Talk:Dinosaur size/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Turiasaurus Size

Just a question. How come Turiasaurus is now 30-39 metres long. Wasn't it only around 25-30 metres? One more thing is Turiasaurus also the new sauropod from Patagonia 2014, the 40 metre one because it's length seems very similar?

The Turiasaurus length estimate is taken straight from the description paper (which said 36-39m. Greg Paul estimated 30m). It might have been only 25-30m, but this has not been scientifically published (to my knowledge). Just because two sauropods are nearly the same length doesn't imply their the same species. Turiasaurus belongs to the basal Eusauropod clade of Turiasauria, whereas this new guy from Patagonia is a titanosaur. Also, the fact that they lived in very different places, and are separated by around 40-50 million years would also indicate that it's very unlikely they're related. Ashorocetus (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I know. I just thought that because Turiasaurus was never on the list of longest dinosaurs. Recently a 40 metre sauropod is discovered and Turiasaurus has shot up to number 2 on the list with a similar size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.96.107 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I missinterpreted your comment (sorry). Turiasaurus shooting up at the same time as this discovery is purely coincidental: I noticed that the 36-39m estimate for Turiasaurus's length (by Royo-Torres et al. 2006) had been ignored, so I changed the article to incorporate that estimate in addition to the 30m estimated by Paul 2010 and Holtz 2012. Ashorocetus (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I just looked up a few days ago one Turiasaurus and nearly all the sites said it was 30 metres. Some even said 25 metres is more likely. Is the 39 metre estimate recent or is this the usual case of sauropods shrinking with time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.172.247 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The 39m estimate has shrunk with time; you're correct. However, it is a valid, published length estimate. It's not quite the usual case of sauropods shrinking over time, the estimate was calculated using an allometric equation relating length to mass in sauropods, where they used a mass of 40-45t. In my opinion, 25m is too small for a 40-50t animal, especially since it has the longest non-brachiosaur humerus ever found; on the other hand, I think 39m is to large, but the published sources take precedence over my opinion. Ashorocetus (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ornithopods

Would Shatungosaurus weighed in at more than 10 tonnes? The reason I ask this is because it's weight is 16-22 tonnes at 16 metres and as the heaviest but the second heaviest, Anatotitan, is only 7 tonnes and the latter was 12 metres. Isn't 16 tonnes a little over the top? Also I was under the impression that Iguanodon was only 9-10 metres not 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.103.212 (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think 16t is unreasonable for a 16m Shantungosaurus. If an 12m Anatotitan weighs 7 tonnes, then a 16m hadrosaur ought to weigh about (16/12)^3 = 2.37 times as much, which works out to be about 16t. You're right, the 13m estimate for Iguanodon seems somewhat to large. Maybe it was a big specimen? I don't know, I'll have to look into it... Ashorocetus (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What about Charonosaurus, I thought that was 13 metres long and Parasaurolophus, which was 12 metres long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.191.217 (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hm. I thought Charonosaurus was 13m too. I don't know about Parasaurolophus (I've always thought 9-10 meters, but I'm not sure why). It looks like maybe I'm going to have to do some research on hadrosaurs and revise that Ornithopod section. Ashorocetus (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the page of it Charonosaurus was around 9 metres long, not sure why it's length changed. Parasaurolophus was 9-10 metres, based on a skull that was 1.6 metres. A larger skull was found that was 2 metres long. This means that the animal was 12 metres based on the usual scaling up calculations. Also the individual with the 1.6 metre skull weighed about 2-3 tonnes. The larger one would have weighed around 3-4 tonnes. I'm not sure if this is heavy enough for the list but Parasaurolophus was long enough, at 12 metres to be placed on the bottom half of the list for longest. One more thing. If Huaxiaosaurus is the same as Shatungosaurus then how come both of them are on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.15.207 (talk) 06:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if there's any published references listing Parasaurolophus at 12m, but it seems reasonable for a 2 meter skull. The list is based only on information from published sources, so if Parasaurolophus did get that large (which could very well be the case; I don't actually know), it would not be listed unless there was a published source saying so (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth). No one's really sure of anything when it comes to Huaxiaosaurus. There's only one scientific publication that talks about it (to my knowledge, I could be wrong here), and that's in Chinese, so I don't know what it says. Ashorocetus (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

