Post by creature386 on May 27, 2013 22:28:53 GMT 5
As now very often debates (although small ones) start in the profiles, I made this therad, which can be used for that purpose, so that we don't need a discussion therad for all the animals we have a profile for (IMO, it is better to have one therad with lots of post who can cover the topic than a couple of smaller ones). You can write something like "This refers to the Â… profile". This isn't the most arranged way, but I still find it better than an extra therad for all the profiles, where we debate in. You can of course aswell write somethings about our profiles in general.
imo the T. rex profile needs a few minor corrections: "Size: 40 ft (12 m) long; 15 to 20 ft (4.6 to 6 m) tall "
The height is still outdated kangaroo posture, while it should be measured at acetabular or ilial height and would likely be about 3-3,5m there.
"its 4-foot-long (1.2-meter-long) jaw" The mandibles of theropods, including T. rex (http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Tyrannosauroidea.html#Tyrannosaurusrex) are comparable to or longer than their crania. The cranium is later said to be 1,5m, which in turn corresponds to, if at all, the very largest specimens, but is valid. Both figures should fit together.
"T. rex's serrated, conical teeth" I may be wrong from a sematic point of view, but I think this part is contradictory or at least misleading. T. rex teeth are thick, but ziphodont. Some are D. shaped, but none round.
and on the sue-post: "Length: 40.5 feet (12.9 meters)
Height at hips: 13 feet (4.0 meters)" These are the measurements given by the field museum. The first one is a wrong translations to the metric system, 40,5ft equals 12,3m (as also given by Hutchinson et al, 2011) The height figure appears to incorporate the platform it is mounted on and should not be used.
I'm not trying to nitpick, please don't feel offended. These are just a few common, minor but still relevant misconceptions that are made too often and should be removed. Apart from that, it's a very good profile. I'll try to contribute more there in the next time.
While I like it's style, the arms are oversized and their pronated posture is inaccurate; Tetanurans have inward-turned palmar surfaces of their manus, that are flexed and extended in the transverse plane. The size diagram (http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/graphic/size-tyrannosaursrex-160-2930-cb1273171566.gif) is also inaccurate because it makes use of the same render, made from an anterior angle. I recommend we should use Scott Hartman's skeletal diagrams, whenever available, as a representation of an animal in the profile section.
Last Edit: Sept 6, 2013 20:00:58 GMT 5 by theropod
I took the same type of separation for my Carcharodontosaurus profile.
I think they both have their advantages. The numbers are a bit more tidy, but if you are familiar with many studies on the topic the traditional short citation is more helpful because you may already know the paper, which is good if you've got a long list of references to search through.
I now moved the Siats meekerorum profile and added the first description as a source. By the way, DinosaurMichael and Godzillasaurus, you're ought to provide your sources in your profiles. Life moved broly's Spinophorosaurus profile, because it included no sources, before he edited it.