Giant theropods overview thread

[theropod]

It's not necessary that the femur belonged to the same individual, but all that highly depends on what abelisaurid is used for comparison.

[Fragillimus335]

On another giant theropod note, it seems like the new giant Deinocheirus specimen might exceed 13 meters in length if it is proportioned like other ornithomimids!

[theropod]

From the description it didn't seem as if it was built like a typical ornithomimid, but what that means for its size remains to be seen.

Btw its apparently the most pneumatic large theropod yet found.

[gigadino96]

Oct 26, 2013 7:20:54 GMT 5 Fragillimus335 said:

On another giant theropod note, it seems like the new giant Deinocheirus specimen might exceed 13 meters in length if it is proportioned like other ornithomimids!

Based on homerus, assuming that the holotype is 12 m, and that it have the same proportions, it would be almost 13 m (12,7 m)

12/0,938*0,993=12,7

[Dakotaraptor]

Oct 26, 2013 1:05:04 GMT 5 theropod said:

It's not necessary that the femur belonged to the same individual, but all that highly depends on what abelisaurid is used for comparison.

Maybe but there are not arguments about it, why. 



I know this reconstruction is pretty bad, because it looks like allosauroids rather abelisaur. At least 3/4 of Neck bones are missing, but it doesn't mean the skull couldn't belong to the same animal. 

[theropod]

Well, the skull does look pretty large, but that's hardly an argument, as you already note that skeletal isn't very good, like many skeletals from papers.

[creature386]

I can understand that some skeletals from papers are bad, by why many?

[Dakotaraptor]

There is possible it may have different proportions than other abelisaurids.

Edit:
It's not ruled that skull might be proportionally bigger compared to body size, pretty large by abelisaur standart. 

[theropod]

I'm referring to stuff like the diagrams in Giganotosaurus or Tyrannotitans or Deltadromeus' descriptions, the kind of skeletal Hartman criticises. skeletaldrawing.blogspot.co.at/2011/07/skeletal-poses-do-they-matter.html

But how bad they are depends on what they are used for. as an accurate guide to an animals proportions and posture? Quite often. As an overview to what bones have been recovered? They are fully sufficient.
Still I think both would be best, Hartman- or Paul-quality skeletals in description papers wouldn't do any harm.

[creature386]

Oct 27, 2013 14:25:28 GMT 5 theropod said:

I'm referring to stuff like the diagrams in Giganotosaurus or Tyrannotitans or Deltadromeus' descriptions, the kind of skeletal Hartman criticises. skeletaldrawing.blogspot.co.at/2011/07/skeletal-poses-do-they-matter.html

But aren't these from rather old papers?

[theropod]

It depends on whether you call 2005 old.
But I don't think age has anything to do with this, the skeletal from Aerosteon's 2008 description is similar (and don't get me wrong, I think that's a very good description, unlike many of those 4-to-5-page-papers meant to describe major new discoveries...).
It seems in really old publications skeletals in general are much rarer, they seem to be a major trend of recent years (roughly the time since I'm born).

[Dakotaraptor]

Oct 26, 2013 17:54:23 GMT 5 gigadino96 said:

Oct 26, 2013 7:20:54 GMT 5 Fragillimus335 said:

On another giant theropod note, it seems like the new giant Deinocheirus specimen might exceed 13 meters in length if it is proportioned like other ornithomimids!

Based on homerus, assuming that the holotype is 12 m, and that it have the same proportions, it would be almost 13 m (12,7 m)

12/0,938*0,993=12,7

The problem is lack of solid remains, which could allow to make more accurate estimates. Some said the holotype may be even 13 m. Other said only 10 m. 

[theropod]

Now we have them, we just have to wait a bit longer until they get described!

[Dakotaraptor]

But still length and weight estimates may be varied using several methods and assumptions. However >= 10 m is almost certainly. 

[theropod]

Well, it's supposedly quite complete now, so we'll at least have a much better idea, but yes, some degree of fluctuation and uncertainty will always remain present in an extinct taxon. Even with a whole skeleton the amount of cartilage and soft tissue would influence size estimates, and its impossible to quantify exactly.