How come that there are only 5 dinosaurs on the weight list for ornithopods? And how come the list has dinosaurs that aren't on the length list. I say this because the dinosaurs on the weight list are much shorter than those on the length list. For example the weight list has Hypacrosaurus, which was 9 metres but misses out on Magnapaulia which was over 12 metres. Magnapaulia is just one example of several dinosaurs that aren't listed as heaviest. A few others are, Hypsibema, Saurolophus, Olorotitan, Iguanodon and Parasaurolophus, all of which with the exception of Iguanodon reached 12 metres or more. Is there a reason the list is arranged this way? One more point. If a 12 metre Edmontosaurus weighs 7.6 tonnes then every hadrosaur on the list for length weighs about the same since they range from 11-16 metres. According to that all of those dinosaurs should be listed as heaviest. I think the ornihopod section needs a whole new makeover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.184.7 (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I'm planning on reworking that section later this week, possibly this afternoon if I have time. Ashorocetus (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You did a very good edit. I just think that Parasaurolophus should be included on the lower half of the length list at 10-12 metres and also what type is Parasaurolophus sp? It's good that it is on the weight list but what type is it? And how is it that shorter ornithopods like Hypscrosaurus and Brachylophosaurus are heavier than those which are 4 metres long like Magnapaulia, Olorotitan and Iguanodon. Is it just beacuse they are built heavier than the others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.185.219 (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou. I think that you're probably right about the 10-12m Parasaurolophus. I found a paper describing the 2-meter skull; they don't give a total length estimate for that specimen, but 10-12m seems reasonable given it's size relative to the other known specimens. However, if it's not in the published literature, we can't use a length estimate on this page. I'm not actually sure which type the Parasaurolophus sp. is; the paper I looked at didn't say. I could try to find out (and look into the 10-12m Parasaurolophus) when I have time (which probably won't be til Sunday). I would guess that the shorter Hypacrosaurus and Brachylophosaurus must just be more heavily built than Iguanodon or Olorotitan, but I actually haven't looked into it that much. And there's still Charonosaurus... Ashorocetus (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that the weight side of ornithopods could be improved? I just did some calculations scaling up the weights of the smaller species of hadrosaurs to the larger ones and some estimates seem to high. For example if the 10 metre Saurolophus weighed 2 tonnes, the 12 metre species would weigh only 3-4 tonnes not 9 tonnes. The same for Edmontosaurus annectens, which would weigh only 4-5 tonnes. I also think Brachylophosaurus should be a bit lighter and Magnapaulia a little heavier. Apart from that the new length and weight list is great, except the Parasaurolophus and Charonosaurus missing on length. I would also think it better to remove Iguanodon from length, since i never heard of them growing over 10 metres. Is this confusion just because less is known about ornithopods in general? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.137.23 (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The confusion is because the estimates come from different sources and for different individuals: 4 tonnes for Magnapaulia is for a 9m individual (Paul, 2010), 2 tonnes for a 10m Saurolophus is certainly wrong, Paul estimates 8.5m individuals at 3 tonnes (Paul, 2010). With Edmontosaurus I don't know from where that 3.2 estimate came from but it's not in Paul (1997) nor in Seebacher (2001), the later actually has an estimate of 4 tonnes for a 8.8m Edmontosaurus annectens and the 7.6 estimate is for a 12m individual, citing Brett-Surman (1997) (I think). I think we should lower the length and weight threshold to be included in the list, if you stray away from popular dinosaur books (like that of Dixon) you'll see that very few ornithopods actually got over 11m long at all, neither Olorotitan or Charonosaurus are one of them, if you go read Godefroit et al. (2000,2003) which include full skeletal reconstructions you'll see that the 12m "estimates" attributed to them are pure imagination. Mike.BRZ (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Paul 1997 lists the mass of "Anatotitan" (which is synonymous with Edmontosaurus) as 3.2t (and it also lists 2 t for Saurolophus, but it's length is only around 7m so I think that's a different specimen). I don't think it's necessary to lower the threshold, it's supposed to list only the biggest ornithopods. Removing the length estimates from Dixon would only take Olorotitan off the list (which I'm not opposed to), and I think (looking at all the other sources) that would be more accurate. However, concerning Charonosaurus: I'm honestly surprised that there aren't 12 meter estimates for the length of Charonosaurus in the literature. The femur is 135 cm, which, assuming the same total length to femur length ratio as Parasaurolophus, would predict 12 meters (though looking at Godefroit et al. 2000 gives a length of about 8.5-9 m, so I suppose it just must have a proportionally longer femur). I agree those estimates are unpublished and hence should be left off this page, but I do think dismissing them as "pure imagination" is not justified. Ashorocetus (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please give the page number? I have Paul (1997) and I'm unable to find the estimates you mention. Paul has estimated 3.2 tonnes for E. annectens, but it was in 2010 and for a 9m individual. It is pure imagination, It seems to be considerably complete and Godefroit et al skeletal shows an animal roughly 10m in axial length, in fact, this is consistent with Parasaurolophus walkeri, Paul estimates ROM 768, which has a 105cm long femur, at 7.5m long. Mike.BRZ (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It's on page 149. I didn't know about the 7.5 m estimate for P. walkeri, I was going off of the 30 foot length estimate for a specimen with 103.5 cm femur in Lull 1942. Ashorocetus (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? Paul (1997) "Dinosaur models: the good, the bad, and using them to estimate the mass of dinosaurs" goes from pages 129-142, I don't know if there's a different Paul (1997). The type specimen of Parasaurolophus walkeri only preserves like 4 tail vertebrae, could it be that those estimates given them really long tails? Despite Parker 1922 claiming that its head-body length is of 4.8m, I'm only getting about 4.4m measuring the drawing and photo in plates 1 and 2 (measured along the vertebral column using a GIMP script), measuring Scott Hartman's skeletal I get about the same and a total length of 8m. Mike.BRZ (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's in the appendix (pages 143-154). It certainly is possible those reconstructions give long tails (I didn't see any skeletal restoration in the article); it's from a fairly old source, so I think you're right about the smaller size, especially after looking at modern reconstructions. Ashorocetus (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I realized that I'm missing most of the appendix, I only have the last one, damn it. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the maximum weights of these ornithopods like Magnapaulia be listed to gain a more accurate list, since a 12.5 Magnapaulia would weigh about 6 tonnes moving it higher up to about 5th. Wouldn't it be more accurate to place the weights of the largest estimate using the basic scaling up calculations since you say the weight estimates are from smaller individuals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.88.197 (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It might be more accurate, but we can only include estimates from published resources. Ashorocetus (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't just scaling the larger ones up using the smaller individuals be enough to estimate the weights for longer ornithopods? Also, how is it that Hypsibema, the second longest is not on the heaviest list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.76.30 (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be enough to estimate their mass. If you wanted to know how much they weighed, you can perform the scaling calculations. However, Wikipedia is only a compilation of information in published resources: We only use mass and length estimates that come from reliable published sources, i.e. journal articles and books, so even though you could easily come up with an estimate of the size of a dinosaur, it's not included on the page, since that is considered original research. Ashorocetus (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Which type of Iguanodon weighs 15 tonnes? I thought they weigh only 3-4 tonnes and shouldn't Parasaurolophus tubicen be included on the length list for 12 metres? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.129.138 (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It was an Iguanodon seeleyi (which I believe is not usually considered a valid species), and you're right, 15 tonnes seems like a big overestimate (I, for one, don't think it's true), but it comes from a valid published source (Rates Benson et al 2014 - dataset S1). Apparently, with the newer, smaller length estimates for Parasaurolophus walkeri, P. tubicen would not have been 12 meters (probably more like 9-10.5 meters). Ashorocetus (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"Iguanodon seeleyi" is a monster, the circumference of its femur and humerus are 639mm and 397mm respectively, compare that with 680mm and 404mm in the type of Shantungosaurus giganteus (which was estimated at 17 tonnes with the same equations). The equations are based on limb bone circumference in extant vertebrates, methinks the sample is skewed by likely fat/overweight captive large mammals used in the sample but there's nothing we can do about it. Either way this individual was huge regardless. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I didn't realize that about "Iguanodon seeleyi" (I'm really not up on Ornithopods, thankyou for informing me). I think part of the problem also comes from the fact that we're doing a major extrapolation of the allometries, so they just give an in-the-ballpark estimate for body size. Ashorocetus (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't 8 tonnes for Iguanodon too much and how long was Iguanodon seeleyi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.178.29 (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't know; I don't have a good intuition for ornithopods. I might expect I. seeleyi to be 12-15 meters, based on the 15 t mass estimate. Ashorocetus (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The 8 tonnes for Iguanodon comes from calculations based on femur and humerus circumference assuming it was quadrupedal. I think this could overestimate since Iguanodon could walk bipedally some, so you would expect it to have more robust femurs that a comparably sized quadruped (but this is O.R., I'm not suggesting we edit based on it). Ashorocetus (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ichnotaxon

