|
|
Post by simon on Feb 2, 2011 0:26:29 GMT
Largest Triceratops is about 27-30 feet. The gigantic 9+ foot Triceratops skull at the BYU Museum indicates an animal about 3x longer, given that the skull was usually 1/3 the length of the animal.
Likewise there are fragmentary Stegosaur fossils indicating individuals up to approx. 36' long ....
|
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Feb 2, 2011 0:49:00 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. Yeah, the guy who made those charts actually wrotte here some time ago about his dromaeosaurids charts. In truth they are the best charts around, but something that keeps surprising me is a new one replaces the previous in a matter of months. If they are so mutable, then how can you trust them? I consider them to be depictions of the current theories but too often they depict gigantic stimated sizes and not average sizes wich imo would be more helpful. The Utahraptor chart is another example. There has been like 5 different charts for the animal, in a matter of months, depicting extremely different sizes. Anyway, I agree, I don't see any other person doing better charts around. |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 2, 2011 2:17:44 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. Spinosaurus size is questionable. We have only part of a skull. some vertebrae, ribs etc, but no limbs. Everything is based on estimates primarily on the head size. I have no doubt that Spinosaurus was as long or maybe longer then other big theropods but not that much. Here is a 84 cm Malayan gharial skull from a 23 foot gharial. It's the same length as the Irritator skull.  |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 2, 2011 3:32:44 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. Yikes. I made that thing and I really wish people would stop posting this version. It's very old and out of date. I updated it quite a while ago, here: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Largesttheropods.png |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 2, 2011 3:34:36 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  . You mean Tom Holtz? Or anybody else with access to a ruler?  www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/dinoappendix/appendix.html |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 2, 2011 3:36:25 GMT
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. Yeah, the guy who made those charts actually wrotte here some time ago about his dromaeosaurids charts. In truth they are the best charts around, but something that keeps surprising me is a new one replaces the previous in a matter of months. If they are so mutable, then how can you trust them? That's how science works. Almost no dinosaurs are known from complete skeletons, that's why we have size *estimates* not size *measurements*. When people incorporate new fossils or new techniques, the numbers change. Also, if you compare different versions of say, the theropod chart (all can be seen at the above link) you can see the main things that change are minor, like tweaks to the length of the tail or the pose, etc. When you're dealing with animals that differ in size by a matter of inches, it's easy for new research to shuffle the order. |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 2, 2011 3:41:18 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.  Apparently it was never properly referred to Lambeosaurus in the first place. The gigantic specimen was lumped in with Lambeosuarus for no good reason. It could be an edmonotsaur for all we know, it has never been properly studied by anyone. See the tom Holtz encyclopedia link--even he lists it as "No official genus name, previously called Lambeosaurus" |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Feb 2, 2011 5:17:11 GMT
Ummm ... the dinos in the new one have a kind of a 'retro' look. Plus the increased distance between the silhouettes isn't as pleasing to the eye as the original diagram. I say go with #1. (In any event, that's what the masses want, so ... #1 it is I am afraid...) |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Feb 2, 2011 5:19:50 GMT
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 . You mean Tom Holtz? Or anybody else with access to a ruler? www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/dinoappendix/appendix.htmlWonderful book. Got it last year. As far as the Stegosaurs go, actually fragmentary evidence indicates a maximum length of 12 meters, not 9 .... according to my admittedly faulty memory .... but that was probably a real "Trophy" specimen ... |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Feb 2, 2011 5:22:27 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. Apparently it was never properly referred to Lambeosaurus in the first place. The gigantic specimen was lumped in with Lambeosuarus for no good reason. It could be an edmonotsaur for all we know, it has never been properly studied by anyone. See the tom Holtz encyclopedia link--even he lists it as "No official genus name, previously called Lambeosaurus" Don't they have a laticaudis skull? If its got the similar crest, then it most likely is a Lambeosaurine ... no? |
