|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 6, 2015 0:50:30 GMT 5
Lol who are those guys? They call UUVP 6000 (DINO 2560) a "very large Allosaurus" and the article makes it look as if there were no other Jurassic theropods that were far bigger than 30ft.
Nice find nonetheless. I really hope they make good on what they say and make the specimen available for a complete scientific description, it seems well-preserved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2015 1:00:07 GMT 5
A ~1.32-meter Torvosaurus skull? That would indicate a creature ~11.43 meters long based on the EoFauna reconstruction. I don't know where they got "comprised a full 18 percent of the dinosaur’s total size" from. The mounted skeleton in the first image doesn't seem to support it at all. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 6, 2015 1:42:44 GMT 5
So, another spectacular find that has yet to be published?
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jun 7, 2015 0:04:46 GMT 5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2015 10:33:27 GMT 5
Yeah, I received that news from dA already around like 2 days ago. It's teeth, some more vertebrae, rib sections, and jaw fragments, supposedly belonging to the same individual as the neotype remains described last year. |
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jun 7, 2015 14:03:50 GMT 5
The only downside to that is it'll push the date of publication of the monograph they were supposedly working on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 21, 2015 17:05:40 GMT 5
Carcharodontosaurus vert in private collection. Awaiting its measurements. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 23, 2015 5:37:43 GMT 5
Centrum measurements 10.5 cm by 12.7 cm.
I expected it larger but perspective is playing here.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on Oct 11, 2015 13:48:49 GMT 5
I'd like some thoughts on this.  The measurements marked with est. are estimated from the image itself, the rest are taken from the publications that described the specimens (Brochu, 2003 for Sue, and Longrich et al. 2010 for UCMP). Note that Brochu does not mention what their 'length' measurement refers to, but assuming it refers to the full length of the phalanx means that the mid-shaft and distal width measurements end up miles off what is listed. The scale I have it at means the 'length' measurement (measured between the two 'rims' - surely there's a proper technical term for this that I'm not remembering) and both width measurements are within a couple of % of what Brochu states they are. I did however, assume that the 13 cm long figure from Longrich et al. does refer to the maximum length of the UCMP phalanx. I did this because both myself and Blaze have attempted to scale the phalanx using the preserved tooth marks in the past, and from that it was fairly clear that 13 cm must refer to the full length not that 'rim-to-rim' measurement that I'm convinced Brochu used. If I'm right in my assumptions - and I'm open to being wrong - then UCMP 137538 is essentially Sue-sized. In fact, if I calculate the scaling between each measurement (including the width measured at the top 'rim'), and average them all out then UCMP 137538 is approx. 97.5% the size of Sue. If I exclude the total length measurement, owing to how this is quite noticeably inflated in Sue, then UCMP 137538 ends up approx. 100.6% the size of Sue. Also note that if I'm right then neither scale bars from the Figures I used are accurate. Because of course they aren't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 13:55:47 GMT 5
You should post that all over the internet's dinosaur-related areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on Oct 11, 2015 14:29:35 GMT 5
I'd rather be sure I'm not making some amateurish oversight first before I start posting it anywhere else, although I have mentioned my suspicions about miss-matching measurements elsewhere before.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 11, 2015 14:34:42 GMT 5
Wow, so UCMP 137538 is kinda what I always hoped it to be, Sue sized.  @brolyeuphyfusion Dunno if this would be a good idea. I think most T. rex hardliners would use arguments from authority to dismiss the work of blaze and spinodontosaurus as amateur work which is worse than the calculations of Frank Fang (whom they probably confuse with an actual scientist). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 16:49:44 GMT 5
Dunno if this would be a good idea. I think most T. rex hardliners would use arguments from authority to dismiss the work of blaze and spinodontosaurus as amateur work which is worse than the calculations of Frank Fang (whom they probably confuse with an actual scientist). I think a public shaming of Frank Fang in dinosaur-related areas really should be in order. As in really, he basically brainwashed so many into believing misconceptions. He deserved the same treatment as that reptileevolution site. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Oct 11, 2015 20:03:30 GMT 5
Allow me to take a guess; this Frank Fang is yet another of countless Tyrannosaurus fanatics claiming UCMP 137538 to be some hideously huge specimen?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 20:20:31 GMT 5
Allow me to take a guess; this Frank Fang is yet another of countless Tyrannosaurus fanatics claiming UCMP 137538 to be some hideously huge specimen? He's not just another one of them, he's the original one that started it all. |
|