Although I don't think it is right, I will tell that I saw a video that it said the second largest dinosaur is ichnotaxon. And when I saw a part, it scared me and I tumbled backwards! Do you know what? Mapusaurus larger than giganotosaurus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaur Fan (talk • contribs) 07:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Torosaurus

How come 6 tonne Torosaurus isn't on the list of heaviest ceratopsians. Not just excluded from the top 5 but the entire list. It's included on the length list but not weight. Is this a mistake or is Torosaurus really just a Triceratops? If it wasn't heavy enough to be in the top 14 then that is just ridiculous. Torosaurus can't have weighed less than 2 tonnes. Can someone please answer.112.134.252.55 (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Torosaurus is mostly known from skulls and because of this there's very few if any weight estimates in the scientific literature. I don't remember ever seeing one. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Heaviest Dinosaurs/Heaviest Sauropods

Why is heaviest dinosaurs different from heaviest sauropods? They should be the same. Dinosaur Fan (User talk:Dinosaur Fan) — Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good question, why is there a "general records" section at all? longest and largest are sauropods by default and smallest and lightest will be theropods. I also wonder if we should restrict the lists to top 10s, say, if every single dinosaur got a mass estimate will we add every single one to this article? Mike.BRZ (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Restricting to top 10's might be a good idea, but some of the sections aren't 10 long, and what would we do if there was a tie for 10th place? Perhaps we should make this article into a sortable list of dinosaurs with length and mass estimates, and go into a little bit more of the scientific-ness behind the estimates too. It should actually be about dinosaur size, not just record-breakers.. Ashorocetus (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And also, there's Fruitadens on the lightest list, and it's not a theropod. Ashorocetus (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Very few aren't 10 long and if there is a tie we do what we already do, count each one separate (there are several ties in the sauropod and theropod lists). Well, Fruitadens is just one exception. I'm not sure how much can we expand on what is already said on the dinosaur article about body size, going into how the estimates were made will also prove difficult because it will need mostly original research, there are scientific publications that discuss mass estimates but what about the cases where there is no method given at all? (Holtz' estimates, which are mostly wrong regarding ornithischians as I complained like a year ago). Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we would really need any O.R. for the type of revisions I'm envisioning. I think I'll go draft the changes I'm envisioning over in my sandbox... Ashorocetus (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. It seems a little too much to go into the 11th or 15th longest or largest. The estimates also become less reliable lower down, although for sauropods it's the same at the top.112.134.203.60 (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sauropod weighth

The page Dinosaur Size Heavy Sauropods' Dreadnoughtus is 59.3-60m and Sauroposeidon is 40-60m Why does the creator of Dinosaur Size says that Sauroposeidon is larger? And there is also problem at the bottom. The order should be like this. Am I wrong? 1. Amphicoelias 122.4t 2. Argentinosaurus 60-90t 3. Antarctosaurus 69-80t 4. Mamenchisaurus 75t 5. Dreadnoughtus 59.3-60t 6. Sauroposeidon 40-60t 7. Paralititan 59t 8. Unnamed 58t 9. Brachiosaurus 28.7-56.3t 10. Turiasaurus 40-50.9t 11. Puertasaurus more than 50t 12. Ruyangosaurus more than 50t 13. Alamosaurus more than 50t 14. Futalognkosaurus more than 38-50t 15. Camarasaurus 47t 16. Elaltitan 42.9t 17. Seismosaurus (Diplodocus hallorum) 30-42.5t 18. Tenuelsaurus 41.3t 19. Apatosaurus 18-41.3t 20. Supersaurus 32-40.2t — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaur Fan (talk • contribs) 01:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's just 59.3, not 59.3-60. (News reports rounded it off). Yes, 59.3 is an absurd degree of accuracy, but that's a different issue. Ashorocetus (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I agree. I just made a mistake. But what about Elaltitan, Seismosaurus, Tenuelsaurus, Apatosaurus and Supersaurus? Is there any thing wrong? Dinosaur Fan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Seismosaurus (Diplodocus hallorum) is best known for it's length, which has been revised to about 33-36 metres. It was quite light for it's size, despite being one of the longest dinosaurs. However Seismosaurus should, in my opinion be a bit higher on the list for weight, say 9th-11th place. This depends on the weight of Apatosaurus, which varies from 25-35 tonnes, because Seismosaurus was based on the weight of the former. For a 25 tonne Apatosaurus a 34 metre Seismosaurus would weigh about 40 tonnes. For a 30 tonne Apatosaurus about 48 tonnes. For a 35 tonne Apatosaurus about 56 tonnes. I've never heard of Apatosaurus weighing 40 tonnes but for a 40 tonne Apatosaurus, Seismosaurus would weigh 64 tonnes. If you ask me, Seismosaurus should be listed at 30-60 tonnes but this is just my opinion. Supersaurus was about the same length as Seismosaurus but lighter, about 30-40 tonnes. Elaltitan, from what I know was just a little smaller than Antarctosaurus giganteus at 30 metres. I sorry but I've never heard of Tenuelsaurus, so I'm not sure how large it really was. It was probably about 30 metres too.112.134.203.60 (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is Seismosaurus based on Apatosaurus? Seismosaurus is a Diplodocus species (in fact, it's probably just a large specimen of D. longus), so doesn't it make sense to compare it to other Diplodocus species rather than to the less similar Apatosaurus? Anyway, none of this is published (as far as I know, if you know of a paper or a book, please give me a link or citation), so it's not going to affect the page. Ashorocetus (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It was based on Apatosaurus because palaeontologists at the New Mexico Mueseum of Natural History claim it to be heavy bodied like Apatosaurus and say that it's bones are comparable to Apatosaurus. The book that I read about this in was the outdated, Seismosaurus the Earthshaker by David Gillette.112.134.248.173 (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I believe most paleontologists currently think Seismosaurus was more slender like a Diplodocus, but anyhow, your calculations count as original research (even though they're just scaling), so we can't add them to the page. Ashorocetus (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Theropod Size