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Feb 2, 2011 5:41:50 GMT
I think they have the skull, but the crest is missing. What I find interesting is that (apparently) the holotype had a broken thigh bone, but the animal had somehow survived long enough for it to heal.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 2, 2011 6:30:21 GMT
Ummm ... the dinos in the new one have a kind of a 'retro' look. Haha, the only real difference is that they're not running and their mouths are closed... guess that counts as retro nowadays And yeah, the skull of laticaudus is very fragmentary, with no crest preserved. |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Feb 2, 2011 6:43:02 GMT
Ummm ... the dinos in the new one have a kind of a 'retro' look. Haha, the only real difference is that they're not running and their mouths are closed... guess that counts as retro nowadays And yeah, the skull of laticaudus is very fragmentary, with no crest preserved. Ummm ... no - the TAILS are also wrong (hanging down like wet noodles) ;D The only thing wrong with the #1 version is that Mapusaurus is TOO SMALL. Revision, please! (*runs away*) |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 2, 2011 8:24:47 GMT
Haha, the only real difference is that they're not running and their mouths are closed... guess that counts as retro nowadays And yeah, the skull of laticaudus is very fragmentary, with no crest preserved. Ummm ... no - the TAILS are also wrong (hanging down like wet noodles) ;D The only thing wrong with the #1 version is that Mapusaurus is TOO SMALL. Revision, please! (*runs away*) Animals move. I initially made the tails droop so you could see the tips when they overlap, but there's nothing preventing them from flexing their tails downward like that. They weren't broomsticks. Mapusaurus may be too small based on the biggest bone fragments. I might add it back in a future version. |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Feb 2, 2011 14:25:48 GMT
Haha, the only real difference is that they're not running and their mouths are closed... guess that counts as retro nowadays And yeah, the skull of laticaudus is very fragmentary, with no crest preserved. Ummm ... no - the TAILS are also wrong (hanging down like wet noodles) ;D Getting a bit nit picky aren't we? Regardless they're still some of the best and most easily accessible size comparison charts I've seen. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 2, 2011 16:40:59 GMT
Apparently it was never properly referred to Lambeosaurus in the first place. The gigantic specimen was lumped in with Lambeosuarus for no good reason. It could be an edmonotsaur for all we know, it has never been properly studied by anyone. See the tom Holtz encyclopedia link--even he lists it as "No official genus name, previously called Lambeosaurus" Thanks for the reply! (Someone not arguing with you must make a change, eh? I've seen some of the crap you have to put up with on Wikipedia...you are an extremely patient man...) |
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Feb 11, 2011 0:45:28 GMT
That's how science works. Almost no dinosaurs are known from complete skeletons, that's why we have size *estimates* not size *measurements*. When people incorporate new fossils or new techniques, the numbers change. Also, if you compare different versions of say, the theropod chart (all can be seen at the above link) you can see the main things that change are minor, like tweaks to the length of the tail or the pose, etc. When you're dealing with animals that differ in size by a matter of inches, it's easy for new research to shuffle the order. I meant that I think it could be better to be a little more "conservative" on these charts if they are really trying to be informative on what we really know about these animals. Of course you can add some speculative higher sizes or any gigantic size based on any new theory you want, but making ONLY charts that are speculative simply cause the bigger sizes are cooler confuses readers and seems too random and mutable to trust. On the other hand, if you draw a chart based on actual remains and proved facts, you are giving some trustable info to the reader. New discoveries of bigger sizes can be added to the chart in the future, but at least you are sure you are always communicating proved truths. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 11, 2011 0:48:03 GMT
The trouble is that including Spinosaurus on a chart consisting of "actual remains" means that it'll just be a head and some vertebrae...
|
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Feb 11, 2011 1:01:51 GMT
Yep. Guess you can always depic the actual bones in a different colour than the speculated ones, or something.
But I guess I am complaining too much, and no better work is done by my own. So I'll just shut up and accept what exist. As said, they are definitely the best charts around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 11, 2011 1:07:06 GMT
So I'll just shut up and accept what exist.  No, don't do that! You are quite right in saying that it's important to point out to people what's speculative, and based on other animals. |
|
?
.
No, don't do that!