Talk:Shantungosaurus

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.

Bigger hadrosaur?

It says here Shantungosaurus was one of the biggest hadrosaurs. What's bigger? Those footprints? Maybe we should change it to "biggest hadrosaur know from skeletal remains". John.Conway 18:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Biggest hadrosaur known from decent published remains"? (whistles innocently) J. Spencer 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're gonna have to dumb it down a little doc. John.Conway 15:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's just whistling innocently. It couldn't possibly mean he knows more than he's letting on... Firsfron of Ronchester 16:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you dumb it down a shade? John.Conway 16:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to be completely impenetrably mysterious. Some remains are both published and in the same size class as Shantungosaurus, such as Lambeosaurus laticaudus and Hypsibema, although both are pretty obscure unless you're a geographic booster ("This is the first named hadrosaur from Mexico! This is the state dinosaur of Missouri!"). J. Spencer 22:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are some numbers. Bill Morris in 1972 states that LACM 26757, a ~95 cm long (3.1 ft) humerus that he later associates with his ?L. laticaudus, would pertain to an animal 16.5 m long (54.1 ft), weighing 23 metric tons (25 tons). In his publication of ?L. laticaudus (1981), he restates the previous information, and suggests a more modest length of 14-15 m (46-49 ft) for other individuals. His smallest material from the 1972 paper corresponded to a 13.1-13.7 m long individual (43-45 footer).

Refs:
Morris, William J. 1972. A giant hadrosaurian dinosaur from Baja California. Journal of Paleontology 46(5):777-779.
Morris, William J. 1981. A new species of hadrosaurian dinosaur from the Upper Cretaceous of Baja California: ?Lambeosaurus laticaudus. Journal of Paleontology 55(2):453-462.

Oh, and yes, I've seen some interesting things in my time. :) J. Spencer 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well L laticaudus was recently reclassified as Magnopollia and re-estimated at 12.5 meters, but Shantungosaurus is still not the largest hadrosaur since huyaxusaurus(dam the speling) was nerely 19 meters long.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliafroz1901 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the biggest Hadrosaurs is Huaxiaosaurus, ~ 19 meters in length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGiganotosaurus (talk • contribs) 12:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weight

Are the 7t the weight of the mount, or of the live animal? The phrasing suggests the former, but the later would surely be the more interesting piece of information. Orcoteuthis 11:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to be the live weight, but it seems awfully light. I'll have to check on that. J. Spencer 14:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

predators should be listed

btw, have bones with toothmarks been found for this genus? HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have any direct evidence, but a contender could be Zhuchengtyrannus. There is a museum mount[1] and some free artwork[2] showing such an encounter, if we ever get a paleoecology section. FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a quick glance at that almost-T.Rex tyrannosaur would make it almost certainly a predator on this species - at least on the sick/old and juveniles. Taking on a (group) of adults would probably not be in its best interests to avoid injury. 20:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC) 2603:6080:21F0:6140:881B:2EA:E264:B1ED (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, we can't list potential predators if the sources don't. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]