Given that all the evidence of gigantopthicus is 4 partial mandibles and hundreds of dissociated teeth its very difficult to get a proper estimate for its size but current estimates place it on the lower end in size as shown here
The only prehistoric animals that keep getting bigger and more awesome are (ironically) the largest terrestrial and marine macro-predators of all time.
Rex and Megalodon.
Everything else seems to shrink as more accurate and rigorous studies continue.
I think Gigantopethicus was larger than a Gorilla, but not by very much.
It depends on whether more fossils are found, or if scientists take known fragmentary material and apply more modern ways of estimating overall size.
T. rex and giant Ichthyosaurs keep "getting bigger" because we actually keep finding bigger ones.
Dunkleosteus and Gigantopithecus "get shrunk" because there was never anything close to a full skeleton, allowing for wild speculation that gets reigned back a bit when analyzing growth trends among similar animals.
Megalodons max length is still less than sperm whale max length and its weight is far below. the new estimates actually give it less overall mass (id you believe them). averages (more reliable) are lower across the board for megalodon
Sperm whales are still the largest macropredators of all time.
also the Blue whale being 33 meter is also hearsay bullsht that wasn't backed by anything other than somebody thought it was 33 meter blue whale. there is whole scintific paper on the subject saying how unreliable the early records were and how early whalers could have overreported the actual whale size etc. 30 meter is the official largest most credible max blue whale size.
Icthyotitan is another Leedsichthys, Dunkleosteus, Megaolodon, Gigantopithecus
you're taking extremely partial fragments, scaling it up to the biggest possible size that might be possible, and then comparing it to the average size of a well studied species
max size off most sperm whale in the ocean is around 20m now, but they've shrunk from overhunting and we have 25m+ specimens in the record.
it makes really good "animals are giant godzilla monsters rawr" fuel, and the researchers who make the claims of these hyper sized animals get their name circulated for a bit and maybe funding, so its worth oversizing them
but then real scientists inevitably look at these very partial skeletons and take the party down because its completely unrealistic
by any realistic standard and well documented species with whole skeletons or at least many bones, Sperm Whales are still the largest macropredator of all time
50m icthyotitans may have existed. when all you have is some jaw bones you can scale it however you want. maybe they were 5000 meters long with tiny heads. just floating cities of carbon. who knows. but thats not scientific
isn't there new megalodon that was estimated to be 24 meter long? pretty sure at that lengths and at that point. it would be as wide as sperm whale. its not like Megalodons head width shrank. its still as wide as it was
the 24m estimate is literally tied to using a very thin and low weight shark as a model. the 24m version is less massive than the shorter version based on great whites
Maybe? Hard to tell. We can make inferences from the bones we have and using relatives as ancestors, but it's still an educated guess. Scaling weight from those estimated proportions is trickier still. I'd hesitate to give any creature the "biggest macropredator ever" crown for a while, given the fossil record's preservation bias
Even Megalodon is kinda questionable : all we have from it is some teeth and vertebrae. The rest is just a bunch of inferred theories that could completely change in the future.
There is Deinocheirus which turned out to be T-Rex sized. Though since we literally only had an arm to go off of until recently the size estimates ranged from “2 ton sloth creature” to “literally just Godzilla”, so maybe it shouldn’t count.
People seem to be thrown off by the mandible being extremely deep-bodied. The mandible itself (sans ramus) is something like 120% the length of a Gorilla’s; huge, but nowhere near suggestive of a 9’ height.
As someone who has seen silverbacks and adult male orangutans up close, even something that's big enough to be noticeably larger and more robust compared to those apes is already massive enough to trigger this primal fear in humans. Especially when they stand on their hind legs
Also the fact that they're closely related to orangutans means their heads would be HUGE
Though this reconstruction has been updated, the size is around the same. It was likely a bit larger than the largest gorillas, but no way of knowing for sure, save for postcrania etc.
Somewhere between a gorilla and a brown bear is probably right. Big but not improbably so for a land mammal. And it would be putting its weight on is palms like a monkey rather than on knuckles like a chimp or gorilla, since those are unique in primates. Everything else, humans, orangutans, & gibbons, walk upright or with their palms. Even humans and gibbons put weight on our palms when we crawl.
Given that all the evidence of gigantopthicus is 4 partial mandibles and hundreds of dissociated teeth its very difficult to get a proper estimate for its size but current estimates place it on the lower end in size as shown here
The only prehistoric animals that keep getting bigger and more awesome are (ironically) the largest terrestrial and marine macro-predators of all time.
Rex and Megalodon.
Everything else seems to shrink as more accurate and rigorous studies continue.
I think Gigantopethicus was larger than a Gorilla, but not by very much.
It depends on whether more fossils are found, or if scientists take known fragmentary material and apply more modern ways of estimating overall size.
T. rex and giant Ichthyosaurs keep "getting bigger" because we actually keep finding bigger ones.
Dunkleosteus and Gigantopithecus "get shrunk" because there was never anything close to a full skeleton, allowing for wild speculation that gets reigned back a bit when analyzing growth trends among similar animals.
Megalodons max length is still less than sperm whale max length and its weight is far below. the new estimates actually give it less overall mass (id you believe them). averages (more reliable) are lower across the board for megalodon
Sperm whales are still the largest macropredators of all time.
Averages for Megalodon are bullshit as they include juveniles and sub adults.
As for the Sperm whales if anyone believes the 25 metre specimen I will sell them the Empire State Building for a fiver.
20 metres is the absolute maximum and always has been.
Despite the recent flawed study on the size of ocean animals.
also the Blue whale being 33 meter is also hearsay bullsht that wasn't backed by anything other than somebody thought it was 33 meter blue whale. there is whole scintific paper on the subject saying how unreliable the early records were and how early whalers could have overreported the actual whale size etc. 30 meter is the official largest most credible max blue whale size.
