|
|
Post by spartan on Oct 24, 2019 20:45:22 GMT 5
Interesting that there's such a discrepancy in average to maximum size, much larger than in T. rex. Could that be an indicator that they lived in herds? Otherwise the average 4t Triceratops would probably be rather easy prey for the average 7t T. rex.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 25, 2019 0:15:02 GMT 5
Interesting that there's such a discrepancy in average to maximum size, much larger than in T. rex. Could that be an indicator that they lived in herds? Otherwise the average 4t Triceratops would probably be rather easy prey for the average 7t T. rex. Well, as I wrote we don’t have the information to firmly establish what size the average (adult) Triceratops was right now. Perhaps most specimens were simply immature individuals (that is the case with many dinosaurs). We need to cut them open to know that. Luckily, Horner and Scanella actually did that too, and while they consider AMNH 5116 at 200 cm to be "large", they also consider it a young adult, and based on parietal length, adult individuals actually tend to be bigger than it. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 4, 2019 2:11:35 GMT 5
Just something I ought to post here:
The max for Triceratops can vary depending on what skeletal you use - as was discussed in the Paraceratherium vs Triceratops thread, Hartman's skeletal gives ~11 tonnes for the largest specimen, but GetAwayTrike's gets 13.3, possibly up to 14 tonnes when factoring bulk increase
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 4, 2019 4:56:54 GMT 5
Please make a proper post detailing the methods, adhering to the structure I outlined in thw OP then.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 4, 2019 16:45:30 GMT 5
Alright, theropod , here's that post. With OP guidelines: Primary data (e.g. measurements) should be from a reliable source (technical literature, websites or blogs of demonstrably credible individuals). Estimates can be your own (as long as based on solid data), summarizing (or refining, if there are perceived problems with it) an estimate from the literature, or estimates dug up from other threads on here.The largest Triceratops scales to an animal 8 percent bigger than USNM 4276 (2.7 meter skull), as we have discussed on WoA some times
Use sources, and cite them. That means at least author/year and title of a paper should be given, and/or a direct link (but please a stable one, like a doi or jstor permalink). It should be as easy as possible to verify the information provided.This study (yes, I know what it's on) gives USNM 4276 2.5 meters skull length Explain your methods, or the methods of your source. This is to make sure results can be reproduced.This GDI by Spinoinwonderland was done using a MATLAB script Size:
The GDI gave 9.975 tonnes, but it was found to be underestimated. ~10.5 tonnes is likely better. Scaling this animal 8 percent up in linear dimensions to match UCMP 128561 gives 13.3 tonnes. It would probably be about ~14 tonnes, given that larger animals tend to be bulkier Edit: This also looks as though, if we go by what Theropod got, Triceratops would average ~9 tonnes |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 4, 2019 17:01:42 GMT 5
"As we have discussed on WoA some times" is not a good source.
This is an overview thread, the sort of thread people go to when all else becomes buried in the archives.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 4, 2019 17:07:52 GMT 5
Oh, sorry.
Theropod did say other WoA threads could be used as a refernce. Anyhow, he as provided points on Triceratops' size in his first post about it here
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 4, 2019 21:19:30 GMT 5
Err no he didn’t, he wrote that you could summarize a post from elsewhere. To make it fit the structure for posts in this thread. Only give the post has sufficient quality of course.
You on the other hand didn’t even link the post in question. In general, if you cite a gds by broly from 2016, link it. If you cite one from 2017, link that as well. If you see evidence for something in a post here, link it. If what you are doing is simply posting an estimate made by someone else, outline their methods in as much detail as needed. If what you are doing is producing your own estimate, outline your own methods, but properly cite all the data you used so nobody has to spend precious time searching for it.
Also 13.2 t, not 13.3. That difference is irrelevant, but being able to trust that your basic math is correct is not. And his is a thread for estimates, not guesses. If your 14 t figure has no methods that support it, it doesn’t belong here. You can argue for why you prefer one estimate over another (though arguing you prefer an old version over the updated estimate made by the same person would be odd indeed), but you cannot just make up stuff out of thin air without any quantitative data to support it.
