Was Giganotosaurus the Largest Carnivore EVER? (Paleo Myths #1)

There are many myths in paleontology that have become embedded in the mainstream. Some are actually true. Others are dead wrong. First up, was Giganotosaurus the largest land predator ever? #dinosaurs #paleontology
JFC Rant: • Jurassic Fight Club RA...
Planet Dinosaur Review: • Planet Dinosaur (2011)...
PK Operation Genesis: • Prehistoric Kingdom: O...
Facebook: / redraptorwrites
Patreon: www.patreon.co...
Instagram: / redraptorwrites
Twitter: Re...
Sources
2007 estimates: www.researchga...
GDI: svpow.com/2011...
Giganotosaurus Description: ui.adsabs.harv...
Hartman Estimates: www.skeletaldr...
Longest animal: www.scienceale...
Scotty Description: anatomypubs.on...

[@Lycan3303]

the worst myth still has to be that T rex was just a scavenger ... it still physically, emotional and mentally kills me

[@januszpolak254]

Still better than "T-rex have wings" because some people really don't get that those arms are not useless at all and that 10 ton animal simply can't fly.

[@BerryDeLajt]

Jack Horner moment lol

[@eduardocastelan9225]

They should go to the hospítal if they believe in this bulshit

[@petarmilich8684]

@@BerryDeLajt the Onision of paleontology.

[@mikerude5073]

That was always a strange one for me. Fun fact, most large carnivores have a preference to scavenge. It's a much safer way of getting a meal. Even large vultures will occasionally kill animals. When there doesn't happen to be something already dead, they will make something dead. Nature doesn't have as clearly defined categories as we try cramming things into. We also have fossil evidence of failed attempts of predation from T.Rex, such as portions of bone on other dinosaurs from a rex bite that were healed over. We know they definitely partook in hunting. Now, again, that doesn't mean T.Rex didn't partake in scavenging too. I personally think T.Rex loved nothing more than coming across a rotting carcass. It could consume it including many bones by just crushing right though them, and break right through the dead ribcage with its nutcracker like bite. The digestive system had to be on another level in an animal that large. It was like a walking flesh eating dump truck. He wouldn't let a few maggots keep him from those precious calories. T.Rex also probably took kills from other animals. What it lacked in stealth it more than made up for with brute power. The king collected his taxes. So yeah, I think T.Rex definitely partook in scavenging too. From what I understand Horner's main idea was the "small arms", mean T.Rex couldn't hunt, yet most therapods had relatively small arms too. The carcharodontosaurs like Giganotosaurus had much shorter forward reach than their mouths also. Heck, they also had such short arms they couldn't even reach their mouths. Everything was prioritized for the bite. They used that bite to kill, and of course eat things already dead.

[@markcobuzzi826]

The Giganotosaurus in Ark: Survival Evolved is another notorious example of this trope’s influence on pop-culture.

[@lebruv915]

It's still cool to see it atleast have a chance againt the rex bit you are still right

[@colk5373]

That motherfucker was a goddamn kaiju

[@jurassicarkjordanisgreat1778]

Yeah they made mosa super big too and even bigger then meg. I get they wanted to have there own indom but still

[@peabrain6872]

They did that on purpose because rex “biggest strongest” is soooo boring

[@januszpolak254]

@@jurassicarkjordanisgreat1778 funnily enough Meg and Titanoboa are both heavly undersized.

[@julianodobler2782]

Troodon's whole mess should be a video as well, great work as usual

[@RandomEvoTimes]

Hey wait a minute… I remember you

[@therealnuggetball]

It is kinda sad that Troodon isn't real

[@landenriley8442]

​@@therealnuggetballI still believe it's real

[@Godzillamandude.]

@@landenriley8442no

[@SaurianStudios1207]

This whole idea that certain theropod dinosaurs like the Spinosaurus and Giganotosaurus were “bigger and badder” than the Tyrannosaurus rex started to gain more and more traction in the 2000s and 2010s, especially after JP3’s infamous T. rex vs Spinosaurus scene and documentaries of the time that depicted these animals in a new light. While it’s fun to compare the Spino or Giga to the T. Rex, as it further changed how we viewed theropod dinosaur sizes, it shouldn’t be done for the sake of coolness, as it’ll spread misconceptions based on pop culture or information that could change with new research. These ideas about the Giga or Spino being the biggest and scariest theropod dinosaur were based on incomplete fossil findings of the time and ideas that have since been debunked.

[@emmanuel1337]

The biggest driving force of these ideas was the fact that T. rex was made into an oversaturated character of everything dinosaur-related, so presenting an unknown alternative that was supposedly bigger and more powerful was a guaranteed success. It's a pity that so many people see dinosaurs not as animals that lived a long time ago, but idealized beasts that they can "powerscale" and put against each other in imaginary battles, while also ignoring scientific discoveries to make their favorite ones bigger, heavier and more powerful than they probably were. The amount of misinformation that this mentality creates is crazy...

[@rodrigopinto6676]

@@emmanuel1337 in real life the Tyrannosaurus rex is the largest and probably the strongest terrestrial predator to ever walk on earth

[@emmanuel1337]

@@rodrigopinto6676 True, but try telling that to a 15-year-old fanboy of dinosaurs who gets his information from terrible documentaries and blogs that are written by other ill-informed people that haven't read a single respectable scientific study on the subject lol.

[@peabrain6872]

@@rodrigopinto6676 fattest*

[@jesusmejia79]

@@emmanuel1337 by 2000s you mean the decade

[@januszpolak254]

We really need mythbuster about Megalodon living today. Nothing boils my blood more than people saying it exist cuz wE oNlY eXpLoReD 5% oF oCeAn

[@krankarvolund7771]

"We only explored 5% of the ocean" is a myth in itself. Like, our fishing boats have devastated pretty much all of the oceans, don't worry, no big animals have escaped us XD And even if we really explored only 5% of the oceans, that's like the 5% where it lived. It was a coastal predator that fed on whales, coastal ocean is the most well-known part of the ocean, and between whaling and watching whales because we almost drive them to extinction, we would have seen their predators, especially a gigantic shark XD

[@juniperrodley9843]

The youtuber AVNJ might have some very nice videos for you

[@ryanhau1073]

That can lead to a much deeper philosophical discussion on Proving a Positive vs Proving a Negative

[@krankarvolund7771]

@@ryanhau1073 That's the thing, the positive claim here is "Megalodon still exist". And there's no proof of it, so that claim is not true.

[@juniperrodley9843]

@@ryanhau1073 The general consensus on this philosophical debate is that, unless something is falsifiable, it's not scientific.

[@azhdarchidae66]

this is not a secret but everyone refuses to know it. good to see someone not only say "facts, it wasnt" but explain how this was found out.

[@yissibiiyte]

I mean Alan Grand did call it the "biggest carnivore the world's ever seen". Apparently JP3 was so terrible he refuses to remember the spino that repeatedly tried to kill him

[@kennethsatria6607]

In my defense of not noticing that, I was falling asleep in Dominion

[@SharyK-_0]

Jp3 wasn't terrible, just rexy fans were butthurt

[@godzillakingofthemonsters5812]

To be fair Giga is much larger than Spino in the Jurassic universe. Spino's 16 feet tall, Giga's 18-22 depending on the source, with a 50+ foot body length making it as large as the predicted size for the Indominus Rex when mature.

[@GoGojiraGo]

@@SharyK-_0 It's so cute how you people insist on trying to keep this dumbass rivalry going.

[@yissibiiyte]

@@godzillakingofthemonsters5812 not true. The spino is larger than the giga even in JP3. By Camp Cretaceous it had grown even larger.

[@sslocke]

To be fair the constant comparisons to Trex are because everyone has an idea how big they were so it's a good measuring stick when talking about other large theropods.

[@iratezombiemann]

The problem with that is, every new (fragmentary) discovery just *has* to be described as *bigger* than T rex. If people were more honest and... idk... scientific? - then using Tyrannosaurus as a measuring stick wouldn't be so bad.

[@xzx_lag2974]

@@iratezombiemann Well it's because t-rex is most likely the most popular dinosaur on the planet, so documentaries want that tension going, for example in planet dinosaur in episode 1, they said that spinosaurus was 11 ton and 17 meters, calling it 4 meters longer than t-rex. This could probably make people feel more antagiolised to watch more of the documentary to see bigger predators than the mighty t-rex. Even tho species smaller than t-rex like tarbosaurus, daspletosaurus are just as interesting in their own right.

[@stefanmoorejr]

In conclusion -Spino is king in height and length -Giga and t rex are about the same height with giga being slightly longer -T. Rex is the king when it comes to mass -All are fascinating animals and formidable predators that shouldn't be constantly compared to one another.

[@montymush4863]

Theropod height should only be taken from the hips, because Theropods don't stand upright, unlike, for example, us, with our bodies attached directly above the hips we stand on. Spinosaurus only STANDS about 2.3m tall, quite a lot shorter than Tyrannosaurus (3.9m).

