time over this article has created a sense of belonging in you that makes you think you have more right over it than other editors on Wikipedia. This chain reaction has sadly resulted in a god complex. You may have had serious contributions to this article but at the moment you are being over protective which is hurting the article more than anything else. If you hadn't been so hostile and commanding in the first place when I first contacted you, this argument wouldn't have gotten here to begin with. You are talking about compromises but I have reworded the same sentence three times as an act of goodwill while you insisted on the same version. This is yet another cause and effect for the god complex I have stated here. A dose of self criticism is always useful.

That being said, I am willing to draw a line over what has happened and give chance for a healthy conversation. Misunderstandings can occur, and both sides could have been more tolerant.

I am very busy this week, will reply to your article related comments when I have some time. I don't want to rush it. Regards. Berkserker (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright, but my points still stand, and they need to be addressed. It is not about "ownership" of the article, it is about representing the sources in the most accurate way, and not diverging from what they actually say. As pointed out above, the locomotion source specifically and repeatedly states the speed calculation is for the animal itself, and the only source that mentions specific prey of this animal (and allosauroids in general) mentions prey smaller than themselves, including juvenile sauropods. This of course does not exclude sauropods that were small at adult size, but that is irrelevant, since the source doesn't mention them. FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

All parties need to be clear on the difference between WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:STEWARDSHIP and not confuse one for the other. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 00:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The idea of Giganotosaurus being smaller/lighter than T. rex

It's based on Scott Hartman's estimation: http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/mass-estimates-north-vs-south-redux772013 , based on which I think the description should represent the possibility of Tyrannosaurus being larger. It doesn't matter that "it's just a blogpost", as it comes from Scott Hartman, an actual paleontologist, not from some random guy on the internet. Also, Spinosaurus was the longest, but possibly not the heaviest according to personal communications: https://images.discordapp.net/.eJwFwdENhSAMAMBdGIC-Vi3oNgQJmqAltH4Zd393r3tGc5s7zLpuAPupWcbu1WSkWnwVqa2kfqrPckEyS_m4ym0KRIE4MMclYsQfBgbiOdIUkQlnXBB5hfasw_e7uu8PnUUhWQ.jRfk0mVPyLRbMjvZUWlZ0QlkEhU https://images.discordapp.net/.eJwFwVEOgyAMANC7cAAqtRb0NgwImqAl0GUfy-6-977mPZo5zKna5wGQr5lkZDtVRqzFVpHaSuzXtEluiKoxnXd5dAKiR_bMYQsuuMV5BmQKuHqmfSXadloQ8kvl02x_qvn9AeSrImU.okrzuut2ClfW7u2rTcJD2JWx1Ik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz6vF0MyCnQ&feature=youtu.be&t=305 BLAZZE92 (talk) 21:56, 01 September 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter really about the personal communications, we can't use those as evidence here, in fact they aren't even recommended in published papers. We can note that Scott Hartman thinks Giga may be lighter, but it would be best not to use his specific estimates because they aren't published or reviewed in any way to confirm accuracy. IJReid ^discuss 22:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I will edit the article then, but maybe I will make grammatical errors, because I'm Hungarian, and not that good in English to always write without grammatical errors. If there are grammatical errors, fix them, but don't revert, please.BLAZZE92 (talk) 22:10, 01 September 2017 (UTC)

• Seems Blazze was banned as a sockpuppet of someone. Anyhow, all this "size-queening" is extremely annoying, and of little importance in itself. No one knows which dinosaur is bigger, as Giganotosaurus is incompletely known. Peer-reviewed papers trump blog posts, but of course Hartman's estimates can be mentioned, as they already are in the history section. No need to add all sorts of grammatical errors and pointless changes to wording if you simply want to add numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I decide to check what's going on in Wikpedia after a while and I happen to stumble into someone using my deviantart name as their own, sigh. On topic, yes, totally agree, all the bickering about the size is annoying, though, even removing the changes of the impersonator, it seems to me that the article already says too much about the size, being the main topic of 8 out of 25 paragraphs, most of the information being the same each time.Mike.BRZ (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I noticed, the user had also previously used the identity of SpinoInWonderland, and has been reported for this. IJReid ^discuss 03:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems he is back as an IP. As for a large part of this article consisting of size discussion, that is simply because half of what has ever been written about this dinosaur is about size. Some elements you can see in our photos have never even been described in the literature. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Time range

In 2013, in the article ''Neovenatorid theropods are apex predators in the Late Cretaceous of North America, Giganotosaurus' time frame is stated as being 97-93 million years ago. (19) Zanno, and Makovicky, Peter J. Neovenatorid theropods are apex predators in the Late Cretaceous of North America. Nature. (2013).. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.59.91 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Unlike the introduction of the article, which shows the correct time range (99.6-97 MYA) based on https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/dinoappendix/HoltzappendixWinter2011.pdf (at page 8) the taxobox have an incorrect time range of 98-96 MYA (

