Talk:Dinosaur size

Name of MPM-PV-39

What is the name of that dinosaur?PNSMurthy (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a femur from the Cerro Fortalezo Formation (then known as the Pari Aike Formation) described briefly by Lacovara et. al. (2004) in an abstract. It is indeed massive, measuring about 2.2 m long and bearing a circumference of 99 cm, and apparently also quite robust. Here's the citation:

• Lacovara, Kenneth; Harris, Jerald; Lammana, Matthew; Novas, Fernando; Martínez, Rubén; Ambrosio, Alfredo (2004). "An enormous sauropod from the Maastrichtian Pari Aike Formation of southernmost Patagonia". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 24 (3): A81.

This specimen has no name, and if I had to guess, it probably belongs to either Puertasaurus or Dreadnoughtus (neither of which were named in 2004). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@State Weasel: Try Notocolossus? Dreadnoughtus is far too skinny and small. Whilst, we barely have anything on Puertosaurus. I'd either bet Notocolossus or Patagotitan. Both are MUCH more complete than Puertosaurus, and MUCH larger than Dreadnoughtus.PNSMurthy (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't fully understand. Dreadnoughtus has some of the most robust limb bones of any non-saltasaurid titanosaur, hardly "far too skinny," not to mention that it probably exceeds the similarly long lognkosaur Futalognkosaurus in mass, not to mention that the only known specimens are immature. Notocolossus is from the Plottier Formation, and Patagotitan isn't even from the same epoch. Granted, as WP:OR bars us from assigning this to any species in particular for the article, but we already have two named giant titanosaurs from the Cerro Fortaleza Formation. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Dreadnoughtus, my friend, has weight estimates ranging from 22.8 to 59.1 tonnes! And its certainly somewhere in the middle (probably 35 tonnes - if I had to guess). We also know that the largest specimen's length if only around 23 or 24 meters long - which is still a little shorter than F. Dukei. As for the fact that these specimens are juveniles, there are no estimates on the specimens' age, so that's fully of the park for now.

Now, returning to the topic, Dreadnoughtus is probably way smaller than this unnamed dinosaur - at least, until we know how old the largest specimen was. As for Puertosaurus, we do not have any limb material assigned to that genus. Puertosaurus is way to fragmentary to be assumed as the genus in which this new dinosaur is to be placed!

And, okay, P. Mayorum is not in the same epoch. My bad. But, Notocolossus is our best bet since is in a similar size range to this new and undescribed dinosaur. Furthermore, even if these two options are incorrect, I would like to know if this dinosaur is even a titanosaur, or some somphospondyl.PNSMurthy (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that we both may have gotten a bit to far into this, as it doesn't really impact the article at all - although I must say that I don't understand why you argue that Notocolossus is a better assignment, since it doesn't preserve a femur either and isn't from the same formation. The femur of Dreadnoughtus is 1.91m long in the larger specimen, but even knowing which stage of growth it was at (which we do - it was mentioned in the appendicular osteology paper) won't allow us to reliably estimate adult size as far as I know. For the moment, though, it's probably best just to think of it as an indeterminate titanosaur until we can get some more info. The abstract does seem to assign the femur to Titanosauria, and it definitely exhibits characteristics of titanosauriformes. On the subject of the article, I'd recommend that we avoid dealing with unnamed and indeterminate taxa, unless there's really good reason not to (i.e. pre-2017 Patagotitan). Also, specimen numbers don't go in italics. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We are going far of topic. I only argue for Notocolossus because it is a little more complete than Puertosaurus, and, an adult. By the way, what article estimates the age of Dreadnoughtus? I think it might be of some interest to me.PNSMurthy (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ullman & Lacovara (2016) provide an estimated age of "subadult" for the Dreadnoughtus holotype, or a "stage 9" individual out of the 13-14 ontogenetic stages of Klein & Sander (2008). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Quite young then.PNSMurthy (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

I've seen many theropods' sizes cited with Molina-Perez and Lammarendi's new encyclopedia. I'm not sure if this is to be considered a reliable source, since it has not been elsewhere. Should we remove uncertain theropods like 'Megalosaurus' Inges (which is in one of the lists of theropods)?PNSMurthy (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that we concluded that they weren't WP:RS: This was the initial discussion. Further doubt was cast upon it at Bajadasaurus' FAC page. It's probably best to remove these instances. Asiatosaurus is, in particular, quite egregious, as it's based on an isolated tooth attributed to a sauropod family of tenuous placement and composition. But that is one of the major problems with these books - they extrapolate an estimate from EVERYTHING, no matter how unreliable it might be. We should never use popular books as sources, except for a select few (such as Paul's field guide) that have been cited in the literature (or for non-controversial information about discovery, but that's not really relevant here). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the Dinosaur Facts and Figures estimates. I had no idea it was an unreliable source, but I agree with the discussion surrounding the books. What other sources should we use, other than Greg Paul's field guide? Should limb-bone circumference equation mass estimates be on this list? Meekororum (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries. For sources, we can use basically anything from the published literature, although more recent sources are usually preferable. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

So are we going to replace this particular source with more accurate estimates (and/or remove unreliable estimates cited with this resource)? PNSMurthy (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I think we should sort out 'reliable' methods for estimating parameters from unreliable ones, and probably only use two or three, since different methods produce a wide variety of different estimates that are likely unreliable.PNSMurthy (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll begin working on removing the citations to the book from the article. Also, I'll look into reinstating the range of length estimates for Tyrannosaurus, which, for whatever reason, constantly seem to get deleted (not every specimen was Sue-sized, after all). I'm also trying to find a way in which to write the article without lists, although progress on that's pretty slow at the moment. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help. I'll see what I can do about replacing unreliable sources. I doubt we'll be able to remove the lists without a major makeover to the article.PNSMurthy (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

For Tyrannosaurus, do you mean putting an average size, or a size range based on all adult Tyrannosaurus specimens? Meekororum (talk) 5:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably a range - a range would be more accurate in depicting the size of a species than an average (since we probably do not have enough specimens to determine an accurate average).PNSMurthy (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Argentinosaurus

Should that likely outdated skeletal mount of a taxon known from few bones really illustrate the article? Why not use the considerable more completely know Patagotitan? Kiwi Rex (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Argentinasaurus, however, is significantly more well known and recognisable.PNSMurthy (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)