[@najimitheclericmain]

Hello im from the future to tell you new study says the giga is abt the same in mass to the rex

[@montymush4863]

@@najimitheclericmain I've seen the new study and I'd take it with a very large pinch of salt. While, just as recent of a study indicates the MUCPv-95 specimen of G. carolinii may have been larger than most of the T. rex specimens, but is still more than a tonne lighter than Sue or Scotty.

[@Killerg238]

@wholol2297 here's a comparison of top 20 largest theropods August 2023 1. Giganotosaurus- 10.5 tonnes 🥇🏆 2. Tyrannosaurus rex- 10.45 tonnes 🥈 3. Deinocheirus- 8.41 tonnes 🥉 4. Mapusaurus-8.20 tonnes 🏅 5. Spinosaurus- 7.84 tonnes 🎖 6. Sauroniops- 7.71 tonnes 7. Carcharodontosaurus- 7.49 tonnes 8. Tyrannotitan- 7.47 tonnes 9. Bahariasaurus- 7.14 tonnes 10. Saurophaganax- 6.74 tonnes 11. French Giant Megalosaur- 6.3 tonnes 12. Zhuchengtyrannus- 5.80 tonnes 13. Megalosauridae indet- 5.75 tonnes 14. Meraxes Gigas- 5.70 tonnes 15. Acrocanthosaurus- 5.70 tonnes 16. Torvosaurus- 5.51 tonnes 17. Therizinosaurus- 5.50 tonnes 18. Suchomimus- 5.40 tonnes 19. Tarbosaurus- 5.39 tonnes 20. Chilantaisaurus- 4.80 tonnes

[@ragingtomato04]

​@@montymush4863what new study? Meanwhile 2 trex specimens (bertha and copium) will battle it out in later part of the year for the biggest trex ever. Both claiming to have 12 ton trex 😂. Way way above to the largest giga specimen.

[@WildWorld81]

Time-traveling blue whale: *flops into the Early Cretaceous of North America* Acrocanthosaurus and Deinonychus: “Meat’s back on the menu boys!”

[@pratikgaikwad7472]

Until it explodes.

[@nopls576_4]

The Alan Grant part where he says "Biggest carnivore the world has ever seen" made me think. WHALES

[@simenbrunvatne4416]

Thats a filter feeder tho

[@nopls576_4]

@@simenbrunvatne4416 Yeah but what is krill made out of, meat. But if you don't think it counts then, Sperm whales their the largest toothed whales and they dwarf all theropods.

[@sskuk1095]

What I take away from the video: We need a theropod named Gigachadosaurus!

[@jeffreygao3956]

But what if it's used for a herbivorous theropod?

[@rickyrackey7930]

And it’s releative. Soyjackovenator

[@maksymilian5578]

An estimation from this year (I think?) put Scotty's weight at 11t, from what I know the Giganotosaurus specimens have been upscaled to about 9t. Making both even bigger than we previously thought, It is quite interesting to see the weight difference in similarily sized animals due to the adaptations and ecological roles they have evolved to!

[@maksymilian5578]

@user-vn5dg2mf3r I appreciate the correction, friend. Albeit you did contradict yourself by saying T. rex could not weigh 10t or more, and then you say Scotty weighed 10.5t. I remember there was an estimate for T. rex of a total mass of 10.6t, quite close to the one you give.

[@rodrigopinto6676]

@AL kzbin.info/www/bejne/j6rSYn95g9mcnsk it’s simply HUGE tank compared to…

[@rodrigopinto6676]

@AL kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKqYZYymhb52osk giga(narrower flattened and slender body)

[@rodrigopinto6676]

@AL yes 11 tons for tyrannosaurus it is most likely not “exaggerated”

[@rodrigopinto6676]

@AL “excessive” is your opinion

[@relicthominoid]

T. rex is at a very bizarre level of fame and popularity where an extinct animal effectively has worldwide celebrity status on par or greater than actual celebrities, gossip and pointless drama included. At least this childhood hero has withstood controversies and theories much better than many others lol.

[@伊斯塔與艾蕾修卡都是]

Some of the Palaeo Myths I would like to see : 1.Spinosaurus’ lifestyle. 2.Nanotyrannus debate 3.Up to date knowledge and debate of T.rex

[@pratikgaikwad7472]

1)Good luck with spinosaurus. Last time I checked, it was ready to show the middle finger to science and be an underground mafia. 2) Nanotyrannus myth is a good one, but it has already been covered on the channel on the jurassic fight club episode. So nothing new can be said there. 3) T rex hasn't changed alot, but its a fine idea.

[@伊斯塔與艾蕾修卡都是]

@@pratikgaikwad7472 Yeah, for the Spinosaurus, I would like to know if it could actively dive underwater to catch its prey,or it is more like a giant wading birds and was better at paddling than diving. Another myth that I came up with recently,is the classification of Troodon and Stenonychosaurus,as well as “Could Dromaeosaurid hunt in pack ? How would they use their sickle claw ?”

[@pratikgaikwad7472]

@@伊斯塔與艾蕾修卡都是 As of the spinosaurus thing goes, it can't dive and hunt for being to slow. Recent studies say that it can't dive. So they caught prey like a stork. As of the sickle claw goes, that is a fine one as well.

[@danielway886]

It'll be interesting to see pterosaur myths get debunked like azdarchids being too big to fly or all pterosaurs being clumsy on land among others.

[@kennethsatria6607]

Tyrannosaurus is so tragically seen as overrated and in need of humbling or hero worship by media as a movie monster, instead of being seen as an actual animal that is simply a pretty formidable predator who had to face equally large and well defended prey, its nature and form is what its lived to do, it baffles me that people can single it out and call it a toxic masculine figure for some strange reason. Or that in the opposite spectrum the realistic animalistic depictions like in Prehistoric planet was said to be the modernized SJW version. Which despite lacking in the harshness of nature the documentary makes a point that its also not the only way things go especially for the famous rex. People basically look down on it cause they take its existence as one of the oldest and most researched dinosaurs for granted. It really grinds my gears but you can't really do anything about it cause they're already that famous.

[@rodrigopinto6676]

The T. rex is the largest and probably the strongest terrestrial predator to ever walk on earth

[@minutemansam1214]

@@rodrigopinto6676 We don't know this, and saying this stuff is what children do.

[@wildworld6264]

Great topic for a video. Thanks for all your research. Great work!

[@Purboll]

This man is the true paleontologist. I learn so much from you.

[@redraptorwrites6778]

Thank you so much! Unfortunately, I'm not a real paleontologist. I'm just a fan

[@Purboll]

@@redraptorwrites6778 same here man. But you're a true fan

[@aagsmd]

@@redraptorwrites6778 CAP you are a palentologist who does youtube videos

[@rockmuncher_98]

@@aagsmd no, he isn’t… palaeontology is a job, which he doesn’t work in

[@thatpaleodude3769]

Man I love your videos! I used to always think that the mainstream audience was right, but then when I saw your channel my thoughts really did turn around. Keep up the amazing work man! Also was wondering if you would be able to review T- Rex Ultimate Survivor in the future :)

[@40KTheories]

I remember the Giganotosaurus in Dino Crisis 2. Good times. xD

[@kuitaranheatmorus9932]

this video was really good and for the start of this new series is really fricking good :)

[@SaurZilla1984]

I honestly think one of the main reason why people still believe Giga was larger than T.rex is because people are so desperate to find something that is "bigger and badder than T.rex" that they become blind and deaf to actual facts made by actual experts instead of movie writers

[@markcobuzzi826]

Back then, I had a similar reason for finding that myth to be appealing and almost logical at first glance, until I looked up more accurate media and learned otherwise. If you would like me to elaborate more below… As a fan of T. rex, I did not mind the possibility of there being slightly larger carnivorous dinosaurs. In part, that was because T. rex would still be famous for its stocky robust build, keen senses, natural rivalries with armored prey, and powerful bite if that myth was true. Also, popular media often portrays T. rex going after smaller-but-more-heavily-armed herbivores like Triceratops and Ankylosaurus, while Giganotosaurus has the reputation of more often attacking sauropods, which were less armored but much larger those other herbivores. Therefore, the myth at first glance seemed to make perfect sense, when T-Rex would be portrayed as notably smaller but a greater powerhouse for its size, while Giganotosaurus would be portrayed more as a creature that simply relies on being bigger overall. In that sense, the myth’s implications allowed me to imagine T-Rex as something that did not necessarily need to be the biggest, to still give other large carnivores a run for their money. But now that am more up to speed on the facts, I see that there is currently more evidence of T. rex having the greater maximum body size, on top of everything else. So the T. rex seems “OP” and no longer “balanced”. That is, admittedly, if I were to treat dinosaurs as a roster of AwesomeBro fighting game characters, rather than natural animals that are appealing for what they uniquely are.

[@Protest467]

Because most people think dinosaurs sizes are measured by length & height. That's why

[@SaurZilla1984]

@@Protest467 Yeah that too

[@Scarlet_goose]

Sauropods, triceratops, Ankylosaurs and shantungasaurus are bigger and badder

[@colinlo189]

@@SaurZilla1984 wait so t-Rex is the biggest?