), which is not based on anything. I corrected it several times, and I told it based on what I did it, but FunkMonk and Lythronaxargestes keep reverting it just because I made mistakes earlier. All of the edits I've made were made to improve the articles, and maybe I made mistakes at times, but that means others should revert even useful edits like changing a time range based on nothing to a time range based on something just because I made some mistakes earlier? Gigafan0731 (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't say who is correct here, but I will agree the edits shouldn't be reverted without explanation. With the Austroraptor situation it makes sense since you've been told multiple times why your edits are being reverted, but here no evidence was provided your claim was incorrect. Lusotitan 19:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that when his behaviour is generally disruptive, it is very hard to give him the benefit of the doubt, even if what he adds is correct. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

New reconstruction

Guys, have you seen the new reconstruction made by Scott Hartman? he argues that the old reconstruction of the skull was wrong making it too long, he's new reconstruction has a skull length of ~1.6m for the holotype instead of 1.8m, I know is not properly published so my intent with this post is just informative and not to suggest the article to be changed. Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not? We have Carrano′s work: www.researchgate.net/publication/.../d912f504a5960e5645.pdf.

Better still, the holotypes description paper never gave a 1,8m figure, the originally reported skull lenght was 1,53m, sometimes rounded to 1,6m. the scalebars are wrong, so don't bother measuring. This article gives a far too one sided view on the size estimation, especially the skull.--Ornitholestes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Eh, this sort of fits here, I guess. So, about that Giganotosaurus taxobox image. While, yes, foreshortening does give somewhat of an illusion that the skull on the Helsinki Giganotosaurus isn't too long, if you look at it for a while, the true inaccurate nature of the Giganotosaurus' skull is apparent. Even with the foreshortening, the skull is never going to look nearly as short as Hartman's reconstruction. And, in some respects, the Helsinki Giganotosaurus is actually more inaccurate than the mount at Fernbank, due to the Helsinki mount possessing pronated hands, which can be seen in the current taxobox image. But really, no matter what photo we use, it's always going to be inaccurate. We can't really solve the skull issue at all with any skeleton mounts right now unless we sacrifice a large amount of detail about the rest of Giganotosaurus' body in the taxobox. So I don't especially see why a photo of the Fernbank mount is inferior to a foreshortened photo of the Helsinki mount. Morosaurus shinyae (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The hands aren't very conspicuous in the Helsinki photo, though. Let's maybe see if some more people want to chime in. To repeat what I said in the edit summary, I think the Helsinki image is good because it foreshortens the skull, which might look too long in profile view. In any case, the Fernbank photo could certainly replace the one from Sydney, which is very low res. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

New skull estimate for MUCPv-95

Hi! There's a new skull estimate (1.64 m) for MUCPv-95 I wanted to add. I made a photo of it: https://m.imgur.com/gallery/QPDNCo7 It's from the EoFauna theropod book from Asier Larramendi and Rubén Molina-Pérez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurophaganax (talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Didn't notice this section somehow. As that estimate is within the range already stated in the article, it would probably be redundant to add. FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2021

Chiniquodon sanjuanensis (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC) It's says in the paleoecology section that Alnashetri was an alvarezsaurid when it was actually an alvarezsauroid.

The cladogram in the Alnashetri article says id. FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021

In the Paleoecology section,its says that Alnashetri was an alvarezsaurid, when it was more primitive than alvarezsaurids.
142.112.175.63 (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021 (2)

The article says that Alnashetri was an alvarezsaurid when it was more primitive than alvarezsaurids. Chiniquodon sanjuanensis (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 18:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

alternative pronunciation

it says in the article that the name is only pronounced "JYE-ga-NO-toe-SORE-us", but i've heard people pronounce it as "JIG-a-NO-toe-SORE-us" before. if you want proof, look at the "Ask Dinosaur George" videos on youtube. i cant remember exactly which video has him pronouncing it, but theres more than one, so perseverance will shine through there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.73.177 (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people also tend to pronounce it as “GIG-a-NOT-o-SORE-us”, including myself. The characters in the film Jurassic World: Dominion say it like that.

