Grover's Skull is based on the larger of the mandibles of Gigantopithecus blackii. Its second mandibular molar is 20x20 mm (3/4 x 3/4 in). Mick wood based his alternate reconstruction on a recollection of hearing a report of a 1.0 x 1.0 in molar (25.4 x 25.4 mm). I pulled up a recent report of a find of Gigantopithecus teeth and the largest specimen was 23.6 mm. That would be about 15% bigger than Grover's reconstruction. I'll keep looking.Then later on
Don Jeffrey Meldrum Just to be clear --- I am not advocating that Wood's reconstruction is plausible as far as size and scale. He and I have discussed some of my reactions to his depictions of INFERRED anatomy. We discussed the aspects of megadontia -- the possibility that Gigantopithecus had molar teeth disproportionately large for its mass as an adaptation to durophagy (diet of tough foods). It appears true that some isolated Gigantopithecus teeth were as much as 15% larger than those in the mandible that Krantz based his reconstruction on. But Wood's skull is a full 25% bigger than Krantz's and so in absolute scale perhaps unlikely. I personally have little confidence in reports od sasquatch over 9-10 feet tall.And another one of my comments
Dale Drinnon You see in the literature where Giganto is estimated to have been as much as 12 feet tall and up to 1200 pounds. That is about what the skull scales out as. Whether or not Giganto got that big, I think its a fair guess that teeth of such a size are the exact reason for size estimates in that range (Estimates not figuring in the possibility of oversized teeth or other causes.)Grover Krantz did in fact quote these figures when he was discussing his version of the reconstruction (middle of the three skulls)
Discussion is still going on but I thought my readers would like to have as much of this information as we have got to thus far. Best Wishes, Dale D.