[@Anthony-co4wz]

You should do a myth video on Theropod dinosaurs hunting in packs. Whether if they did or if there isn't any/enough valid evidence to prove it.

[@wolfman2.055]

The truth is that some theropods were likely more social than others, like how lions are social while leopards are solitary.

[@markcobuzzi826]

@@wolfman2.055 Adding to what you said, both lions and leopards fall within the Panthera genus. If different species within the same genus can show such variation in social lifestyle, I find it highly likely that there was at least some variation across the many different genera of non-avian theropods.

[@krankarvolund7771]

@@wolfman2.055 Maybe. But we don't have any evidence of any pack behaviour in non-avian theropods ^^' The most classic example of a pack would of course be raptors, but a study one or two years ago proved by studying isotopes in teeth that adults and youngs had a different diet, which destroy one of the main advantage of hunting in packs. You don't hunt in packs of only adults and don't care for the young ^^' As for all the other Theropodes, apart from skeletons being found together (that can be the result of dozens other phenomenes, notably a flood displacing the corpses and burrying them), I think there's a set of two tracks going in the same direction of large theropod predators. Of course even if they were walking alongside each other, and not one tracking the other to attack him, that's a couple not a pack. If we look at modern animals, the only predator theropods that hunt in pack are the Harris's hawks, so it's possible but very unlikely, most predatorial theropods are lonely or couple hunters. One alternative would be a compromise between a solitary and a pack hunters like what would Komodo dragons will do, when one will hunt a prey, and other dragons in the surroundings will come and eat, with a hierarchy where the biggest always eat first. But it's hard to tell, so the basic behaviour, without any evidence, is that they were solitary hunters.

[@wolfman2.055]

@@krankarvolund7771 actually there are some other birds that sometimes hunt in pairs or groups , secretary birds sometimes hunt in duos .

[@krankarvolund7771]

@@wolfman2.055 Yeah, I said that multiple birds of prey or other predatory birds hunt in pairs. A pair isn't a pack, it's a couple ^^

[@Commander_Appo]

That dinosaur train clip threw me back in time like 15 years

[@thered_hood]

I loved the vid. For ur next episode can u do “Was the spinosaurus a shoreline feeder or a swimmer.”

[@mikerude5073]

Yes, and we'd also need a definition of the word "swim", because most animals can already paddle at the surface. Spinosaurus might have been more efficient at the surface than a typical theropod, but still not capable of diving significantly under the surface. So to say a swimmer or not, or auquatic vs semi-aquatic, or non-aquatic, we need those terms defined like how he did with volume and mass meaning total size much more so than height or length.

[@Tarbtano]

"I'll be referring to the Sue specimens and the Scotty specimen" The video was no doubt a product of a lot of time and work, but here is where I do feel the need to bring something up. Sue and Scotty are very much *not* indicative of an average Tyrannosaurus rex and shouldn't really be used for gauging size alone because of that. Certain animals can wind up having larger maximum sizes whilst the average size is smaller than others. A good example is how polar bears pretty much always outsize brown bears, but once in a blue moon a kodiak brown bear can rival or exceed most polars in size. Both of those T.rex specimens almost certainly exceeded 8,500-9000 kilograms, and in both length and mass are far larger than almost any other Tyrannosaurus. If you plotted all of the adult T.rex onto a bell curve, those two would be at the absolute extreme upper end of the species. In most birds and crocodilians, the bell curve of a population demographic for size tends to be consistent. Over 90% of the population will fall within 45% above and 45% below the average, with about 70% being 30% above and 30% below the average. Extremely small and extremely large individuals are equally very rare. Tyrannosaurus rex is one of very few fossil taxa that have enough adult specimens who have been well studied to create a bell curve of the population like this. And of the over 2 dozen good, reasonably complete adult specimens, the average for the species winds up being somewhere between RTMP 81.6.1 ("Black Beauty") and CM 9380 (the holotype). Both of which are much, much smaller than Sue and Scotty, despite the holotype being of comparable age. This puts the average Tyrannosaurus rex between 6,500-7,200 kilograms, up to almost a full 2000 kilograms smaller than Sue and Scotty. Giganotosaurus only has a single good specimen to its name, something brought up in the end, making charting its demographics extremely difficult. There is a high probability (~70%) that the specimen is roughly in the ballpark average for the genus, but it is potentially possible the holotype Giga is above average for its type (and an equal chance it is below average). So nailing down for sure which of the two was bigger typically is not quite as ironclad as a lot make them out to be. Going on just averages for T.rex and assuming averages for Giga (which is a good probability, but not a certainty), Giganotosaurus does have a valid claim to potentially being larger. This also factors in professionally made skeletal reconstructions have gotten better and better for Carcharodontosaurs, as prior estimates relied on getting data from reconstructions and models that were found to be way too skinny. I think a better metric for size gauging woulda been to use Scotty for the largest known T.rex, and then using the holotype T.rex to represent the norm for the species. That way, the comparison between them and the "largest" Giganotosaurus specimen in the paratype jaw and its own holotype would be more direct. It wouldn't change the final conclusion much, which I don't contest at all really, but it would shed some more light on what is known and what is unknown at the time. We have a good gauge for T.rex's size range, and a very iffy one for Giganotosaurus. Giganotosaurus' holotype is larger than the current average for Tyrannosaurus, but smaller than the absolute biggest. Does this mean we got an average Giganoto, an above average one, or below average one? Impossible to tell at the moment. But it does illustrate the claim of it being bigger isn't entirely unfounded and the two are likely roughly on par with each other for mass in most cases.

[@E_E-001]

I was going to say something similar, Sue and Scotty are 2 massive Rex specimens, which shouldn’t be counted as average. Currently, Dan Folkes put Giga at 8.8-9.6 tonnes, so on average they were the same size, if not the Giga was bigger. But, T. rex could get bigger than Giga.

[@Tarbtano]

@Ahmad faizan Out of the several dozen Tyrannosaurus found, only a tiny handful had a shot at breaking 9 tons. Wildlife demographics can be done on what's called a sample size. ~30 is about the size needed to get a good estimate, though more the better. We have that number for T.rex so gauging what it's average size was is tenable, and it certainly is smaller than Sue and Scotty. Saying those two are average is like saying Shaq is an average man. My point is also not that other T.rex couldn't get as big, perhaps even bigger, than Scotty and Sue; nor that those two represent the absolute max size for the species. Only that they were above average and not indicative of your typical T.rex, just like a 6.5 meter saltwater crocodile isn't impossible but certainly isn't the norm for that species. Additionally, if you wanna argue Sue and Scotty aren't the max size for a T.rex be ause many millions of individuals existed over the species' run on this mortal coil, you could make the exact same argument for bigger Giganotosaurus also having existed.

[@gamersletsplay1195]

Actually Marine Biologists say Blue Whales can weight up to 220 Tons !

[@Tarbtano]

@@gamersletsplay1195 That's nice. Though who brought up whales?

[@mikerude5073]

@@Tarbtano It's sort of like people comparing Robocop to a T-800 Terminator, then someone comes in and says "Unicron is whole planet sized robot that easts planets!"

[@krankarvolund7771]

It's funny, very recently, a study indicated that some T. rex could have been 70% more massive than we thought. I don't recall the exact details, but they basically postulate that T. rex would grow all their lives, and that we may have not found yet the oldest T. rex. But it's pretty doubtul knowing that Scotty, who's probably one of the oldest T. rex we have, is in a state that shows he was at the end of his life with several bone pathologies and wounds ^^

[@roguetheoutlander8800]

Where did you take that idea that tyrannosaurus would grow whole live?