Ekrixinatosaurus was 10-12m in the article, and carcharodontosaurus iguidensis was 14m in length, and spinosaurus marocannus was 12.7-14.2m, so I think the order should be like this. Correct me if I am wrong.1. Spinosaurus aegyptiacus 14.3-18m 2. Spinosaurus marocannus 12.7-14.2m 3. Carcharodontosaurus iguidensis 14m 4.Oxalaia quilombensis 12-14m 5. Giganotosaurus carolinii: 12.2-13.2m 6. Carcharadontosaurus saharicus 12-13m Saurophaganax, Mapusaurus, t.rex, tyrannotitan, acrocanthosaurus, bahariasaurus and I think ekrixinatosaurus was before torvosaurus and allosaurus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaur Fan (talk • contribs) 00:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I also think that Bahariasaurus may have been 13.3m ~~Dinosaur Fan~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaur Fan (talk • contribs) 01:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have references, or are these your own estimates? On this page (and throughout wikipedia), we only compile information from published sources. So, if you don't have sources, even if what you say is true, we can't put it on the page (See Verifiability, not truth and No original research). If, on the other hand, you have published sources backing up you claim, you are free to correct the page (if you put in the citations), or you can list your sources here, and I or another editor will fix the page. Ashorocetus (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That list is quite accurate although I don't remember any Carcharodontosaur exceeding 13 metres so the iguidensis one might needing some moving down to the same place as saharicus. I think that Saurophaganax would come in 5th according to the above list since most sources indicate a length of 13 metres, so it would probably come after Giganotosaurus. I also heard about the discovery of a Late Jurassic allosaurid from Morocco and Iberia. It was supposed to be 14-15 metres long. Does anyone know more about this theropod and is it published because if so it should be second.112.134.203.60 (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about accuracy, I'm talking about verifiability. Are there any publications backing up that list or the length estimates given? If not, then Wikipedia is not the place for it. Do you have any sources? That Moroccan allosaur sounds interesting, is there somewhere I can go to read more? Ashorocetus (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw it on an article and as of right now I'm not sure what it was called. However the page said that palaeontologists found huge footprints of an Allosaurus like theropods which were 80 centimetres long, though some reports say 90. The theropod was estimated at 14-15 metres long, about the same size as the original Saurophaganax estimates. Here's a the address for the page about the footprints: http://paleopunk.blogspot.com/2009/09/giant-theropod-trackway-found-in-upper.html. Do you think this theropod should be included in the length list?112.134.203.60 (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I found the description paper of the tracks (here's a link to it; it was cited in the blog post you sent me to). On page 43, it says the theropod would have been 10-19 meters, which definitely would put it on the list. The only reason I would think that we wouldn't want to include it is because is based on tracks. I'm not sure what the status of footprints is for this page. I would advocate for including it, but I'll ask the other editors what they think (I'm a little concerned about the potential hype generated from the 19 m upper bound estimate. It's probably only about the same size as the other large theropods we know of). Ashorocetus (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Not enough. I don't think I read enough for this theropod. Dinosaur Fan — Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Footprints?

What does everyone else think, should size estimates based on footprints be included on this page? Ashorocetus (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No, there's a lot of factors that can influence the size of a footprint, besides for the current equations to work accurately you'll need a very very good fotprint that doesn't show signs of distortion while the footprint in the topic above looks distorted. Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. Come to think of it, there's also the fact that a footprint could come from a known dinosaur and we wouldn't know it. Ashorocetus (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a very good question. I'm in two minds about it. I agree with the fact that footprints aren't always reliable but it would be a good idea to think about dinosaurs known only from trackways. This is because some dinosaurs have been found only through footprints and these are certainly large enough to join the lists. A good example is the allosaur from the above section, which at an estimate of 14-15 metres would be second in the theropod length list. Another dinosaur is the sauropod, Breviparopus. It is only known from a 90 metre long trackway but has been estimated at 33 metres, long enough to join for length. By scaling this sauropod's weight using a 26 metre, 40 tonne Brachiosaurus would result in a weight at roughly 45-50 tonnes. This is large enough to join the weight list for as well. I'm not really sure what is the better idea, but it might be okay to join a dinosaur known from footprints to this page, if it is from a reliable and published set of tracks.112.135.242.239 (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I would agree. I know footprints are pretty bad for size estimation, but are they really so much worse than what we have of Amphicoelias fragillimus? But my opinion is not the only one that needs to be considered. Ashorocetus (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Sauropod Order (Length and Weight)

Length first:

1) Argentinosaurus was only 30-35 metres long not 36.

2)Diplodocus (Seismosaurus) was 33-35 metres long. 33-36 metres according to the palaeontologists involved with the Seismosaurus in the New Mexico Museum.

3)Mamenchisaurus.S would have really been only 30-35 metres since the large estimates are based on mounted skeletons.

4) Supersaurus was could have reached 35 metres based the skeleton called Jimbo.

Judging by this after Amphicoelias: Diplodocus (Seismosaurus) should be second. Supersaurus should be third. Mamenchisaurus.S should be fourth. Argentinosaurus should be fifth.

What do you think?112.135.242.239 (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Now Weight:

1) Argentinosaurus was the second heaviest at 60-90 tonnes.

2) Antarctosaurus would have weighed 60-80 tonnes, so it was lighter.

3) Both Puertasaurus and Futalognkosaurus would have weighed 50-80 tonnes.

4) Most weight estimates of Diplodocus (Seismosaurus) range from and between 30-60 tonnes but palaeontologists claim that the fossils are too fragmentary to decide which is true. Any how a more reliable estimate for Seismosaurus would be 40-50 tonnes since the mass of 40 tonnes is considered by the palaeontologists who worked in the New Mexico Museum to be a light estimate. So, Seismosaurus might be more accurate to be moved to 8th or 9th place.

5) Paralititan weighed in at 40-50 tonnes so it's weight range is too low and too high.

Based on this Argentinosaurus, Puertasaurus, Futalognkosaurus and Diplodocus should have their ranks moved up in the list.