Lastly, how the heck did you manage to get that average size based on my figures? That should have been clearly detailed in your post.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 4, 2019 21:33:18 GMT 5
1: Err no he didn’t, he wrote that you could summarize a post from elsewhere. To make it fit the structure for posts in this thread. Only give the post has sufficient quality of course. 2: You on the other hand didn’t even link the post in question. In general, if you cite a gds by broly from 2016, link it. If you cite one from 2017, link that as well. If you see evidence for something in a post here, link it. If what you are doing is simply posting an estimate made by someone else, outline their methods in as much detail as needed. If what you are doing is producing your own estimate, outline your own methods, but properly cite all the data you used so nobody has to spend precious time searching for it. 3: Also 13.2 t, not 13.3. That difference is irrelevant, but being able to trust that your basic math is correct is not. And his is a thread for estimates, not guesses. If your 14 t figure has no methods that support it, it doesn’t belong here. You can argue for why you prefer one estimate over another (though arguing you prefer an old version over the updated estimate made by the same person would be odd indeed), but you cannot just make up stuff out of thin air without any quantitative data to support it. 4: Lastly, how the heck did you manage to get that average size based on my figures? That should have been clearly detailed in your post. 1: Whoops. NOW I get it - summarize and link a post which has supporting info 2: I did - they (the GDI's) were hyperlinked in my post 3: That was a typo. Regarding 14 tonnes, I did say it was possible because larger animals are bulkier. And I didn't necessarily say in that post that the old one was better, just that the new one was underestimated. 4: Sorry, forgot. How I got it was calculating the ratio percentage-wise of average to max, then checked it with the figures I found. A ratio of 9.5 max to 6.4 tonnes average would give ~9 tonnes average for 13.2 tonne max |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 5, 2019 1:55:58 GMT 5
2: Well, you clearly didn’t use the 9.975 ton estimate, because using that would give you 12.6 t for the largest Triceratops, so if you didn’t use the old estimate, what did you use?
Also, you didn’t link them. When you cite a source, link to the original source, not a screenshot you made of it from which neither author nor date are even discernable.
3: No it wasn’t a typo. When you scale up broly’s old estimate you get 13.26 t, rounded 13.3 t. But when you scale up the 10.5 t (and not 10.527 as in the original estimate) you only get 13.23, rounded 13.2 t.
Don’t you know how you made your own estimates?
4: Well, that was wrong though.
The "average" figure (not a reliable average mind you, merely VERY rough ballparking, as I explained in the post) was based on the upper estimate of 10.8 t, not the lower one of 9.5 t. As you would have easily noticed had you simply scaled based on the skull length I provided (227 cm), which would have given you just 5.7 t when using the 9.5 t estimate. Based on the estimate you cite (2.5 m skull, 9.975 t), that would give us 7.5t, not 9 t. That’s the kind of mass difference you usually call people fanboys over when it’s about T. rex.
Also, I’m moving this discussion to ornithischian size, my aim with the animal sizes thread was specifically to NOT have discussions in here, because I hoped people would make their posts adhere to the rules on their own...
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 5, 2019 2:03:14 GMT 5
1: Well, you clearly didn’t use the 9.975 ton estimate, because using that would give you 12.6 t for the largest Triceratops, so if you didn’t use the old estimate, what did you use? 2: Well, that was wrong though. The "average" figure (not a reliable average mind you, merely VERY rough ballparking, as I explained in the post) was based on the upper estimate of 10.8 t, not the lower one of 9.5 t. As you would have easily noticed had you simply scaled based on the skull length I provided (227 cm), which would have given you just 5.7 t when using the 9.5 t estimate. Based on the estimate you cite (2.5 m skull, 9.975 t), that would give us 7.5t, not 9 t. That’s the kind of mass difference you usually call people fanboys over when it’s about T. rex. 3: Also, I’m moving this discussion to ornithischian size, my aim with the animal sizes thread was specifically to NOT have discussions in here, because I hoped people would make their posts adhere to the rules on their own... 1: I went back to the ~10.5 tonne estimate as the specimen's width was said to be closer to the previous GDI by broly (the 9.975 tonnes came from a torso thinner than a 6-7 meter Triceratops, so I assume broly was using the older GDI as a reference point for how much the new GDI was undersized, that's what he seems to state he did). 2: Oh. Wrong context. I didn't see it was a ROUGH estimate. If it's a rough estimate as opposed to a more precise one, I'll refrain from independent presumptions. 3: Oh, you meant ANY discussion? Got it EDIT: I linked to Imgur, not a screenshot. It's not even one of my Imgur posts. Maybe something went wrong with my hyperlink? |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 5, 2019 2:19:37 GMT 5
Re: EDIT: Ok maybe it is not necessarily a screenshot, (we can’t tell, but it doesn’t matter), the problem is that it is just a random image on the internet. It is not verifiable who made it, when, and with what methods.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 5, 2019 2:23:26 GMT 5
Maybe I'll link directly to the Deviantart things from now on, then
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 15, 2019 4:50:20 GMT 5
Alright, so 2 things: 1: Anyone know the age of Eotriceratops holotype? GetAwayTrike says it's a subadult ( here), but an 11-14 tonne plus subadult ceratopsian seems quite unusually large. 2: Looks like there's some stuff from earlier I had forgotten about in regards to GetAwayTrike's Triceratops mass: The limbs, tail, and chest are all very conservative on soft tissue, and large parts of the horns and frill were excluded from the GDI, so it seems to me it would probably be ~11 tonnes. Scaling that up to the size of UCMP 128561 gives 13.86 tonnes, and that may be closer to 14.5-15 tonnes if we factor in the bulk increase larger animals experience. So, factoring this in, it would appear a mass of up to 15 tonnes would be plausible for GetAwayTrike's skeletal |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 15, 2019 4:57:34 GMT 5
Do we have to cut them open or can we just use a CT scan? Is there something only physically cutting them open allows you to see?
(I don't know much about this kind of analysis of fossils)
|
|