[@krankarvolund7771]

@@roguetheoutlander8800 That's what was argued in the study ^^

[@Ornitholestes1]

@@roguetheoutlander8800 there was a conference abstract that may have suggested that and calculated a hypothetical maximum size based on the known sample. The growth part is a bit bonkers, because we know from old T. rex specimens like sue that they have an external fundamental system, that is several very closely spaced and poorly vascularized growth lines onf the outside of their bone cortex, which suggests growth had slowed down to an essentially negligible speed. I'm not much of a histologist, but even I know that closes the lid on the coffin of claims that the animal would have grown significantly for its entire life. As for the hypothetical maximum size, sure, one can do that (although there is little biological significance to it), but of course one can just as well do it for other extinct animals, most of which will seem even more impressive because there aren't anywhere near as many specimens near the upper end of the size distribution that are already known

[@lordcooler8160]

The study you refer to was a thought experiment carried out by researcher Jordan Mallon , and no it actually didn’t postulate that T.Rex grew its entire life, in fact T.Rex is noteworthy for achieving its full adult size relatively quickly by its early 20s (See Carr et al. 2020 for more details). As for the Mallon study, it basically stated that none of the T.Rex specimens we have represent the extreme size range that the species could reach, even though the different specimens that we discovered differ in size we have to remember that less than 1% of individuals of a species end up in the fossil record, so any truly exceptional size specimens of T.Rex would probably never even end up in the fossil record statistically speaking due to being extremely rare in the first place. For modern animal comparisons most adult male Polar Bears are in the 450-600 KG range, but on occasion we have recorded freak specimens that were far bigger than that including 1 polar bear that weighed a whopping 1000 KG. So just like with modern animals, there would occasionally be a T.Rex of freakish proportions, and Mallon estimated that such an individual could possibly weigh up to 15,000 KG (6 metric tons heavier than Scotty and about twice the mass of an average T.rex). HOWEVER it’s important to remember that this rule holds for all extinct animals, as in there was certainly freak sized Giganotosaurus as well, and unlike with T.Rex for Giga we don’t even have a good picture of the typical size range the species reached, as we have just 1 specimen (the holotype) for which any reasonable estimates can be made. In addition to that the recent description of the closely related Meraxes showed that Carcharodontosaurids were in fact much slower growing animals and unlike Tyrannosaurs THEY DID appear to grow well after reaching adulthood, specifically the Meraxes holotype was estimated to be around 50 years old and it had only stopped growing just a few years before it’s death. Giganotosaurus being a really closely related genus likely also had this slow growth rate with prolonged growth in adulthood, this implies that the Giga holotype may not have been fully grown despite being an adult. So until we discover more Giganotosaurus specimens to give us a clearer picture of the generas general size range as well as resolve the issue whether the Giga holotype is in fact fully grown, I’m still open to the idea that Giga will turn out to be bigger than Rex.

[@Tarbtano]

Bear in mind that study was only looking at speculative individuals based on population demographics. A 9 tonne T.rex would drastically rare animal, and a 10-11 tonne form would be a 1 in a 100 million at absolute best. Plus the same speculative demographics apply to any theropod, not just T.rex.

[@Speed_and_Power]

I love this new series, keep up the good work. Entertaining and factual.

[@ryonhatcher4561]

I smell another Episode of this Series coming up soon because this Series is very revolutionary!

[@jeffreygao3956]

Even if Giganotosaurus wasn’t the largest carnivorous dinosaur, it may have faced larger prey in Proargentinosaurus.

[@hypn0298]

It hunted Andesaurus. Mapusaurus hunted Argentinosaurus.

[@jeffreygao3956]

@@hypn0298 I was referring to that recently discovered monster sauropod from the Candeleros Formation that is not Andesaurus and it’s far larger. I decided to nickname the newly discovered giant Proargentinosaurus.

[@Killerg238]

It's the largest ​@5ives_the_penguin here's a comparison of top 20 largest theropods 1. Giganotosaurus- 10.5 tonnes 🏆🥇 2. Tyrannosaurus- 10.45 tonnes 🥈 3. Mapusaurus- 9.12 tonnes 🥉 4. Carcharodontosaurus- 8.45 tonnes 🏅 5. Deinocheirus- 8.41 tonnes 🎖 6. Spinosaurus- 7.84 tonnes 7. Sauroniops- 7.71 tonnes 8. Tyrannotitan- 7.59 tonnes 9. Saurophaganax- 6.8 tonnes 10. Zhuchengtyrannus- 5.80 tonnes 11. Megalosauridae indet- 5.75 tonnes 12. Epanterias- 5.70 tonnes 13. Meraxes Gigas- 5.70 tonnes 14. Acrocanthosaurus- 5.70 tonnes 15. Torvosaurus- 5.51 tonnes 16. Therizinosaurus- 5.5 tonnes 17. Vectispinus- 5.47 tonnes 18. Suchomimus- 5.40 tonnes 19. Tarbosaurus- 5.37 tonnes 20. Chilantaisaurus- 4.80 tonnes

[@Mr.ankylo345]

@@Killerg238this ain’t true at all it’s a fragment of the gigas jaw it’s not reliable

[@tobilikebacon]

i really appreciate you putting all your sources in your description, fantastic work!

[@Mefilas._intrepidus7]

Probably their no carnivore theropod that will truly be larger than T. rex so pretty T. rex is set as the largest carnivore theropod it would be hard to convince people that their a actual large carnivore than trex because it clickbait title in article every time a new “ large “ theropod is discovered

[@Protest467]

Top 10 largest carnivorous dinosaurs accurate January 2024 Weight/Mass= size 1. Tyrannosaurus rex: Length- 12.8 meters (42 ft) Weight- 11.5 tonnes 2. Giganotosaurus carolini: Length- 13.5 meters ( 45 ft) Weight- 10.2 tonnes 3. Mapusaurus rosae: Length- 12.7 meters ( 42 ft) Weight- 8.5 tonnes 4. Spinosaurus aegyptiacus: Length- 14.7 meters ( 49 ft) Weight- 8.3 tonnes 5. Saurophaganax maximus: Length- 12.9 meters ( 43 ft) Weight- 8.3 tonnes 6. Carcharodontosaurus saharicus: Length- 12.3 meters ( 41 ft) Weight- 8.2 tonnes 7. Sauroniops pachytholus: Length- 12.6 meters ( 42 ft) Weight- 7.5 tonnes 8. Tyrannotitan chubutensis: Length- 11.7 meters ( 39 ft) Weight- 7.4 tonnes 9. Bahariasaurus ingens: Length- 13.4 meters ( 44 ft) Weight- 7.14 tonnes 10. Deinocheirus mirificus: Length- 11.7 meters ( 39 ft) Weight- 7.1 tonnes

[@ItsCreaidan]

This just makes me wish that you made a dinosaur documentary on your own.

[@aidenraptor2595]

I like how you didn’t go all rant mode and say that Tyrannosaurus is bigger in mass and actually looked at the studies that have been used to support the idea. It’s interesting to see Giganotosaurus go from heavier to lighter than Tyrannosaurus over the years with new research. I also enjoy Giganotosaurus in paleo media, even in Jurassic World Dominion, and it’s sad to see that it doesn’t get enough attention in documentaries. There is one, however, called “Beyond T-rex” that was made by Discovery Channel and released in 1997 that could’ve been used here. While the effects are outdated, the science holds up with the debate on whether or not Giganotosaurus and Carcarodontosaurus were bigger than Tyrannosaurus and in the end, Tyrannosaurus still holds the title of “King of the Dinosaurs”. You can find the Documentary on KZbin, but I have a DVD copy of my own which I find way better to watch. I was a little disappointed that you don’t get to mention the Giga as being a Tyrannosaurus with extra fingers, but you were right with saying that every theropod has to be compared to Tyrannosaurus all the time, so I’ll accept that. At least we saw that Universal Studios knew better to make a Giga based on the holotype specimen we have than to remodel Rexy to have an extra finger for Dominion. There’s no way they would make that same mistake in Journey to the Centre of the Earth, Primeval and 2008’s Turok.

[@TheFoshaMan]

My guy! I just wanna warn you about some idiots that are trying to cancel you on twitter, stupid people with no life, don't listen to what they say, I'll always stand by your side! You don't need to apologize for anything, stand strong my man! also, this was a great video, looking forward to the next Paleo Myths!

[@redraptorwrites6778]

I have no idea who these people are. Never heard of this before. Just goes to show how insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things

[@TheFoshaMan]

@@redraptorwrites6778 Yeah, they were like 3 or 4 people, I was watching some paleomemes and then a random guy started to say things about a video you made like 4 years ago? and then some other people started to say more nonsense trying to start a Snowball, gladly it seems that the issue hasn't become bigger, I don't usually get involved too much into controversies but I felt it right to warn you about these people, anyway, sorry for bringing you this bad news... hope everything ends well... see ya!

[@Marcin9200]

Good idea for a new series, that's the kind of content we need on youtube.

[@hypezoneninga]

I'm surprised ark isn't on the list of reasons people think the giga is the largest carnivore that think is like twice the size of the spinosaurus and and t. Rex

[@T-REX-KNIGHT]

*Paleontologist finds a theropod slightly taller and longer than t.rex* (heck sometimes smaller) Media:"NeW dInOsAuR wAY bIgGeR tHaN t-ReX!!!!" Hollywood/game devs: "wRiTe tHaT dOWn and mAke it a KaIjU!!!"

[@juniperrodley9843]

Media and Hollywood operate for profit, and to make a profit, they don't need to be careful or accurate at all. They just need people to check their statements out for a moment.

[@SaurZilla1984]

Seeing this comment makes me remember the time when the media still thought that theropods like Tyrannotitan, Saurophaganax and Siats were bigger than T.rex just because scientist thought that they could've possibly grown longer

[@EndlessHeadbanging7]

Lovin the new series. Cannot wait to see more

[@Mr.M3447]

Stygimoloch and Dracorex, let’s see how many mid rolls that gets

[@Mr.M3447]

That or the “new” tyrannosaurus species

[@redraptorwrites6778]

THIS IS COMING SOON

[@Mr.M3447]

I know, I saw the community post and was like “wait really, that worked”

[@SaurianCYH]

Yay! Paleo content. BTW, P Planet review when?