Exactly.
Ichthyotitan was far larger than a sperm whale though?
Icthyotitan is another Leedsichthys, Dunkleosteus, Megaolodon, Gigantopithecus
you're taking extremely partial fragments, scaling it up to the biggest possible size that might be possible, and then comparing it to the average size of a well studied species
max size off most sperm whale in the ocean is around 20m now, but they've shrunk from overhunting and we have 25m+ specimens in the record.
it makes really good "animals are giant godzilla monsters rawr" fuel, and the researchers who make the claims of these hyper sized animals get their name circulated for a bit and maybe funding, so its worth oversizing them
but then real scientists inevitably look at these very partial skeletons and take the party down because its completely unrealistic
by any realistic standard and well documented species with whole skeletons or at least many bones, Sperm Whales are still the largest macropredator of all time
50m icthyotitans may have existed. when all you have is some jaw bones you can scale it however you want. maybe they were 5000 meters long with tiny heads. just floating cities of carbon. who knows. but thats not scientific
isn't there new megalodon that was estimated to be 24 meter long? pretty sure at that lengths and at that point. it would be as wide as sperm whale. its not like Megalodons head width shrank. its still as wide as it was
the 24m estimate is literally tied to using a very thin and low weight shark as a model. the 24m version is less massive than the shorter version based on great whites
No it wasn't. Not even close
Maybe? Hard to tell. We can make inferences from the bones we have and using relatives as ancestors, but it's still an educated guess. Scaling weight from those estimated proportions is trickier still. I'd hesitate to give any creature the "biggest macropredator ever" crown for a while, given the fossil record's preservation bias
Sperm whales have relatively weak jaws.
And only have teeth in the lower mandible.
Livyaten would be a better example.
But I still think Meg would wreck it.
Some of the mega-Ichthyosaurs such as the Swiss Monster and Himalayosaurus would too.
Even Megalodon is kinda questionable : all we have from it is some teeth and vertebrae. The rest is just a bunch of inferred theories that could completely change in the future.
There is Deinocheirus which turned out to be T-Rex sized. Though since we literally only had an arm to go off of until recently the size estimates ranged from “2 ton sloth creature” to “literally just Godzilla”, so maybe it shouldn’t count.
Ichtyosaurs were at least as large as Megalodon
Not necessarily in mass.
But yes the largest were absolute monsters and deserve far more recognition from the general public.
I mean it doesn't seem that ironic that the largest ones are the ones that kept growing.
People seem to be thrown off by the mandible being extremely deep-bodied. The mandible itself (sans ramus) is something like 120% the length of a Gorilla’s; huge, but nowhere near suggestive of a 9’ height.
I mean and a mandible is no indication of size. To take it to an extreme, look at Cotyloryncus or Erethrosuchus
How can someone be knowledgeable about a subject, and not able to spell at the same time.
English is stupid + probably neurodivergent
What have I misspelled as well?
Sorry I came off as a rancid shithead. You sent me down a rabbit hole I'm enjoying a lot.
I didn't take it that way dw
Worth noting that being slightly bigger than a gorilla still makes them damn large and strong.
And remember it's closet relative is the orangutan so it's twice the size of an adult male orangutan.
As someone who has seen silverbacks and adult male orangutans up close, even something that's big enough to be noticeably larger and more robust compared to those apes is already massive enough to trigger this primal fear in humans. Especially when they stand on their hind legs
Also the fact that they're closely related to orangutans means their heads would be HUGE
This skeletal itself is pretty bad but the size itself is about right for a Sivapithecine
Size looks about right but I feel it's too gorilla like in shape.
Yeah give it’s closest living relatives. could’ve been possibly rangier, less compact with relatively elongated and gracile limbs.
But what did they eat?
Generalist vegetarian restricted to forests (and not in tropical grassland)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618215011854
So it was probably at least 6'6'' feet tall?
large adults ? probably yes.
The picture depicts it standing on its palms rather than its knuckles. Is that the currently considered accurate?
Even if it stand with knuckles, it will be still below 7 feet.
We've no fingerbones of it, so no idea. Palm walking, I heard, does happen in some primates, but I'd have to look.
It looks more robust than a gorilla
Just a friendly grammar correction 🙂
Though this reconstruction has been updated, the size is around the same. It was likely a bit larger than the largest gorillas, but no way of knowing for sure, save for postcrania etc.
Proud to say I called it. Orangutan with comically large head
blacki ?
The name "Blacki," honors Canadian paleoanthropologist Davidson Black, who studied human evolution in China.
Asking the real questions
I can only assume the biologists name is Black
Not really a "real question" ya dingus
Obviously.
But it seems at least 9 people have no sense of humour.
Asking the dumb questions
Incapable of understanding a joke
Somewhere between a gorilla and a brown bear is probably right. Big but not improbably so for a land mammal. And it would be putting its weight on is palms like a monkey rather than on knuckles like a chimp or gorilla, since those are unique in primates. Everything else, humans, orangutans, & gibbons, walk upright or with their palms. Even humans and gibbons put weight on our palms when we crawl.
Just my opinion but I don't believe there ever were 25 metre Sperm whales.
Plus they are not a Macro predator in my book.
Even Mesonychoteuthis maxes out at 750 kg (as far as we know) so a fraction of the mass of an adult Physeter.
Meanwhile White sharks have been reliably recorded killing adult bull Elephant seals.
So imagine the damage a Megalodon could do.
we need orangutan skeleton as refrence right next to these 2 to see how it looks
Damn did the Australians name this one