What do you think? Please answer whether this is right.112.135.242.239 (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Citation to published papers? Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You make interesting points (and I agree with a lot of them, with the exception of those regarding "Seismosaurus" and Supersaurus), but unless it's backed up by a scientific publication, it's not really the type of stuff we want on Wikipedia. Ashorocetus (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Theropod Weight

Why is the minimum weight of giganotosaurus is 6.1t? I read the Giganotosaurus talk page and said that the minimum length of giganotosaurus is 5.2t! That means that Giganotosaurus carolinii is only 5.2-13.8t! And shouldn't Bahariasaurus be on the list? Dinosaur Fan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The first few theropods on the weight lists seem to be exaggerated, with the first four exceeding 10 tonnes, with Spinosaurus being the only one to actually reach such a size. As far as I know the most reliable estimate for Giganotosaurus is 6-8 tonnes, though you may be right.112.134.203.60 (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You're completely right about the exaggerated masses. As for the 5.2 t thing - I have no idea where that number comes from, so I can't assess its reliability. But anyhow, this is still original research, which means, though it may be true, it will not be added to this page. Ashorocetus (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Which sources say that Giganotosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus and Tyrannosaurus weighed over 10 tonnes because Wikipedia is the first place I've seen those estimates?112.134.203.60 (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There was this paper (My theropod is bigger than yours … or not: estimating body size from skull length in theropods) that used skull size allometry to estimate the body mass of Theropods. They volumetrically estimated the mass of Tyrannosaurus at 10 tonnes, but calculated mass of Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus by skull length, even though they have more elongated skulls than T. rex. That's probably why the numbers are so high, but they still come from a valid, published source, so we can't throw them out with out another publication saying why they're inaccurate. Ashorocetus (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

tons or tonnes?

Shall we use metric tonnes or short tons?Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Science uses metric so metric. Mike.BRZ (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not both? We have both meters and feet. Ashorocetus (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was a question of either one or the other, I have never thought about it to be honest but it is true that in the articles we generally have metric tonnes and next to it short tons in parenthesis. Mike.BRZ (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I just changed it to have both. Ashorocetus (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

t.rex

Isn't bahariasaurus and tyrannotitan larger than t.rex? Dinosaur Fan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody really knows how big these animals were, but the published mass and length estimates all agree T. rex was larger than Bahariasaurus or Tyrannotitan (unless you have a source saying otherwise). Ashorocetus (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw that bahariasaurus was 13.3m: https://hk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A8tUwJigmRpUbH0AjUy1ygt.;_ylu=X3oDMTIyZ25pODJvBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZANlZmQ4MTI3ZjBiMGFjMDNkZTI0ZWEyNjYyMGE5Y2UyZQRncG9zAzMEaXQDYmluZw--?back=https%3A%2F%2Fhk.images.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3DLargest%2Btheropods%26n%3D60%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dyfp%26fr2%3Dsb-top-hk.images.search.yahoo.com%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D3&w=2453&h=286&imgurl=images2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20100611200552%2Fdeadtimes%2Fimages%2Fd%2Fd5%2FLargest_Theropods.png&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdeadtimes.wikia.com%2Fwiki%2FFile%3ALargest_Theropods.png&size=68.5KB&name=%3Cb%3ELargest+Theropods%3C%2Fb%3E.png&p=Largest+theropods&oid=efd8127f0b0ac03de24ea26620a9ce2e&fr2=sb-top-hk.images.search.yahoo.com&fr=yfp&tt=%3Cb%3ELargest+Theropods%3C%2Fb%3E.png&b=0&ni=21&no=3&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11qe2k29v&sigb=14gnr3o52&sigi=12psvvq0i&sigt=10sg4nma4&sign=10sg4nma4&.crumb=si3Tp90RRNL&fr=yfp&fr2=sb-top-hk.images.search.yahoo.com

Thyreophorans vs separate cats for Stegosaurs and Ankylosaurs

How do we feel about this one? (was about to add Stegosaurus but had a thought.....)

Voting?

Separate:

1. Cas Liber 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Together as Thyreophores:

1. Dinosaur Fan 06:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Shortest theropods

Some had not complete tail feathers, like Epidexipteryx should be about forty something cm. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Bahariasaurus size

Isn't bahariasaurus larger than acrocanthosaurus? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And shouldn't we just use the same number instead of make one of them larger by weight? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Bahariasaurus is extremely fragmentary and you don't find any estimate, be it of mass or total length, in published papers, we only have estimates from semi-technical books, Bahariasaurus claims of giant size rest on a 122cm long femur. Compared to Acrocanthosaurus position in the list, they are tied, it doesn't matter which one is ahead of the other in the list, I don't know if it was intentional to put Acrocanthosaurus ahead but I think is fine considering we have way more evidence that it really reach that size range than we have of Bahariasaurus doing so. Mike.BRZ (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is the source of a 11m bahariasaurus? I had only saw a 11m bahariasaurus in Wikipedia. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's right there, The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs by Gregory S. Paul. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing theropods

Why isn't Carcharodontosaurus iguidensis on the list? It was 13-14m. Source: http://www.science20.com/news_releases/student_identifies_carcharodontosaurus_iguidensis_as_new_species_of_carnivorous_dinosaur I am not sure how long is Spinosaurus marocannus, but I think it should be on the list. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

And tyrannosaurus rex was 11.9 to 12.8m (11.9 to 12.3m) Source: http://www.tyrannosaurus-rex.org/ Dinosaur Fan (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, bahariasaurus was 13.3m. Source: http://deadtimes.wikia.com/wiki/File:Largest_Theropods.png and https://hk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A3eg9CLYmxpUoVUA1Um1ygt.;_ylu=X3oDMTIyZ25pODJvBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZANlZmQ4MTI3ZjBiMGFjMDNkZTI0ZWEyNjYyMGE5Y2UyZQRncG9zAzMEaXQDYmluZw--?back=https%3A%2F%2Fhk.images.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3DLargest%2Btheropods%26n%3D60%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dyfp%26fr2%3Dsb-top-hk.images.search.yahoo.com%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D3&w=2453&h=286&imgurl=images2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20100611200552%2Fdeadtimes%2Fimages%2Fd%2Fd5%2FLargest_Theropods.png&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdeadtimes.wikia.com%2Fwiki%2FFile%3ALargest_Theropods.png&size=68.5KB&name=%3Cb%3ELargest+Theropods%3C%2Fb%3E.png&p=Largest+theropods&oid=efd8127f0b0ac03de24ea26620a9ce2e&fr2=sb-top-hk.images.search.yahoo.com&fr=yfp&tt=%3Cb%3ELargest+Theropods%3C%2Fb%3E.png&b=0&ni=21&no=3&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11qe2k29v&sigb=14gnr3o52&sigi=12psvvq0i&sigt=10sg4nma4&sign=10sg4nma4&.crumb=si3Tp90RRNL&fr=yfp&fr2=sb-top-hk.images.search.yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaur Fan (talk • contribs) 08:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurus iguidensis at 13-14m is a media invention, the actual scientific publication never says such thing, only saying "as big as C. saharicus" and saying that its maxilla was only 80% the length of that of C. saharicus. The only length estimate out there is that of 10m by Gregory S. Paul.