[@eriquesousa8074]

This video was a suprise to be sure but a welcome one

[@MaahesForsaken]

Honestly a thing that bugs me with comparison of ‘who’s larger’ is that it’s always to be scaled with largest specimens, not average average should honestly be the ones compared as we can have one Goliath specimen that can just be compared and say “oh this species is the larger of the two” however we do have so little finds on giga and other large Carcharodontosaurids that I feel like these types of things should wait until we find more complete skeletons rather than trying to auto claim and compare with the largest, just irritates me (take lions and tigers for example, lions can reach around the same mass and are taller for their largest specimens but on average tigers are heavier)

[@ww2japanesebomber275]

Welcome to Paleo Mythbusters

[@tobilikebacon]

definently needs a video on short faced bears

[@NanuqEditzS]

I wanted to add that estimates from Dan Folkes from this year put the Giga holotype at I think 12.3m long and 8.8-9t, the Giga paratype at 13m long and 9.4-9.6t and Scotty at 12.4m 10.1t, Sue was also placed at 9.7t and I think 13m long max, but that's not by Dan Folkes. Both big bois

[@pratikgaikwad7472]

Dan folkes can't be trusted Cause apparently he put scotty at 10800kg and Sue at 10200kg. But Stan is just where he was. Stan was as long as holotype and also more robust. But ofc, stan doesn't get the buff. Poor lad is stuck at 8.8tons.

[@gideonsstuff]

Great idea for a series! Looking forward to this one

[@iratezombiemann]

I find it funny that despite all the new bigger badder dIsCoVeRiEs, after all these years, Tyrannosaurus is still king.

[@WeebsWithGlasses71]

Sadly my favorite dino (Mapusaurus) is really obscure compared to other Megatheropod, despite equalling them in length😟

[@WarriorLionstripe]

@@WeebsWithGlasses71 Although not my favourite, I do highly believe that Mapusaurus deserves more love.

[@iratezombiemann]

A lot of the other giants do. I honestly think constantly comparing them to rex diminishes them - let them stand on their own merit. They're interesting enough

[@Jack-Schneider]

Hi Red Raptor Writes, Though I don't specialize in the extinct animal faculty (Marine Bio student), the subject of extinct reptiles usually pops up with others that specializes in the field. The video structure is good though I do have some pointers I would like to mention regarding the information here. Maybe you'll find it useful: I'll start with Dr. Scott Hartman's North vs South blog firstly since he's confirmed a few things worth noting. Dr. Hartman has clarified that the Giganotosaurus holotype mass of 6.8 tonnes may be an underestimate due to the incomplete scapula being taken as complete which resulted in the shallow torso/chest. Dr. Hartman said the (presumed) reduced pectoral girdle was, at the time, the best line of evidence to cover in his blog at the time. Though that's no longer a good argument. Increasing the ribcage 10% isn't out of the question but we would need better remains. He's currently working on a new model. So, readjusting it to more complete pectoral girdle like Acrocanthosaurus (specifically, NCSM 14345) since it preserves a complete pectoral girdle, complete ribs, has a publication as well as measurements for both and is the most closely related animal to Giganotosaurus. Given the 136 cm femur length of the Giganotosaurus holotype from Carrano et al. (2012) this gives us a pectoral girdle length of 133.7 cm based on Acrocanthosaurus, and the ribcage would therefore be about 147.3 cm wide instead of 134 cm with Hartman's previous model. The resulting ribcage is about 9.9% wider than what Scott Hartman restored. It's may not be barrel chested like a Tyrannosaurid, but it isn't the very slender animal some like to claim, instead being a mixture of between slender and barrel chested. If you were to use this method on the dentary MUCPv-95, it's ribcage would result even wider. Sizes of about 12.7m for the holotype and 13.6m for the 8% dentary. Mass can be 8-10 tonnes. Note: Carcharadontosaurus falls within the same boat with these estimates but there is a bit more to that. If you're going to use Scotty as your comparison here then why not use an 8% denary scaling for Giganotosaurus? It seems fair doesn't it? Why use the oldest, biggest Tyrannosaurus specimen as a comparison? That dentary piece may not be the most reliable specimen but Scotty's size is still very much debatable according to scientists. Paleontologist John Hutchinson has pointed out that previous mass estimates for Scotty have come out as comparable to Sue and are within the expected margin of error for these sorts of approximations. The difference between these two dinosaurs was likely a matter of ounces and inches. Scotty isn’t as complete as Sue - about 65% to about 90% in Sue’s case. That matters. Person et al (2019) has also admitted a margin of error in his estimates which was to be expected. Besides this, a new density study by Fabbri et al (2022) has a Tyrannosaurus femur at 0.65 while Carcharadontosaurid had 0.80 making some changes here. On average, I would say Giganotosaurus is the heavier theropod over Tyrannosaurus.

[@Killerg238]

@wholol2297 here's a comparison of top 20 largest theropods August 2023 1. Giganotosaurus- 10.5 tonnes 🥇🏆 2. Tyrannosaurus rex- 10.45 tonnes 🥈 3. Deinocheirus- 8.41 tonnes 🥉 4. Mapusaurus-8.20 tonnes 🏅 5. Spinosaurus- 7.84 tonnes 🎖 6. Sauroniops- 7.71 tonnes 7. Carcharodontosaurus- 7.49 tonnes 8. Tyrannotitan- 7.47 tonnes 9. Bahariasaurus- 7.14 tonnes 10. Saurophaganax- 6.74 tonnes 11. French Giant Megalosaur- 6.3 tonnes 12. Zhuchengtyrannus- 5.80 tonnes 13. Megalosauridae indet- 5.75 tonnes 14. Meraxes Gigas- 5.70 tonnes 15. Acrocanthosaurus- 5.70 tonnes 16. Torvosaurus- 5.51 tonnes 17. Therizinosaurus- 5.50 tonnes 18. Suchomimus- 5.40 tonnes 19. Tarbosaurus- 5.39 tonnes 20. Chilantaisaurus- 4.80 tonnes

[@eesamohammed2104]

​@@Killerg238were exactly are you getting the carch being 7 tonnes from it had a longer skull to body ratio than a giga and both were the exact same in height and weight so why exactly is the giga 4 tonnes heavier than it

[@Killerg238]

@@eesamohammed2104 it's outdated.

[@Killerg238]

Top 10 largest carnivorous dinosaurs Accurate in December 2023 Weight/Mass= size 1. Tyrannosaurus rex: Length- 12.4m ( 41 feet) Weight- 10.4 tonnes 2. Giganotosaurus carolini: Length- 13.5m ( 45 feet) Weight- 10.1 tonnes 3. Mapusaurus rosae: Length- 12.7m ( 42 feet) Weight- 8.4 tonnes 4. Spinosaurus aegyptiacus: Length- 14.7m ( 49 feet) Weight- 8.3 tonnes 5. Carcharodontosaurus saharicus: Length- 12.3m ( 41 feet) Weight- 8.2 tonnes 6. Saurophaganax maximus: Length- 12.8m ( 42 feet) Weight- 8 tonnes 7. Sauroniops pachytholus: Length- 12.6m ( 42 feet) Weight- 7.5 tonnes 8. Tyrannotitan chubutensis: Length- 11.7m ( 39 feet) Weight- 7.3 tonnes 9. Bahariasaurus ingens: Length- 13.4m ( 44 feet) Weight- 7.14 tonnes 10. Deinocheirus mirificus: Length- 11.7m ( 39 feet) Weight- 7.1 tonnes

[@eesamohammed2104]

@@Killerg238 i still dont get were is the extra 2 to 3 tons on the giga coming from if your going to make it 10 tons likewise you also would need to make the carch and map 10 tons also

[@joshuaW5621]

The blue whale is actually 24 feet or 7.3 metres tall, making it taller than the supposed tallest animal around today, the giraffe. Edit: In really, they’re both the same height.

[@redraptorwrites6778]

Exactly why I compared it to a sauropod instead, to make the point more clear.

[@tommyfishhouse8050]

2:42 Two things. 1. Grant is an older paleontologist who was at the peak of his career years ago and is still unlearning certain things he believed about dinosaurs that have since been disproven (Rex being colorblind) 2. Grant at that time was terrified out of his mind and struggling to find the words to describe what he was seeing.

[@kirbyzaneobi]

Keep this up, love this kind of stuff

[@BigAl2-u7e]

We can all agree on one fact. Mosasaurus was the largest Mesozoic predator... unless you wanna bring up tylosaurus.

