gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226 
|
Post by gigadino96 on Dec 31, 2014 15:57:28 GMT 5
The widest but the longest ? I guess that title belongs to Tyrannosaurus. If I'm not mistaken, the largest 'Sue''s tooth is 30.5 cm long. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 31, 2014 16:32:53 GMT 5
Especially the longest.
The largest T. rex teeth are of comparable width (over 5cm mesiodistally), tough perhaps a little bit flatter, but the largest tooth in the Spinosaurus holotype is 3.4cm wide and already 23cm+ in lenght, which means the largest Spinosaurus teeth with a width of over 5cm would be at least ~34cm long.
What’s actually more surprising than that they are the longest is their extreme width, considering people like to think of them as slender and fragile compared to Tyrannosaurine teeth. That’s not the case, unlike the snout, its teeth are among the most impressive among theropods in that regard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 31, 2014 18:36:24 GMT 5
A complete Spino tooth is needed to confirm this.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 31, 2014 21:01:36 GMT 5
An incomplete Spinosaurus tooth already confirms this, a complete one would be even longer, and maybe wider as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 16:07:31 GMT 5
Iberosauripus grandis description abstract: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018214000558Does anyone have more info on it? All I read from it is that the footprints belonged to a theropod large enough to probably be a significant cause behind the large size of Turiasaurus and co. I couldn't get the paper as it is behind a paywall apparently. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 7, 2015 20:14:01 GMT 5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 21:40:21 GMT 5
Or maybe it means that some ichnospecies of Iberosauripus are mid-size and some are giants... As we can't get the papers, we can't know for sure... |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 8, 2015 1:36:25 GMT 5
I can’t find it either, but what it suggests sounds a lot like what Mateus & Milan (2009) wrote on the giant Lourinha track and those from Asturias:
"Following dinosaur ichnofauna from central-west Portugal
the formula suggested by Alexander (1976), that the
hip height of a dinosaur can be estimated as four
times the length of the foot, the animal responsible for
the large track stood 3.5 m tall at the hips. A theropod
track with an estimated total length of 82 cm found in
the Upper Jurassic of Asturias, Northern Spain
(Garcıa-Ramos ́et al. 2006) is morphologically different,
in that the digit impressions is longer and more slen-
der than in the Portuguese specimen. This suggests
that more than one type of giant theropod existed in
Europe during the latest Jurassic. The Upper Jurassic
theropod tracks from Portugal and Spain are the larg-
est Jurassic theropod tracks in the world, and only the
tyrannosaur track Tyrannosauripus pilmorei from the
Maastrichtian of New Mexico is larger, being 86 cm
long and 64 cm wide (Lockley & Hunt 1994). How-
ever, if the additional length of the metatarsus impres-
sion is included in the specimen from Porto Dinheiro,
then the total length of the track is 96 cm. When
including the length of the metatarsus, the large thero-
pod track from Asturias is 103 cm long (Garcıa-Ramos pers comm. 2009)."
So maybe these specimens are taken into account somewhere.
Reference:
Mateus, Octávio; Milàn, Jesper: A diverse Upper Jurassic dinosaur ichnofauna from central-west Portugal. Lethaia, an international Journal of Palaeontology and stratigraphy, Vol. 43 (2010); pp. 245-257
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jan 9, 2015 2:24:05 GMT 5
As every ichnotaxon, I suggest to not speculate too much about its size. I'd suggest to call it a medium/giant sized Theropod without concrete numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 9, 2015 15:50:08 GMT 5
Certainly without knowing the actual dimensions, but anyway I doubt its bigger than the largest upper jurassic ichnotheropods that we've already got. Iberia itself already has two of the largest theropod ichnotaxa.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 9, 2015 23:54:38 GMT 5
i don't think anything on these footprints supports "gigantic"theropods. i found this abstract, but can't find te paper any where..
Geometric morphometric methods applied to theropod tracks from the Huérteles Formation (Berriasian, Spain) are here shown to be invaluable for drawing comparisons between theropod tracks with different preservation modes (true tracks, shallow undertracks and natural casts) or differing in the preservation of anatomical features (e.g. digital pads). Principal components analysis and thin-plate spline methods can quantitatively distinguish between the broad groups of tracks in a sample and establish the main differences between them. These methods offer a promising approach for estimating ichnodiversity, achieved by evaluating just the morphology of the tracks independent of other factors such as size. The theropod tracks of the Huérteles Formation can be classified into two broad groups: minute-to-medium-sized gracile theropod tracks (Kalohipus bretunensis) and medium-to-large-sized robust theropod tracks (Iberosauripus). The presence of a third group of more gracile medium-to-large-sized theropod tracks (Megalosauripus) cannot be proven with certainty on the basis of the current data. These results indicate that the theropod ichnodiversity of the Huérteles Formation is probably lower than that estimated by means of conventional methods alone (e.g. qualitative description of the tracks) and that many of the described theropod morphotypes may represent extramorphological or ontogenetic variations of other morphotypes.
I've always found describing new species via footprints is bad practice in some cases, but that's just me.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 10, 2015 0:50:52 GMT 5
I find it somewhat pointless too, since those are rarely congruent with taxa actually diagnosed based on body fossils.
Members of one ichnogenus are very unlikely to actually have been members of the same genus in life, so why bother calling it an ichnogenus based on nothing but rough morphology? Maybe that’s because in terms of genera, palaeontologists are splitters, but I think it makes more sense to try and establish as best was possible to what non-ichnotaxon an ichnite could be referred to.
But what does that abstract say about size?
|
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Jan 10, 2015 2:00:57 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 10, 2015 2:08:46 GMT 5
It’s just a tooth, and teeth are highly variable in a single individual depending on their stage of development and position, and of course between taxa. So that should definitely be approached with caution. going by the first page, it’s a fossil recovered more than a century ago that was lost in some archive, and its age isn’t actually certain: www.schweizerbart.de/papers/njgpa/detail/263/76495/%23A shame the authors didn’t put the slightest bit about its morphology in the abstract, it could already tell us a lot (Carcharodontosaurid affinities are fairly well diagnosable based on teeth, even tough genus or species level obviously isn’t). |
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jan 10, 2015 4:31:14 GMT 5
May I ask how did they come to the conclusion it was bigger than T.rex from a tooth? Teeth lenght is various even in the same individual, let alone in two different taxon. |
|