Personally, I think that’s the correct way to say it because it rolls off the tongue a lot easier than if you say it Jiga-noetosaurus Tobyv23 (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Giganotosaurus size

FunkMonk, I don't think the 2007 study with a 13.8 t estimate is reliable in any sense. This study estimated body length based on skull length, and it argues that Carcharodontosaurus is much larger than Giganotosaurus, reaching 13.28 m and 15.1 t (which this featured article kind of miswrote it as 13.5 m, so I correctly edited it), but this is the only study where Carcharodontosaurus exceeds 13 m in length; every study before and after reaches the similar conclusion of 12 m and 6 t or a bit more (even Henderson himself). And we know the skull of Carcharodontosaurus is very likely smaller than or about the same size as that of Giganotosaurus (although the 2007 study suggests it to be 4 cm longer), so how was that estimate even possible? Yes I known at least Carcharodontosaurus had a consensus and Giganotosaurus did not, but still I find it quite reasonable that this estimate isn't trustworthy at all, given how many researches after this study argues that the holotype mass is within the range of 6~7 t. Yes I know modern ≠ accurate/precise, but even when different approaches (i.e. Campione & Evans (2014), Bensen et al. (2014 and 2018) and Hartman (2013)) reach similar conclusions, I think it's better that the size range should be changed at least (or have a mention of disagreement at the top). And yes, the article does say that some researchers argue it's exaggerated, but people usually look at the top of the page and assume the estimate is correct (I've seen so many instances like that, when people still asks questions about whether Giganotosaurus reached 14 t). Also the reason why I didn't use the talk page is that when I used it before in a different article, no one ever read it. Junsik1223 (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The intro should not go into needless detail about this, but be concise and just give a range, as it is already stated in the article body that there are disagreements, which is where such issues are supposed to be elaborated. What is the other article you said you didn't get a reply on? You got plenty of responses here[12], so I see no reason why not to continue that way instead of causing potential edit wars over and over. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Well thanks for the reply FunkMonk, and yeah sorry for causing edit wars. However, I just want you to review the recent edit I made in this article, which I think it's worthy of a mention given that this study uses the skull length and body length ratio proposed by that 2007 study. Junsik1223 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the new paragraph you added was good, though it needs some modifications (contractions are discouraged), which I will make. But you should read the articles you edit more carefully, note that the sentence you added to the intro earlier was just repetition of something already stated: "although some researchers consider the larger size estimates exaggerated. The dentary bone that belonged to a supposedly larger individual has been used to extrapolate a length of 13.2 m (43 ft). Some researchers have found the animal to be larger than Tyrannosaurus, which has historically been considered the largest theropod, while others have found them to be roughly equal in size and the largest size estimates for Giganotosaurus exaggerated." FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Same here. As FunkMonk and Hemiauchenia have stated, if you keep making haphazard edits, then you might have to be brought up to WP:ANI Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 14:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Junsik1223, if you don't soon learn to use the talk page and edit cooperatively, you will have to be reported for disruption. I'm not the only editor who has problem with your haphazard and uncooperative edit style. FunkMonk (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Your incessant edit-first, as questions later approach is causing serious disruption. If you can't moderate your approach we might have to escalate this to administrators. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

But I thought this was pretty good, or is it not? If then, please explain. I explained it objectively why some writers consider this study exaggerated, and I wrote what other writers alternatively suggested. What’s wrong about that? Is it my writing style? Even if my writing is bad, I thought there was no need to erase the size debate section, but if that doesn’t suit the featured article criteria, I’ll just never interfere with this article if that’s what you want. Also I’m recently having some family crisis so you don’t have to worry about me since I’m not gonna be in Wikipedia often from now on. Junsik1223 (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Also the “pectoral girdle proportionally small” should really change to “pectoral girdle was proportionally small”. That’s just grammar. Junsik1223 (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know why it is so hard to understand, what I've suggested multiple times is that you suggest the changes you think should be made to the talk page so it can be evaluated. Your suggestions are not necessarily bad, but they are often badly implemented (grammar, formatting, a flurry of messy edits instead of one, etc.), therefore they need supervision, especially when done to featured articles, which should have the highest level of writing and formatting. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Time period

Giganotosaurus carolinii is dated ranging from "Age range of interval:99.60000 - 89.80000 m.y. ago" https://paleobiodb.org/classic/displayCollResults?a=basicCollectionSearch&collection_no=67296 and "Age range of interval:99.60000 - 93.50000 m.y. ago" https://paleobiodb.org/classic/displayCollResults?a=basicCollectionSearch&collection_no=51944 2601:280:4E80:3550:2842:A510:9D12:B683 (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The book cited as evidence of the 'JY-gah-NOH-toh-SORE-us' pronunciation actually proposes the pronunciation 'GIG-'. Is this sufficient to edit the IPA pronunciation section to 'GIG-'? EtheyB (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to change it accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Can someone correct the pronunciation for Giganotosaurus? I would do it but only people with Wikipedia accounts can edit this page. I will add that mispronouncing Giganotosaurus is quite widespread and it would be good if Wikipedia didn't encourage it. Everything Dinosaur actually made a video where they touched on the correct pronunciation of Giganotosaurus with input from the SVP, at 3:32 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gw79A7Fqr4 2A02:C7C:649E:3600:A8FC:2BE4:D0F9:C010 (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Asking again in case it was missed due to my correction yesterday. Can someone please correct the pronunciation of Giganotosaurus please? 2.223.234.63 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This has now been corrected as per my initial comment. EtheyB (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)