[@dudotolivier6363]

A really good first new serie debut with a good video to begin with ! Outside that, for short, the Giganotosaurus was among the largest carnivorous theropod dinosaur to walk the Earth, with T-rex, Carcharodontosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, Spinosaurus, and his own relative, Mapusaurus. But he wasn't hiself the biggest of all. In fact, like for the case of the biggest sauropod species such Argentinosaurus, Alamosaurus and Amphicoelias (the same debate but version herbivorous), in reality, all these species of theropods were and reach almost the same size in average. When we calculate and estimate the size, weight, length and mass of an extinct animal from which we have ony bones, we must and can only made approximations and set a standard for the overall species. Because it's impossible since, like said in this video, there various aspects to take into account : sexual dimorphism, mutations, age states and individual variations between specimens and populations of the same species. Among others. Also, it's also impotant that "Biggest" and "Largest", even if it's true that their definition is about the total mass of an organism, are mostly used to refer to the size, aka the height, of an animal. In this case, it's should be alway preferable to used the term "Tallest". So, about is the Giga was the tallest of all Ever ? No. Like I said, and the actuals facts show that, but the Giga, and all the others theropods I mentionned upper, were all in reality almost equal in average. However, compared to T-rex specificaly, if the two were almost in average the same size, we know and currently reconize that T-rex was more robust, heavier, and thicker, thus the Giga was slightly leighter in weight and longer in lenght. A little unrelated, but the T-rex had a way better bite force, with high power, and the Giga and most of the others land theropods and carnivores. The one of the Giga was less powerfull. The jaws of the Tyrannosaurs were made to crush and broke bones and flesh to kill, thus the ones of the Carcharodontosaurid and the Allosauroid were made to cut flesh from the animals to created wounds. So, the Giga was longer and leighter than T-rex, but wasnt the Longest and Leightiest theropod and land carnivore that ever exist ! Officially, the longest land carnivorous theropod that ever exist, from the tip of the jaw to the tip of the tail, was, as said in the video, the Spinosaurus. Can be also one of the leightiest due to his now well know anatomy recently put forward and reconstructed, but any real studies about this aspect hasn't come yet (but the chance are high since this dino was very slender) About his size, it's can be a valid debate to question this aspect, because saying that his the biggest thank to his dorsal sail will be more or less cheating. Officially, their an offical and determined method to properly measure the size of an animal. And this method is to take the size of this latter att his shoulders (aka his tourniquet, or "garrot" in french) with the tip of the locals spines included. And to take as reference point the biggest element of the body that go the highest in the sky. So exit and out the argument that the Girafe is the biggest than an Elephant thank to her head and neck. And in the case of the Spino, only the tip of the beginning of his sail at the area of his shoulders/front legs must be take into account, and she not very tall when we look precisely on it. But, at least, we now for sure that the Spino was the longest carnivorous theropod that ever existed at our currrent scientific knowledge. For the two others titles, the biggest and leightiest, it's cases to follow. About the Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus), with 29.9 meters (98 ft) and weighing up to 199 tonnes (196 long tons; 219 short tons), she's maybe not the longest and tallest animal that ever existed and to exist currently, but she's actually the largest animal in body mass and heavier extant iving animal and specie currently by current science. It's aslo the longest vetebrate, mammal and cetacean to exist currently. The giant siphonophores cnidarian Apolemia is the longest animal and cnidarian currently ever of all to exist, but not the longest veterbrate and mammal. The biggest sauropod known to science were larger and bigger than her, but they were the biggest animals of their time, in addition to be the biggest animals to ever walk the earth. The Blue Whale is the largest of HER time. What I said here, is that must take also into consideration all of the categories in which belong every species when we attribute to them titles and records. That also a good aspect to point out. In final, as a personnal opinion, it's not a so bad thing to always compared every carnivorous theropod to T-rex, because the T-rex can served as a good reference to better study the others and examin their differences and similarities. Because you can't use intead of T-rex any real others animals, because you can't made comparision with too differents animals with almost anything in common, like a lion for example (they are both carnivorous and the apex of their own ecosystem, but it's all. You can fo farer). But I agree that when we compared a theropod such the Giga, it's better to compared him to several others theropods in the same time and not only the T-rex alone.

[@rodrigopinto6676]

T. rex is taller than giga and same length but the Tyrannosaurus rex is much more massive and robust.

[@dudotolivier6363]

@@rodrigopinto6676 Ok, but in average. Like I said, all the big predators theropods I mentionned have tendancies to reach almost the same sizes and lenght in average. In reality, any of them, T-rex and Giga included, were really longer and taller than the others. The exception being the Spinosaurus, who is indeed really longer than the others. The T-rex itself was only taller and almost longer than the Giga slightly, a bit. Because the specimens referred in this videos are officially reconized as "exceptionaly" not as the standard of the T-rex species itself. And maybe new fossils of Giga will be bigger specimens that the ones we already have. Afterall, most of reptiles, whatevers their species, have tendancies to continue to grow all the entire life, even if in a slower speed after a certain point.

[@pratikgaikwad7472]

@@rodrigopinto6676 T rex is taller when it comes to the height at the hip. But giga is overall more taller and longer.

[@rodrigopinto6676]

@@pratikgaikwad7472 “is overall more taller and longer” totallly worng

[@rodrigopinto6676]

@@pratikgaikwad7472 again T. rex is taller and same length

[@dinofanaticgojifan5760]

Can you do an accuracy review of AMNH? Museum in NY that you promised? Maybe?

[@Nubloot]

Unfortunately Trex just suffers from being viewed as “overrated” but in reality it’s just facts, it was the most evolved large theropod before dinos went bust. So yes, it’s bigger, smarter and badder than the vast majority of them. That does make the other any less cool though.

[@mikerude5073]

like the most advanced model of weapon in an arms race.

[@Tarbtano]

"most evolved" isn't a thing. And while the T.rex bashing is dumb, let's also remember that all predators are built for the environments they lived in and conditions of their time. A Giganotosaurus would struggle in late Cretaceous North America just as a Tyrannosaurus would struggle in mid-Cretaceous Argentina.

[@juniperrodley9843]

Don't start positioning T. rex as the peak of predators. There is no such thing as being "more or less evolved". Everything evolves into a niche, and Tyrannosaurus rex's niche was "comically large and muscular carnivore".

[@mikerude5073]

@AL So, what you're saying is, T.Rex had a poor sense of smell compared to Carcharodontosaurids, wasn't any larger than they were but was much slower for its weight, and Carcharodontosaur types had larger more useful arms? Did I get all that right?

[@bruticaloz2627]

@@juniperrodley9843 A job that T.Rex was fantastic at I might add! I imagine it like a meat eating dump truck.

[@LoudmouthReviews]

It reminds me of how season one of Justice League would constantly have Superman beat up to empathize how strong a threat was. All it did was undermine Superman and season two was much better by avoiding this trope

[@slinkbubbles6069]

First also love your videos because of you I now know a lot more about Dino’s

[@slinkbubbles6069]

Also I am sick and tired if the claim bigger than trex just please shut up

[@oldmanbiscuit7518]

I like how its "the science is settled" untill its not, but you better not question it until they say its changed.

[@juniperrodley9843]

Questioning it is fine. But if your idea of "questioning it" is obtusely stating your random idea to be correct without researching it first, you're even less productive than someone who doesn't question it.

[@oldmanbiscuit7518]

@@juniperrodley9843 you make assumptions on my "questioning".

[@edwardjohnson321]

4:21 this guy is legend for this

[@aaleven4728]

I'm sorry but the reaction video at 1:38 was incredibly loud, specially compared to your voice. Caught me off guard and I would rather not have this again, sorry.

[@Red_Dante_SAZ]

Yeah, the people of Dino Crisis 2 really went crazy with their Giganotosaurus

[@tyrannotherium7873]

It is one of the largest but it’s not the largest it was 6 to 7 tons wild t Rex was 8 to 9 or perhaps even 10 tons And thanks for making that video because I’ve been trying to tell most people of this

[@tyrannotherium7873]

@AL there’s no evidence of gigonotosaurs being 9 tons

[@tyrannotherium7873]

@AL Where is the paper

[@Protest467]

@AL where is the paper 📄

[@monsterzero521]

​@@tyrannotherium7873where's the paper of that claims

[@andreamcalexander-fg1iu]

Ya know... I think it be a great idea to make a series focusing on you talking about obscure Dinosaur species. Animals like: Kentrosaurus, Maisakasaurus, Dryptosaurus, Chalingosaurus, etc.

