|
|
Post by Life on Mar 6, 2013 6:32:03 GMT 5
theropodExcellent work, bro. One thing is that when you cite a link, you shall use tags; in this manner, links will not be cut off or broken.  I agree we can speculate but please, don't bring carnivora forum stuff here. Take it easy my friend.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Mar 7, 2013 2:54:13 GMT 5
@creature,
Since finding out that the scalebars in Sereno et al. 1998 were atrocious and can make the reconstructed skull be anywhere from 1m to 1.3m I was aware of that, and against the "proportion of its relatives" argument to scale Spinosaurus, because we don't know them at all unless we cherry-pick the estimates we like best, though it seems I needed to provide a visual example, Spinodontosaurus beat me to it haha.
I don't know how they got 1.19m long but it's the shortest reconstruction I've read about.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 7, 2013 23:19:38 GMT 5
@life: thanks! I'll remember the link thing!
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 7, 2013 23:27:42 GMT 5
blaze: I measured it and the skull reconstruction is only 105cm (based on scalebar, pmx-qj/occ), and you are right, the one in the skeletal is nearly 130cm, but it lacks an outline so there is some range of error. Where does 119cm come from actually, I only read it in the therrien&henderson study. Anyway, this doesn't change much for me. The spinosaurus holotype also suggests we should take such proportions.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 8, 2013 1:40:01 GMT 5
Where does 119cm come from actually, I only read it in the therrien&henderson study. So that paper has a bad method and bad resarch (this is not the only misquotation). I will maybe look at if the rest in my table was too misquoted. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 9, 2013 2:31:23 GMT 5
The Therrien and Henderson paper is terribly inaccurate and simply a wrong approach in more or less any regard, there is nothing to euphemise. Your table is well researched tough, even tough I'd suggest making a collumn with inofficial estimates like those on scientific blogs and scientists websites.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 9, 2013 19:32:49 GMT 5
Well, about unpublished stuff, my problem is that I can quickly loose the overview.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 12, 2013 16:31:13 GMT 5
That's true. we should work together on collecting all the stuff there is.
|
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Mar 12, 2013 19:30:52 GMT 5
You guys have already done a great job in gathering valuable information on this thread. Keep it up and this will continue to be of great educational value!
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 14, 2013 0:35:34 GMT 5
Is there an alternative to the Therrien and Henderson paper? The closest I have found is Seebacher's, but it doesn't include the skull & it's quite old.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 15, 2013 23:46:01 GMT 5
An alternative in which regard?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 16, 2013 0:56:13 GMT 5
I ment something what lists the sizes of many large theropods.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 16, 2013 2:03:40 GMT 5
I'm not aware of any peer reviewed paper, tough some scientists do list a good collection of size estimates on their sites (Mortimer, Paul, Holtz) that I would for sure regard as far more reliable than the Therrien and Henderson paper, no matter what you can criticise about them.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 16, 2013 2:55:11 GMT 5
Oh, and there's of course carranos paper, while not specifically about size and lacks precise figures it gives quite a lot of comparisons between sizes of the animals in question.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 19, 2013 23:44:56 GMT 5
Well, it mostly says "in the size range of tyrannosaurus and the large carnosaurs".
Tough the skull lengths are helpful.
|
|
I agree we can speculate but please, don't bring carnivora forum stuff here.