The largest Tyrannosaurus rex known, Sue, had the length of its skeleton measured digitally at 12.3m, 12.8m is how long the museum thought the mount was not an actual measurement.

The only estimates on the length of Bahariasaurus are those of Paul and Holtz, the scale you link is "fan-made" and is not based on any scientific publication. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Light heribivores

What family is Fruitadens haagorum? If there is, it should be the lightest. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not in any of the other groups (it's a basal ornithischian), and you're right, it seems like it ought to show up elsewhere, but that's the fault of the page's structure. 63.155.178.244 (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ceratopsians legnth

Shouldn't the order of the ceratopsisns be this? 19)Chasmosaurus russelli 18) Agujaceratops 17)Arrhinosaceratops 16)Vagaceratops 15)Chasmosaurus russelli Dinosaur Fan (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Stegosaur Size

Was Dacentrurus really heavier than Stegosaurus? I thought that Stegosaurus was the largest and I thought Dacentrurus weighed no more than 5 tonnes. Are these from published sources?112.135.113.6 (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That estimate comes from Benson et al. (2014) and it was obtained through a regression equation for limb bone circumference, that same publication also estimates the weight of the largest Stegosaurus, is about the same as the one for Dacentrurus but whoever put the higher estimate for Dacentrurus forgot to add the higher estimate for Stegosaurus too, this estimates appear high because big dinosaurs appear to have much more robust limbs than similarly sized mammals (which is most of the sample used to make the equations). Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sauropod weight changes

How is it that sauropods like Futalognkosaurus and Puertasaurus are 3rd and 4th on the general records for weight but are 11th and 14th on the actual weight list. This is true for other sauropods as well. Is there a reason why some sauropods change places between the general records and the weight list? Also how come that some sauropods have a weight range in the weight list but not on general records?112.135.113.6 (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I had asked it before too (see Heaviest Dinosaurs/Heaviest sauropods) Dinosaur Fan (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC) The changed dinosaurs are: Argentinosaurus Puertasaurus Futalognkosaurus Antarctosaurus Sauroposeidon Dreadnoughtus Paralititan Unnamed Brachiosaurus Mamenchisaurus Turiasaurus Ruyangosaurus Alamosaurus Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The different orders are mostly because they are updated separately, I'll try to do something about it. Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yaverlandia bitholus

This guy was moved away from pachcephalosaurs to theropod so it should be on the lightest list. It was 300.4-700.8 grams. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Dreadnoughtus

The 26m and 59.3t Dreadnoughtus is not a grown-up.--Dinosaur Fan (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's true. However, at present, no one really knows how large it could have been. My guess is around 30-32 metres and about 60-65 tonnes, maybe 70 at max.112.135.103.175 (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

But nobody knows really, so we'll just go with the 59.3t. Ashorocetus (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

sauropod weight order

Elaltitan was heavier than Seismosaurus (Diplodocus hallorum). And Supersaurus was lighter than Tehuelchesaurus and Apatosaurus. The order should be like this: 16. Elaltitan 42.9t 17. Seismosaurus (Diplodocus hallorum) 30-42.5t 18. Tehuelchesaurus 41.3t 19. Apatosaurus 18-41.3t 20. Supersaurus 30-40.2t Dinosaur Fan (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Good catch! Ashorocetus (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Not that it has to do with the above, but Puertasaurus and Futalognkosaurus were heavier than 30-50 tonnes. It's stranger because on one list it says just that but on another it's quite a reduction. Which is correct?112.135.103.175 (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Likely the smaller ones, Futalongkosaurus and Dreadnoughtus appear to be similar in size (and all of them smaller than Argentinosaurus), if you've followed subsequent analysis on Dreadnoughtus after the paper was released, particularly those of paleontologists Dr. Matt Wedel in his blog "Sauropod Vertebrae Picture of the Week" you'll know that a much more plausible weight is around 30 tonnes, the almost 60 tonnes estimate came about because they used limb bone circumference equations and this sauropod just has crazy robust limbs. Puertasaurus also doesn't appear to be any bigger than Dreadnoughtus, the claims of its giant size happened because they were comparing its vertebrae with the wrong vertebrae of Argentinosaurus. Still, this is all unpublished so even though it comes from a respected paleontologist it appears we can't use it here. Also Paralititan also appears to be similar in size to Dreadnoughtus and Futalongkosaurus. Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

t.rex

T. rex is not 12.8m but only 12.3m. It was changed! Even Sue is only 12.3 and never 12.8m. If t.rex was really 12.8m, Mapusaurus would be 10-13m. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to change t.rex length or Mapusaurus and Tyrannotitan length? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll change the t.rex. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Femur?

We already know that footprints don't count so torvosaurus won't be 13m, but does femur estimates be on the page? If femur does, tyrannotitan would be placed at 12.2-13.6m which would be third on the list. But maybe it was too much? I think it was 13.1m but that's just my own opinion so the 13.1m has no source so is not on the page. But what about the 13.6m guess of femur? Should femur estimates be in the article? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course! as long as they come from a scientific publication. There are no estimates for Tyrannotitan in the scientific literature so I have no idea from where that 13.6m comes from. Mike.BRZ (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Unnamed MPM-PV-39

How long is the unnamed heavy sauropod at 58t? (Unnamed MPM-PV-39) Dinosaur Fan (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Who knows? Ashorocetus (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve: 1. I would like to know the reasons to why the dinosaurs developed such large size. 2. I would like to see how size benefited large dinosaurs. 3. I would like to see how size developed affected the growth of other dinosaurs and organisms. Giambruno-fuge.2 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC) B. Giambruno-Fuge

I'm planning on adding that type of stuff in (as well as how size is estimated), but I haven't gotten around to it (big project, not much free time). Ashorocetus (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Spinosaurus

On the spinosaurus page says spinosaurus was 12.6-18m, so why is Spinosaurus aegyptiacus 14.3-18m? Perhaps spinosaurus marocannus was 12.6-14.2m Dinosaur Fan (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And a 14.2m dinosaur will be on the list. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is written in the theropod section: In cases where a range of currently accepted estimates exist, sources are given for the sources with the lowest and highest estimates, respectively, and only the highest values are given if these individual sources give a range of estimates. 12.6m comes is from the same source as the 14.3m one but as the above says only the upper end of their range is included here, anyway it doesn't matter anymore as I changed its length to that of Ibrahim et al. (2014) which supersedes Dal Sasso et al (2005) estimates and refutes those of Therrien and Henderson (2007). Mike.BRZ (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Unnamed Patagonian titanosaur: "Biggest animal?"

