Talk:Eotriceratops

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia can't reference Wikipedia

The reference for its size is the dinosaur size page. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, would still be nice to get a primary or at least secondary source rather than a news article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New study of the size

File:Triceratops-Eotriceratops size 01.JPG

This picture ( Triceratops-Eotriceratops size 01.JPG )is inaccurate in size.

I think i made the body of Eotriceratops to big in picture "Triceratops-Eotriceratops size 01.JPG" ( left ). That's because i dont think the first version was accurate. But the new, "Triceratops-Eotriceratops size 02.JPG", i think i made the proportions right. If so, Eotriceratops would have been 9, 5 metres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conty (talk • contribs) 13:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skulls

The picture "Chasmosaurinae skulls ABC.JPG" was made by me when i noticed the similarities between the skulls. I had a idea about if Eotriceratops was closer related to Pentaceratops than to Triceratops (of course, i'm not a paleontological expert), since i thinked the Eotriceratops skull looked more like that of Pentaceratops than i Triceratops.

New size

I have made the new size comparioson ( picture "Triceratops-Eotriceratops size 01.JPG" ) by oneself, and based the size on the skull. The skull of Eotriceratops is not just a bigger version of the Triceratops skull. For example, the Eotriceratops frill is proportionaly longer than in Triceratops, so you cant just simply scale up the size of Triceratops to Eotriceratops, only by base the size of the skull ( i tried to scale up Triceratops skull, and i came to the conclusion that if Triceratops skull was 3 meter ( 9 feet ) long, the hole body, from nose to tip of the tail, should have been about 11, 8 meter long). Because Eotriceratops skull had longer frill, it was probably not quite 12 metre long, but my study ( Im not a expert ) rather indicate a total body length of Eotriceratops to about 10, 5 meter. /Conty, 11-04-2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conty (talk • contribs) 11:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the colour descriptions in the picture's legend, as the animals depicted were no longer green and brown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.143.111 (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the size accurate?

Is the size listed accurate? 12 metres is really quite enormous, even for a ceratopsid, and I would hardly call The Sun a reputable source of reliable factual information. Hai ren (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]