Top 10 Largest Theropods - Update

Spinosaurus was probably the biggest, not T. Rex. The new skeleton shows that its bones were not hollow and had almost no air spaces. A Spinosaurus rib would weigh about twice as much as that of a normal theropod like T. Rex. So the new skeleton suggests an animal BIGGER than T. Rex, not smaller.

Sorry, but Spinosaurus appears to be more gracile than T.rex in almost everything:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.it/2013/11/la-massa-di-spinosaurus-stimata-dalla.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8

That "article" was made before the new skeleton was announced, meaning they did not know that the bones of Spinosaurus were not hollow unlike the bones of T. Rexand other theropods who have very hollow bones. Also look at this, thanks to Gojira for putting out the link:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/10/spinosaurus/beast-graphic

Andrea Cau stated that Spinosaurus' chest wasn't very deep, thus the animak would be lighter than previously thought:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.it/2014/09/spinosaurus-revolution-final-episode.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8

On the positive note I am glad you put Suchomimus and Deinocheirus on the list, those guys were pretty large but they are often ignored by people making a largest theropods list. Aside from Spinosaurus and T. Rex, I think this list is pretty accurate.

I'm completely agree.

And thank you ;)

Your welcome;) Anyways I still personally think Spinosaurus was bigger because of its denser bones, although you do have some points. Though both both Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus were amazing and unique predators, and that is more scientifically important than how big they were compared to each other.

GIGADINO - This was a very neat series of data you've presented! I greatly enjoyed the information you applied to each choice! Excellent work! Thank you ever so much for sharing this with us! :)

Thank you very much :)

Graet list and I almost fully agree. I think that Tarbosaurus, Zhuchengtyrannus and Oxalaia should also be in it.

Both Zhuchengtyrannus and Tarbosaurus are around the same size as Suchomimus, but they're shorter, so I decieded to put Suchomimus ahead. I guess Tarbosaurus and Zhechengtyrannus are both #12 in this list.

I don't frankly understand why Oxalaia is considered so big. Sure, it was a big animal, but smaller than the clamed 12-14 m and 5-7 t. Oxalaia has likely got a 135 cm long skull, wich is even shorter than Suchomimus' 143 cm long skull (consider that this particular Suchomimus wasn't even an adult). As ths Suchomimus specimen is in the 11-12 m range (according to Scott Hartman), I think that everything between 11 and 12 m is reasonable for Oxalaia. It would be #11 in this list.

And thank you very much, of course ;)

Nice list! I completely agree.

Thank you very much ;) Compiling this list took a lot of research.

Awesome, well done. I agree with this in big lines :)

Thank you very much DinoSteve93 :)

9, 5. t estimate comes from Hutchinson et. al (2011), largest Mapu was 110 % the size of MUPCv-ch1, wich would put it at 13.6 m, but it's just a pubic shaft, so we cannot be sure. Take Sue and T.rex's holotype: the latter pubic shaft is larger by 5 %, but Sue is larger. There is nothing that can suggest us that Mapu is bulkier, if anything the bulkier one is Carch.  Bear in mind that Mapu's fibula is 83-87 % the width of Giganotosaurus' holotype, so it was likely skinnier than Gig, wich is bulkier Carch (Giga's torso is very deep, and its neural spines were high, so it likely supported an especially bulky body.

I love this list except for the fact that rex is first. It should be spino who is actually 15 meters and 11 tons which is bigger then the rex estimate plus 9.5 is not an average weight for rex. Please tell me why you think that.

@ carnosaur, pubic shaft? What is that?

Spinosaurus appears to have a not deep chest, according to new remains, so the animal would haven't been as heavy as previously thought.

But, it is semi aquatic which means the water will support more weight. And it may not have a deep chest,  but a wide chest and as I said about it being semi aquatic, it would have much denser bones which only add to the weight.

But Spinosaurus appears to have been a gracile animal. It was that long mainly due the very long tail. Ibrahim et. al's model is shrink-wrapped, but a fully fleshed model would add to the animal only a few kilos.

Spinosaurus may seem gracile but as I said before it's bones are denser due to its partial aquatic lifestyle. And the fact that spino is so freakin huge, it makes if heavy. And I even if it was shrink wrapped as you say and would only add a few kilos, I would gave to disagree since the flesh ,scales cartilege, fat ,muscle and hide would add on a lot more weight then just "a few kilos".

If you want to add muscles, cartilagine, fat etc to Spinosaurus, you can give it to every Theropods in my list. Spinosaurus was long due to its long tail, the body alone is as long as T.rex's., so it wasn't particularry huge if compared to other giant Theropods.

I agree with this list. The top 5 at least. Anything below that get's sketchy, but the animals chosen are certainly among the biggest.

Thank you RexFan684.

You obviously missed my point. Look at my list, I put Giga and Mapu at the same place because largest specimens are very fragmentary, and I gave a range rather than a superprecise estimate (like 13,2 m), because animal's proprtions are various. I never said that Giga is the largest, I put them at the same size. 9.5 t was only mentioned, because it comes from a scietific study, I never said that it's an average T.rex. An average T.rex is like the holotype, wich is between 6-7,5 t. I also said that a more reliable estimate for Sue is between 8 and 9 t. I used max. sizes, not averages, so, as the largest T.rex is Sue, I used Sue as my T.rex. Spinosaurus was called gracile by Andrea Cau, in his final post about new Spinosaurus. And my comparison with T.rex isn't flawed, all the animals have different proportions, not just T.rex. Also, Giganotosaurus holotype isn't 12.2 m, atleast according to Hartman, who put it at 12.4 m. However, the difference isn't great, and a such difference is almst nothing in a such big boy like Giganotosaurus.

Why, why did you use the largest t.rex speciemen in the list? If you are gonna do that for rex you have to do that for all. You can't just put the largest individual for one species on the list but then use averages for all the other. And spino is larger then giga,carchy,mapu for reasons I stated like three times already. And please provide us with some evidence on why you think spinosaurus is so gracile.

I actually used the largest specimens for them all. 

betterletter, but you should have used averages Instead of max. 9.5 tons seems quite large. I normaly put it at 8.5 tons. It seems like 9.5 would be the weight of those undiscribed specimens of t.tex that are HUGE. Like rigbys t.rex, Celeste, and UCMP.