|
Post by gfxtwin on Feb 1, 2011 7:04:21 GMT
stuff like this: It would be interesting to see such charts for every group and/or subgroup of dinosaurs out there. Raptors, Ceratopsians, Hadrosaurs, Sauropods, Allosaurids, Tyrannosaurids, Pterosaurs, etc.
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Feb 1, 2011 7:34:10 GMT
That chart is wrong giganotosaurus wasn't that long and tyrannosaurus was taller.
|
|
|
Post by fooman666 on Feb 1, 2011 8:09:39 GMT
That chart is wrong giganotosaurus wasn't that long and tyrannosaurus was taller. your right about the height, but as for the length, im pretty sure whats on the size chart is correct
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Feb 1, 2011 8:19:55 GMT
The holotype of giga was 12.2 meters long, and the largest specimen ever found was estimated to have been about 14 meters long (when it was alive).
Sue is the largest trex specimen ever found I think, and she is 13 feet (4 meters) tall, so that would make the chart correct, no?
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Feb 1, 2011 8:27:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Feb 1, 2011 9:37:54 GMT
That chart is wrong giganotosaurus wasn't that long and tyrannosaurus was taller. your right about the height, but as for the length, im pretty sure whats on the size chart is correct Yes the length is fine, spinosaurus 17m, t-rex 13m, giganotosaurus 14m.
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Feb 1, 2011 11:16:19 GMT
These Wikipedia charts change each 3 months... :s How trustable can they be?
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Feb 1, 2011 14:53:53 GMT
The second specimen of Giganotosaurs witch is 8% bigger then the hollow type it is scaled to be on par with sue for height and some were between 43 and 45 feet in length. There are 2 more T Rex skulls that are slightly bigger then sue but that may not mean they are bigger over all then sue. Mind you the same may be true of the second Giga (its only a dentry)T-Rex was taller proportionably then giga both in longer legs and it carried its head higher then giga witch carried its neck out strait more.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 1, 2011 16:35:29 GMT
The Wikipedia 'giant theropod' chart looks about right to me. I'm not a fan of the sauropod chart though, simply because it includes Amphicoelias fragillimus, which I feel should probably be left off until some more fossils turn up. Personal opinion though.
|
|
|
Post by postsaurischian on Feb 1, 2011 16:47:21 GMT
The Wikipedia 'giant theropod' chart looks about right to me. I'm not a fan of the sauropod chart though, simply because it includes Amphicoelias fragillimus, which I feel should probably be left off until some more fossils turn up. Personal opinion though. I share this opinion! ..... and by the way, Wikipedia is not a really trustable source of scientific information. For example: Stegosaurus - 9 meters ? Whoever spread that rumour, he or she was very successful .
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 1, 2011 17:11:03 GMT
The issue isn't so much that it says Stegosaurus could reach 9 metres, but that it 'averaged' 9 metres. Paul (2010) lists the total length for Stegosaurus stenops as 6.5m, and S. ungulatus as 7m (although quite which specimens he is referring to when he talks of "S. ungulatus" I'm not sure). A 9 metre individual is possible but would be exceptionally large, rather than average. Indeed the Wikipedia page notes that S. armatus, at 9 metres, is the longest Stegosaurus species - meaning that 9 metres cannot be an 'average' for the genus.
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Feb 1, 2011 17:48:26 GMT
These Wikipedia charts change each 3 months... :s How trustable can they be? Maybe this is because the available information on dino lengths changes so frequently? Much of it is guesswork either way. How many of those species do we actually have complete fossils of? The charts may be a little off, but I don't see anyone else making a better one. I think they are great for getting a general idea of the different species compared to one another (I had no idea Lambeosaurus was so big!), so kudus to whoever is taking the time to make them and update them so frequently.