[@Ornitholestes1]

Some comments: >The problem with the Therrien and Henderson study is not that the skull lengths assumed for the carcharodontosaurs were exaggerated. The skull length of 1.56 m used in that study still holds up fairly well today (e.g. when compared with the one in Hartman’s skeletal, which is essentially the same) and is smaller than the earlier, actual exaggerated figures of 1.8 m (holotype) and 1.95 m (MUCPv-95) for _Giganotosaurus_ (from Calvo and Coria 1998), as well as the still reasonable 1.6m estimate for the skull of _C. saharicus_ SGM DIN 1 (Sereno et al. 1996). The problem is the method with, for that 4 cm skull length difference, came up with multi-ton mass differences, based on a questionable regression equation. Leaving aside probable issues with the input data, the method obviously also could not account for any phylogenetic component to the in skull-body or length-mass relationship that is clearly present between different theropod groups. Notably, that problem with allometric size estimation goes both ways; Just as there is phylogenetically driven variability between body masses for a given skull length, there is also variability between body masses for a given femur circumference. While the link of the limb bone thickness to the body mass is certainly more direct and functionally grounded than that of skull length, it nevertheless produces only very rough estimates due to variability between different groups of animals (see the error margins in the various Campione et al. studies on that subject). Take the cQE equation (from the MASSTIMATE package, Campione 2020) as an example. If you let it run with just the femur circumference of 590 mm (representing scotty), then it produces a range of 6.3 to 10.6 tons (just based on the mean PPE of 25%,, so simplistically speaking, that’s the equivalent of one standard deviation or a 67% prediction interval). So if you actually want to make statistically confident statements at a reasonable confidence level (say 5%), then this does not allow you to make many such statements, as the range for a femur circumference of 520 mm (4.4 to 7.5 t, representing MUCPv-Ch1) already heavily overlaps that for 590mm. You would need a much larger difference in femur circumferences to get a statistically significant difference using allometric methods. >Calling Hartman’s comparison between the two a "study" is a bit misleading. While certainly methodologically sound, it was just a blog post, not a technical article. However, very similar results based on Hartman’s skeletals are published in Snively et al. 2019, which Hartman coauthored. >I am not really clear on how you arrive at your size figures for Scotty, could you elaborate? Persons et al. never give a total length figure, only a mass estimate. Based on the comparative measurements, when comparing the sum of preserved elements in both skeletons scotty is a whopping 2% larger than sue, i.e, would at most be around 12.6 m long based on the proportions of Sue. >I think focusing on the two biggest in >>50 _T. rex_ specimens while using the two only _Giganotosaurus_ individuals is giving a very biased picture. Why not use at least one small _T. rex_ specimen instead? For example, if using the biggest, why not also use the smallest? I know you acknowledge the issue of sample size in the end, but still you conclude that is is "unlikely" that this would change anything, and that we can "confidently" say that _T. rex_ was the larger taxon. However, the opposite appears to be the case. We cannot say this with any level of confidence, and while we can also make no confident statement that _Giganotosaurus is the larger taxon due to the exact same issue, it is at least the more probable scenario based on statistical inference. Persons et al. themselves acknowledge, in their description of the Scotty specimen, that the holotype of _Giganotosaurus_ has a larger femur circumference (i.e., it would hence likely have been a larger animal) than the average _Tyrannosaurus_ in their sample, and that specimen is likely not the largest carcharodontosaur, nor even necessarily the largest _Giganotosaurus_ that we know (there are known specimens of _Mapusaurus_, _Tyrannotitan_, _Carcharodontosaurus_ and _Giganotosaurus_ that are all presumably larger, even though except _Mapusaurus_ these are all only known from two specimens). While there are major error margins associated with this statement, based on known specimens it would be fair to say that _Giganotosaurus_ tends to be larger than _T. rex_, and that the most likely reason why the largest _T. rex_ specimens are marginally larger than those of _Giganotosaurus_ is simply that they are drawn from a vastly larger sample than that of all giant carcharodontosaurids put together. _T. rex_ is literally the second-most common dinosaur in the Hell Creek formation, none of the other giant theropods (except maybe _Spinosaurus_, if counting isolated teeth) has that kind of sampling bias going for it. Furthermore, we know that both Sue and Scotty are exceptionately old and mature animals (not just probably, but definitely), both for _Tyrannosaurus_ (see e.g. Erickson et al. 2004) and for Dinosaurs in general, and age of course correlates with size. While there are no histological studies to draw from to make similar claims about the known _Giganotosaurus_ specimens, based on all other dinosaurs it is at least unlikely to represent the same kind of growth stage (the only Carcharodontosaur that might be comparable to sue or Scotty in that regard is the recently named _Meraxes_). So how you arrive at the conclusion that "we can still confidently say that Tyrannosaurus is the largest predator to walk the earth" hence eludes me a little, when there are several taxa of giant carcharodontosaurs, each of which is on average at least comparable, if not larger than _T. rex_. Refs: Campione, N.E. 2020. MASSTIMATE: body mass estimation equations for vertebrates. . Campione, N.E. and Evans, D.C. 2012. A universal scaling relationship between body mass and proximal limb bone dimensions in quadrupedal terrestrial tetrapods. BMC biology 10 (1): 1-22. Campione, N.E. and Evans, D.C. 2020. The accuracy and precision of body mass estimation in non-avian dinosaurs. Biological Reviews 95 (6): 1759-1797. Campione, N.E., Evans, D.C., Brown, C.M. and Carrano, M.T. 2014. Body mass estimation in non-avian bipeds using a theoretical conversion to quadruped stylopodial proportions. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5 (9): 913-923. Erickson, G.M., Makovicky, P.J., Currie, P.J., Norell, M.A., Yerby, S.A. and Brochu, C.A. 2004. Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs. Nature 430 (7001): 772. Persons, W.S., Currie, P.J. and Erickson, G.M. 2020. An older and exceptionally large adult specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex. The Anatomical Record 303 (4): 656-672. Sereno, P.C., Dutheil, D.B., Iarochene, M., Larsson, H.C., Lyon, G.H., Magwene, P.M., Sidor, C.A., Varricchio, D.J. and Wilson, J.A. 1996. Predatory dinosaurs from the Sahara and Late Cretaceous faunal differentiation. Science 272 (5264): 986-991. Snively, E., O’Brien, H., Henderson, D.M., Mallison, H., Surring, L.A., Burns, M.E., Jr, T.R.H., Russell, A.P., Witmer, L.M., Currie, P.J., Hartman, S.A. and Cotton, J.R. 2019. Lower rotational inertia and larger leg muscles indicate more rapid turns in tyrannosaurids than in other large theropods. PeerJ 7: e6432. Therrien, F. and Henderson, D.M. 2007. My theropod is bigger than yours… or not: estimating body size from skull length in theropods. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 27 (1): 108-115.

[@WeebsWithGlasses71]

I think the problem is Charcharodontosaurid are generally less robust and less massive compared to Tyrannosaurid of their size. Charcharodontosaurus is on the size range of Tarbosaurus bataar and Zuchengtyrannus magnus yet it was less heavy compared to it. While it was possible that the new specimen/study of Giga will confirm it being larger, it's not confirmed yet so i'm going to be skeptical. Especially considering how much we exaggerated Spinosaurus length back then.

[@WeebsWithGlasses71]

^also remember, Larger/Bigger generally means their mass. As long as Giga doesn't surpass the 9 tonne minimum set by Sue specimen it's not the largest, but the longest Dinosaur.

[@rodrigopinto6676]

Ornitholestes1: you’re just a T. rex=hater.

[@Ornitholestes1]

@@rodrigopinto6676 thanks so much for that mature and measured reply. I write a page of text making scientific arguments and citing a whole bunch of papers, but it's always good for someone like you to remind me that it's all pointless because I am just a T. rex hater. This is just great, thanks for fulfilling my generally low expectations of the youtube comment section once more.

[@Ornitholestes1]

@@WeebsWithGlasses71 well I was already quite explicitly referring to size as mass in my first comment, and I think also referenced that body mass for a given length differs between different theropods, so I'm not really sure what you are getting at or why you are implying that I am unaware of that. As for Tarbosaurus and Zhuchengtyrannus, they are certainly shorter than Carcharodontosaurus, very likely lighter as well. Also I'm not sure I would refer to MUCPv-95 as a "new specimen", as it's been known for over 2 decades now. "Not confirmed yet" also sort of implies that further information on it is coming out soon, which does not currently seem likely. The specimen was already described in a published paper, Calvo and Coria 1998. However sadly the one thing they found most noteworthy about it, its size, is not elaborated on very much in that article.

[@tyrannozilla1]

can you do the Spino swimming myth next?