I'm sure Trelewsaurus (which I named myself)should be on Number 2 on 'Biggest sauropods' because the scientists who found it have already estimated it was 40m long and weighs around 77 tonnes, which is only 18m shorter than the animal at the top of the list. Anyway, I also think that Bruthakayosaurus should share a place on the podium because scientists have also estimated it too was around the same length. But I'm sure that Trelewsaurus should be above because it was nearly twenty and a half metres long, which is not comparable to any other sauropod, except Sauroposeidon, which scientists say is 17m tall. But because it wasn't related to Brachiosaurus, this could be inaccurate. There are too many unnamed sauropods (which are mostly the giant titanosaurs.)South American titanosaurs are common, and I'm sure that they are all close relatives, because of their vast size. But to finish this off, do you have any ideas why these 3 animals I mentioned (Bruthakyosaurus, Sauropodeidon(?) and Trelewsaurus) are not there. I know that Bruthakyosaurus has a unpublished size, so I just need you to tell me about Trelewsaurus and Sauroposeidon (possibly). Jk41293 (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Trelewsaurus" is estimated at 40m, but then you say it's 20.5m? I'm sorry, but your comment is confusing. Anyway, you are right, there are several undescribed specimens that are large enough to be on this list. However, only published specimens and published mass estimates are included, since those are scientifically verifiable. "Bruhathkayosaurus" and "Trelewsaurus" probably both are large enough, but there are no mass or length estimates in the scientific literature (unless you have source you didn't cite), so they won't be put on the list until something is published. And Sauroposeidon is on the list, I'm not sure why you're asking why it's not there. Ashorocetus (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Bruhathkayosaurus" is probably not even real anyway, there is a nice article on Nima's blog about it. Jinfengopteryx (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"Trelewsaurus" is an undescribed specimen. It cannot be added to the article until the results of scientific study are published. Until then, all size estimates can't be considered accurate (early media reports of new dinosaur size turn out to be way too big 100% of the time). Bruhathkayosaurus has no reliable information about it. The specimen was never dug completely out of the ground, was left under a tarp for many years, and then was eroded away by a flood. It may well have been a fossil tree. As already stated in the article, no scientific size estimates were ever done, and so it ca't be included in the article. Sauroposeidon is already in the article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw the news about Trelewsaurus on BBC News and my opinion is that it wasn't as long as first thought. An estimate of 40 metres seems too long, especially after evidence from other sauropods shrinking in size. Look at Seismosaurus (Diplodocus), once thought to be 39-53 metres, now 33-36 metres. Supersaurus, once thought to be 42 metres, now 33-35 metres. Even the giants of Argentina Argentinosaurus, Puertasaurus and Futalognkosaurus were shrunk. Argentinosaurus was estimated at 37 metres, now it is reduced to 30-35 metres. Puertasaurus was first thought to be 40 metres long, now 30-32 metres. Through all these sauropods it would seem likely that a more modest length estimate would be around 30-35 metres. This is only my opinion but what do you think of this?112.135.242.239 (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The initial estimates almost always shrink with time.Ashorocetus (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought that it hasn't been named yet. At least that is what the BBC page said.112.134.13.75 (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Missing theropods

Where is Epanterias? It was missing! And Zuchengtyrannus and Tarbosaurus were both about 10-12m in their page which will be on the page too. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe most palaeontologists consider Epanterias as a large species of Allosauurs or even a fully grown Allosaurus fragilis. What you say about Zhuchengtyrannus and Tarbosaurus is right and I have no idea why they aren't included on the list.112.135.27.57 (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Epanterias is included in Allosaurus, that's why we have it here at all with the 12m estimate. Tarbosaurus, no one that has attempted a reconstruction of Tarbosaurus thinks it was bigger than 10m long, not even Holtz's book claims it was bigger than 10m, only Hone et al (2011), the description of Zhuchengtyrannus does but he references his 10-12m estimate from a decade old publication of Holtz but as the above should tell you, Holtz doesn't think that's accurate anymore. The maxilla and dentary of Zhuchentyrannus are almost exactly the same size as those of the adult Bistahieversor which is universally regarded as 9m long. You are free to include them at 12m citing Hone et al's statements but be aware that even though you are using a verifiable and reliable source, said verifiable and reliable source is plain wrong. Mike.BRZ (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't we change the pages? Dinosaur^Fan

Pachycephalosaurs

Why there isn't a weight section for pachycephalosaurs? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Where is Wannanosaurus and micropachycephalosaurus? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There's not a weight section because there's only like two pachycephalosaurs with mass estimates out there.. Wannosaurus is a juvenile (I think; the article on it says otherwise, however. I'll have to update that some time) and Micropachycephalosaurus is currently classified as a primitive ceratopsian. Ashorocetus (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Deinocheirus

On the Deinocheirus page it was only 2 t. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Those were Paul's old estimates, with the new fossils we now know pretty much all of its anatomy, the leg bones of the adult are as long and thick as those of Tyrannosaurus rex Sue. Mike.BRZ (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Spinosaurus

It;s only 15 metres now. What happened to it being 14-18 metres long?112.134.128.228 (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

15m is what Ibrahim et al. (2014) says, most of the authors of Dal Sasso et al. (2005) (the source of the 16-18m estimates) are also part of this study, so we can treat the new estimate as an update of the old range. Ibrahim et al. (2014) is also based on much more material so it essentially "debunks" the vastly more hypothetical 12.7-14.3m range from Therrien and Henderson (2007). Mike.BRZ (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Apatosaurus