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Feb 1, 2011 17:49:26 GMT
The issue isn't so much that it says Stegosaurus could reach 9 metres, but that it 'averaged' 9 metres. Paul (2010) lists the total length for Stegosaurus stenops as 6.5m, and S. ungulatus as 7m (although quite which specimens he is referring to when he talks of "S. ungulatus" I'm not sure). A 9 metre individual is possible but would be exceptionally large, rather than average. Indeed the Wikipedia page notes that S. armatus, at 9 metres, is the longest Stegosaurus species - meaning that 9 metres cannot be an 'average' for the genus. deinocheirus Are the 3 species of stegosaur even valid? I know off topic but just curious? Deinocheirus should be in that chart with the theropods as well shouldn't it???
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 1, 2011 18:04:53 GMT
Stegosaurus armatus (the type) and Stegosaurus stenops are the two that are definitely, 100% certainly valid (at the moment). I'm not sure about Stegosaurus ungulatus - it may be a case of Paul making a controversial taxonomic decision again (although he normally says so) but I honestly don't know.
Deinocheirus was probably left out because it's only known from a pair of mysterious arms. I know lack of material didn't stop them with Amphicoelias fragillimus, but I imagine the rationale would be that it's far easier to guess the full size and appearance of A. fragillimus based on A. altus (and Diplodocus), whereas there exists no good point of comparison for Deinocheirus.
They could stick Therizinosaurus in there, of course, or Acrocanthosaurus, or Tyrannotitan or a number of other very large theropods. But you have to stop at some point...
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Feb 1, 2011 19:35:04 GMT
Stegosaurus armatus (the type) and Stegosaurus stenops are the two that are definitely, 100% certainly valid (at the moment). I'm not sure about Stegosaurus ungulatus - it may be a case of Paul making a controversial taxonomic decision again (although he normally says so) but I honestly don't know. Deinocheirus was probably left out because it's only known from a pair of mysterious arms. I know lack of material didn't stop them with Amphicoelias fragillimus, but I imagine the rationale would be that it's far easier to guess the full size and appearance of A. fragillimus based on A. altus (and Diplodocus), whereas there exists no good point of comparison for Deinocheirus. They could stick Therizinosaurus in there, of course, or Acrocanthosaurus, or Tyrannotitan or a number of other very large theropods. But you have to stop at some point... Do we........ We need a to 10 or maybe 20 chart...just to be sure. Hey were is Tarbosaurus? Do any of them top 40 feet? And if I am not mistaken Acrocanthosaurs is the second largest theropod in North America. Baring if saurophaganax or epanterias (or allosaurus if the taxonomy can ever be established) top 40 feet. witch as far as I know the haven't yet. We need the smallest dino's chart too!
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 1, 2011 19:47:56 GMT
Deinocheirus should be in that chart with the theropods as well shouldn't it??? How? We don't even really know what it is--except for a big pair of arms (although there were rumours that something had been recovered, but don't know what just yet).
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 1, 2011 22:38:52 GMT
How? We don't even really know what it is--except for a big pair of arms (although there were rumours that something had been recovered, but don't know what just yet). Have covered that already Godzillasaurus: like I said, they had to draw a line somewhere when it came to the number of giant theropods they put in their graph, and apparently they limited it to 5. Tarbosaurus (aka "Tyrannosaurus bataar" - whatever) wasn't especially large anyway when compared with the species represented here.
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Feb 1, 2011 23:33:38 GMT
How? We don't even really know what it is--except for a big pair of arms (although there were rumours that something had been recovered, but don't know what just yet). Have covered that already Godzillasaurus: like I said, they had to draw a line somewhere when it came to the number of giant theropods they put in their graph, and apparently they limited it to 5. Tarbosaurus (aka "Tyrannosaurus bataar" - whatever) wasn't especially large anyway when compared with the species represented here. I know just wish we could fit more!
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on Feb 1, 2011 23:34:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 1, 2011 23:44:07 GMT
Dinoguy thinks that Lambeosaurus laticaudus doesn't belong in Lambeosaurus? If he pops up here again, I would like to ask why. (I'm presuming that Dinoguy made that one, as he made the others. I might be wrong.) Also: not a fan of that Triceratops silhouette.
|
|