[@Geographyandhistory2024]

I feel like mass is not a good way of measuring the size of something because objects have different densities. For example let's think of a hypothetical 1 square meter gold cube and then compare it to a 2 square meter tank of full of water The water tank takes up 8 times more physical space but weighs only half of what the gold cube weighs What am trying to say is that volume is the way we should measure things since it's literally the correct way of measuring size and everything else is wrong

[@krankarvolund7771]

You're talking about gold and water. These are animals, closely related to each other, flesh is flesh, they're the same density XD And a lot of these methods actually measure volume, they jsut convert it into tons of flesh, because it's a lot more familiar to us and thus easy to understand. I have a hard time picturing 10tons of flesh, but I can do it. 10 cubic meters, or I don't know which is the equivalent in volume, I have no clue ^^

[@Geographyandhistory2024]

@@krankarvolund7771 Same density,no Similar density, yes The mass measurements works in things that have similar density but it falls apart when we use it as a replacement for volume for literally everything relating to measuring size since things have different densities. It is easier to visualise mass and that's the reason why it's being referred to here but it should only be something that is used to educate the masses not be used as end all be all argument by scientists Although i will say in this particular situations the trex does remain the biggest theropod regardless of what you use

[@krankarvolund7771]

@@Geographyandhistory2024 "Same density,no Similar density, yes" Chicken and turkey have the same density, it's flesh, it does not vary between two species so closely related XD I'm not even sure a chicken have not the same density of flesh as a human ^^ "The mass measurements works in things that have similar density" Yeah, like two animals composed of flesh and bones :p

[@Geographyandhistory2024]

@@krankarvolund7771 1.By density i mean the whole animals density and yes nany different parts of the body of an animal has different densities but were making an average Also most animals have similar but different densities since animal meat and bone doesn't have too much density variation 2.Also your last sentence implies that all vertebrates have the same density which is wrong

[@krankarvolund7771]

@@Geographyandhistory2024 And what exactly is the difference of density between two vertebrates? Because if it's a very slight difference, I don't really see the point XD And even if it mattered in any sort of way in living animals (which is not the case, we're using mass measures for the size of all animals from blue whales to toads), we know dinosaurs only from their fossilized bones so we don't know how much dense were any of their body parts, nor do we know their volume. It's estimations that can be off by multiple tons depending on the method you used, or the assumptions you start with. When the estimation of a T. rex weight vary between 4,5 tons to 9,9 tons, I don't think the actual density of the beast really matters. And I'm sure it doesn't matters, because literally hundreds of paleontologists who dedicated their lives to studying extinct species have worked on T. rex and not a single one ever used volume measures, they all used mass measures. So you might be pedantic, but the specialists who actually know anything about this sort of things have clearly stated in your disfavor :p

[@Hewylewis]

My favorite Giganotosaurus is Stinktooth from Dinotopia: The World Beneath.

[@lvl5dino749]

Also important to mention that more recent gdi estimates place scotty at 10500-11000kg, and Giganotosaurus (the larger specimen) at 9400-9600kg. This information is courtesy of Dan Folkes and Co. There are in depth explanations on his website, Thecodontia.

[@pittatheitalian9859]

haha dinosaur train go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[@asmagamer728]

Hahaha dinosaur train go ChoooChoooChooo

[@sskuk1095]

Nice new series, love it!

[@Tyrannosaurus_rex.]

Rex was the biggest, shut up giga fan boys.

[@earth5853]

Thank you for telling the truth

[@slinkbubbles6069]

You have my respect

[@Melanosuchusss]

Spino fanboys can cope too with their bullshit 12 ton spino that was debunked by Ibrahim himself

[@januszpolak254]

Shastasaurus was the biggest, shut up dinosaur fan boys.

[@asmagamer728]

@@januszpolak254 You know who else is the biggest? My mom

[@michaelwave863]

Amazing. You're the best, dude! A very cool idea for content

[@GODEYE270115]

Maybe that’s why JWD made that prologue fight. To show the rivalry these 2 have had since the 90s The movie constantly claims it as “the biggest predator that ever lived” keeping the 90s trend going. But I guess in JP universe Giga really is the biggest. Even Allan, who saw the big 3, dubs Giga as the biggest 👑

[@spider-man500]

Uh no. Spino is bigger than BOTH. He was not fully grown in Jp3, but is in Camp Cretaceous, and there he is bigger than Giga.

[@GODEYE270115]

@@spider-man500 “biggest predator that ever lived” spino was never called that or given a size estimate in CC to even contest the title Giga is the biggest

[@spider-man500]

@@GODEYE270115 bullcrap. It was stated by Darius in CC. And we did get his size and yes dude, Spinosaurus is bigger than Giga. Sorry Giga fanboy.

[@GODEYE270115]

@@spider-man500 where was its size stated? Never once was it given a size or dubbed “biggest predator that ever lived” spino fanboys always making up bs as per usual

[@speedracer2008]

If the history of Argentine paleontology interests you, you should look up Jose Bonaparte. He was responsible for discovering multiple dinosaurs you might know from Argentina, like Carnotaurus and Argentinosaurus.

[@redlinrangerstudio5331]

the giga may be a little biggest or largest, but trex is the heaviest/tanky animal in the prehistoric world. i mean t rex was built like a war machine, haunting on land with a bite force that is still one of the most powerful of all time.

[@gregthespartanguy]

Goji Center debunked that Ultimasaurus was not very strong. It was too small to use all its weapons.

[@bayonetonazero2535]

You need to do probably one of the most depated paleo controversies yet: Could Spinosaurus swim?

[@Abbad1579]

Most dinosaurs could swim

[@jeffreygao3956]

Yes and probably better than any other theropod.

[@wyattbhoffman]

@@jeffreygao3956not according to the newest paper

[@themellonman8909]

Most animals can swim so it probably did swim

[@staringalio7775]

Nikacadoavacardo, the biggest carnivore the world has ever seen!

[@Greenthero]

“Giganotosaurus, biggest carnivore the multiverse has seen.” lol

[@ballguy8794]

Very cool I like the sound of this series. Hopefully it’s one I can watch consistently.

[@Noname-ns2md]

Based on current known paleontology, the short of it is there is simply no known therapod that would have been a physical match for tyrannosaurus rex

[@HankTheT.Rex69]

You should do a video about if T. rex couldn’t see you if you don’t move

[@williamafton348]

I don’t understand why the media treat dinosaurs like WWE wrestlers, having T. rex getting rolled just to put over bigger carnivores like Spinosaurus and Giganotosaurus, just so they can get more interest in them, it’s absolutely stupid, every time I see the T. rex get buried by these guys is like watching Undertaker lose at WrestleMania if we stick with the pro wrestling comparison.

[@randomsupergodzillalizardd9981]

Hey at least it’s the 2nd largest currently known theropod

[@MacedonianChristian]

Scotty actually is 10.1T and around 12.50 meters i forgot the actual length. giga is 9.5T at 0.99density )and its the dentary specimen). Proof and source: dan folkes latest skeletals

[@MacedonianChristian]

Giga also is 13 meters in length btw

[@Killerg238]

@wholol2297 here's a comparison of top 20 largest theropods August 2023 1. Giganotosaurus- 10.5 tonnes 🥇🏆 2. Tyrannosaurus rex- 10.45 tonnes 🥈 3. Deinocheirus- 8.41 tonnes 🥉 4. Mapusaurus-8.20 tonnes 🏅 5. Spinosaurus- 7.84 tonnes 🎖 6. Sauroniops- 7.71 tonnes 7. Carcharodontosaurus- 7.49 tonnes 8. Tyrannotitan- 7.47 tonnes 9. Bahariasaurus- 7.14 tonnes 10. Saurophaganax- 6.74 tonnes 11. French Giant Megalosaur- 6.3 tonnes 12. Zhuchengtyrannus- 5.80 tonnes 13. Megalosauridae indet- 5.75 tonnes 14. Meraxes Gigas- 5.70 tonnes 15. Acrocanthosaurus- 5.70 tonnes 16. Torvosaurus- 5.51 tonnes 17. Therizinosaurus- 5.50 tonnes 18. Suchomimus- 5.40 tonnes 19. Tarbosaurus- 5.39 tonnes 20. Chilantaisaurus- 4.80 tonnes

[@neur01]

nice new format!

[@cheepmovprod]

Dinosaur Train and Scott Hartman being used?! My first big places to get dinosaur knowledge never get mentioned anymore!

[@SuperCuttyBlackSow]

In defense of Dino Crisis 2 that one was suppose to be mutated they explain in the game is why its so freakishly huge

[@TheGabberman9000]

Thx for showing Dino Crisis 2. That game pretty much put Giga on the map. Not sure why so many neglet it.

[@jesusmejia79]

so Spinosaurus is taller and longer but why is it that in 2009 it was heavier but now it's not and that mean height and length wise Spinosaurus is the biggest land predator to ever exist

[@DarthInsomnis]

I can’t to see a “did dinosaurs teeth stick out or covered by lips” video in the future

[@anamnesls]

It is a hard topic to consider find a absolute answer to. Because "bigger/biggest" and "larger/largest" are relative terms as well, and could also have to do with volume. If we found a giganatosaurus specimen that, mass wise was less, even if by a margin, but had more volume, or just physically apeared "bigger" I think it neccisarily is not incorrect to say it was bigger.

[@thegamingspino2597]

You sould do a myth about if trex had feathers or did the spinosaerus swim

[@jesusmejia79]

Obviously spinosaurus was aquatic so it had to be able to swim and doesn't trex have feathers

[@thegamingspino2597]

@@jesusmejia79 yea I khow that’s why o want him to do it because many peaple don’t khow that

[@liopleurodonthedinoman3637]

If you want Giganotosaurus footage, use some footage from the Dino Dan franchise

[@tajniak4335]

I find it silly that people get emotionally invested in competitions between animals which died like 70 millions of years ago. Like, really, I agree that dinosaurs are fascinating, but who gives a shit which one of them was "the largest" or which one of them would win in a fight.

[@juniperrodley9843]

People who view them as nothing more than fictional characters to waste in meaningless powerscaling debates

[@Godzillamandude.]

New studies show that Bertha and Cope Tyrannosaurus are much heavier at 13 to 14 tons

[@adnanpulic7611]

Omg he used dinosaur train footage