Here's a place where I can post my thoughts on new papers, provide updates on my projects, and post info that will eventually be on my website The Theropod Database - https://theropoddatabase.github.io/ . It will center on theropods, but may delve into other topics as well such as phylogenetics.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Happy New Year! The Database is updated!
Check it out! All the 2011 taxa are there. I'm off to party....
I have a question to ask you, since I know few people who know the subject.
On the giant theropod mentioned Andrea Cau (MPM 2594) in Theropoda blog, I have many doubts about its estimated size.
I found that when compared to Acrocanthosaurus not too big and this is because apparently reduced Carcharodontosaurinae just those bones of the skull, as is the front. Andrea Eocarcharia estimated from, but there is a complete skull and safer, the Acrocanthosaurus.
My surprise was that in the Acrocanthosaurinae the proportion of the bones is very different especially in the front.
The consulting work was: Currie, Philip J., & Carpenter, Kenneth. (2000). "A new specimen of Acrocanthosaurus atokensis (Theropoda, Dinosauria) from the Lower Cretaceous Antlers Formation (Lower Cretaceous, Aptian) of Oklahoma, USA." Geodiversitas 22 (2): pp. 207-246.
I haven't tried to estimate the size of MPM 2594 myself (though size estimations with justifications are an eventual goal of the Database), but my commentary on the largest Tyrannosaurus specimens agrees with your point that even closely related individuals can have quite different proportions. This makes estimating the size of specimens known from one or few bones a tricky matter.
Look, Bruhathkayosaurus was considered a theropod in its first description, so I find it strange not to find it on your website.
Yadagiri, P. and Ayyasami, K. (1989). "A dinosaur from the Kallamedu carnosaurs Formation (Maestrichtian horizon), Tamilnadu." In M.V.A. Sastry, V.V. Sastry, C.G.K. Ramanujam, H.M. Kapoor, B.R. Jagannatha Rao, P.P. Satsangi, and U.B. Mathur (eds.), Symposium on Three Decades of Development in Palaeontology and Stratigraphy in India. Volume 1. Precambrian to Mesozoic. Geological Society of India Special Publication, 11 (1): 523-528.
I Rexist, but my profile is as Pixagono, the website I use.
The problem is that the ex-theropods which are now seen as sauropodomorphs are going to be incorporated into the sauropodomorph cladogram, but I forgot to leave their names on the tree. But Bruhathkayosaurus is like Loncosaurus or Lisboasaurus- ex-theropod taxa I simply haven't had time to write entries for. They'll be up eventually
A note: nor in my blog and in the paper I gave an estimation of MPM 2594 total body size beyond "comparable to Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus". If someone wrote online that I'had given a measure of that animal in centimeters or feet, it's false. Having only a frontal as evidence, it's a nonsense to try an accurate body estimation.
Hi Mickey, happy 2012
ReplyDeleteI have a question to ask you, since I know few people who know the subject.
On the giant theropod mentioned Andrea Cau (MPM 2594) in Theropoda blog, I have many doubts about its estimated size.
I found that when compared to Acrocanthosaurus not too big and this is because apparently reduced Carcharodontosaurinae just those bones of the skull, as is the front. Andrea Eocarcharia estimated from, but there is a complete skull and safer, the Acrocanthosaurus.
My surprise was that in the Acrocanthosaurinae the proportion of the bones is very different especially in the front.
The consulting work was: Currie, Philip J., & Carpenter, Kenneth. (2000). "A new specimen of Acrocanthosaurus atokensis (Theropoda, Dinosauria) from the Lower Cretaceous Antlers Formation (Lower Cretaceous, Aptian) of Oklahoma, USA." Geodiversitas 22 (2): pp. 207-246.
I haven't tried to estimate the size of MPM 2594 myself (though size estimations with justifications are an eventual goal of the Database), but my commentary on the largest Tyrannosaurus specimens agrees with your point that even closely related individuals can have quite different proportions. This makes estimating the size of specimens known from one or few bones a tricky matter.
ReplyDeleteOk, I'll try later.
ReplyDeleteLook, Bruhathkayosaurus was considered a theropod in its first description, so I find it strange not to find it on your website.
Yadagiri, P. and Ayyasami, K. (1989). "A dinosaur from the Kallamedu carnosaurs Formation (Maestrichtian horizon), Tamilnadu." In M.V.A. Sastry, V.V. Sastry, C.G.K. Ramanujam, H.M. Kapoor, B.R. Jagannatha Rao, P.P. Satsangi, and U.B. Mathur (eds.), Symposium on Three Decades of Development in Palaeontology and Stratigraphy in India. Volume 1. Precambrian to Mesozoic. Geological Society of India Special Publication, 11 (1): 523-528.
I Rexist, but my profile is as Pixagono, the website I use.
The problem is that the ex-theropods which are now seen as sauropodomorphs are going to be incorporated into the sauropodomorph cladogram, but I forgot to leave their names on the tree. But Bruhathkayosaurus is like Loncosaurus or Lisboasaurus- ex-theropod taxa I simply haven't had time to write entries for. They'll be up eventually
ReplyDeleteA note: nor in my blog and in the paper I gave an estimation of MPM 2594 total body size beyond "comparable to Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus". If someone wrote online that I'had given a measure of that animal in centimeters or feet, it's false.
ReplyDeleteHaving only a frontal as evidence, it's a nonsense to try an accurate body estimation.