According to its page, a new Apatosaurus fossil was almost 33 metres long and weighed 40-80 tonnes. Shouldn't this be included on the sauropod lists? Also since it was as long as Seismosaurus and Supersaurus but its weight was estimated higher, shouldn't the latter two sauropods' weights be increased?112.135.73.89 (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I had not heard about this Apatosaurus before. But it does seem to come from a scientific source, so I guess it ought to go on the list. With regards to Supersaurus and Seismosaurus: Nothing gets changed if there's no scientific publication backing up a change. If that bothers you, consider the fact that Apatosaurus was somewhat fat for a diplodocid, and that 40t is an overestimate for CM 3018, and so, correspondingly, is 80t for this specimen. Ashorocetus (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have 2 things to say:

1. On the page it says that it was 26-33m which should be on the sauropod list too.
2. Why it is only on the Heaviest Sauropod lists but not on the Heaviest dinosaur list?

Dinosaur Fan (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

1. The length estimate does not come from a published source, only a blog, so it doesn't go on the list.
2. Because I forgot to put it on the other list (lemme do that real fast). Ashorocetus (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Argyrosaurus

On the page it says argyrosaurus was 20-30m and 80t, but I am not sure if it should be in the article because I can't find any sources on the page. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no published size estimates of Argyrosaurus. That uncited information should be removed. Mike.BRZ (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What are you waiting for? Change it! Dinosaur Fan (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can do it too, just removed it though. Mike.BRZ (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I recently wrote an article on the costs/benefits of large size in dinosaurs. Here is a snippet of said paper: Benefits to large size include resource storing, protection, and protection against cold. These benefits mean that large size would more easily develop because they outweigh the drawbacks. Resource storing is a lot easier in large creatures because there is more room to store food and therefore more room to store excess energy. An example of this is how humans can go about 3 days without eating because of stored energy (such as fat). This resource storage would then mean that creatures of large size would be able to do more movement with less access to food because they already have a supply stored. For example, large elephants are able to move over longer distances without stopping because they have so much stored energy. Protection is a simple concept to understand: larger creatures tend to be more difficult to take down. Many large creatures also have a form of defense built onto their bodies. Triceratops had horns, Sauropods had whip-like tails, and Stegosaurus had a spike tail. The larger bodies means that the creatures can more easily carry such weaponry without affecting their lifestyle much. One final benefit to large size is protection against the cold. The obvious explanation to this would be along the line of blubber (extra fat to protect against cold weather), but there is more to it than that. Bigger bodies are better heat retainers, because it takes longer for precious heat to travel from an animal's core to its extremities and dissipate (Moskowitz, 2008). This makes it more difficult for larger animals to freeze. This is why your fingers and toes get cold long before your chest, because heat stays near the important things (in this case, it is the heart). Larger creatures can, because of this ability to control their heat output, live in environments that fluctuate temperatures more often

Good stuff. Is it published or going to be published somewhere? Ashorocetus (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Black Beauty

On an article in Wikipedia, Black beauty the t.rex is the smallest adult but how large is Sue was 8.4t in this page. It says 9 short tons, not metric tonnes. And where does the 9.5t comes from? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The 8.4 and 9.5 t are just different mass estimates. I don't know why it only mentions one of them in the page on Sue. The 9.5 t comes from this paper. Ashorocetus (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

To Jinfengopteryx (talk)The shortest adult t.rex in an article of Wikipedia was 10.9m, so where does 10m comes from? Or you just say about? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked nothing up, so I could be wrong. Anyway, since it was the lower end of the adult size, we can assume that roughly 11 m is correct.

To the others, the 8.4 t figure was taken from here:

http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/mass-estimates-north-vs-south-redux772013

Jinfengopteryx (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

To Jinfengopteryx (talk), Ashorocetus (talk)'s paper says Sue was 6.1-9.5t. And since your paper says 8.4t, and 8.4 is between 6.1-9.5t so it is okay. I am just wondering why the weight of the article lists it 6.1-9.5 - only Sue's estimate? Is there a lighter estimate to put on the minimum weight? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There is also a 4.5 t estimate that you can list for Tyrannosaurus [1]. Jinfengopteryx (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is 15t here? Or it is the article incorrect or not updated? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

And it is from zh.Wikipedia. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Or it is just Celeste? I tried to find something on that forum but I couldn't. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes. It is Celeste. Thanks to this wiki, the 15t estimate belongs to unstudied Thomas, Celeste, Devil Rex, F-Rex and UCMP 118742. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd forget about these Tyrannosaurus specimens. I have often heard about them, but they have nothing to search here. Their estimates don't appear in scientific papers, not even in scientific blogs or newspapers. Only on YouTube and in some Internet forums where the estimates of the pseudo-scientist Frank Fang are repeated. Jinfengopteryx (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurus saharicus

The source Sereno, P.C., Dutheil, D.B., Iarochene, M., Larsson, H.C.E., Lyon, G.H., Magwene, P.M., Sidor, C.A., Varricchio, D.J. & Wilson, J.A. (1996). Predatory dinosaurs from the Sahara and Late Cretaceous faunal differentiation. Science, 272: 986-991 of C.saharicus shall also list it 13.5m. So it should be larger than Giganotosaurus carolinii. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it a change first. If you reverted my edit, please tell me. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you help me with finding were that paper sais so? I never recall seeing a lenght estimate in there. --Ornitholestes (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

According to this article, it comes from DinoData. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverting

I don't know how to revert edits. Which articles shall I see? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Also remember to read Talk:Dinosaur size#Black Beauty please. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Click on View History, and then click the undo button on the edit you want to revert. Ashorocetus (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Published Sources???

Are these Link 1Link 2 published source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaur Fan (talk • contribs) 07:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Something counts as a published source if it is from a peer-reviewed journal or if it is from a book that is not self published. Blogs and most websites don't count. Ashorocetus (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Giganotosaurus's size

Giganotosaurus was 13-14 meters (42-45 ft) and 7-8 tons. Source: http://fivebeta.com/text/The%20Princeton%20Field%20Guide%20to%20Dinosaurs.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.8.237.178 (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

And Oxalaia is only 11 meters, as suggested by Holtz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.2.26.82 (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The 13-14m estimate was revised to 12.2-13.2m. And I corrected the Oxalaia to 11-14m for you. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)