Talk:Dinosaur size/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I realise I don't know as much as everyone else here, but I thought Giganotosaurus was a lot heavier than that. It is certainly listed as being around 9 tons in the Giganotosaurus wikipedia article. If this is inaccurate, shouldn't the Giganotosaur article be amended? If not, then shouldn't its weight in this article be changed? User 130.159.248.1

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll amend the Giganotosaurus article. The thing to remember about carnosaurs is that they were generally more lightly built than tyrannosaurs of the same length.Dinoguy2 15:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Me again. Just noticed that the Carcharodontosaurus article lists Giganotosaurus as having the largest skull of any predatory dinosaur. Shouldn't that be amended as well? I was under the impression from the Spinosaurus page that larger skulls have been found of Spinosaurus. Or does it mean largest most complete skull? User User 130.159.248.1

Yes, it probsbly means largest complete skull.Dinoguy2 19:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There have been a lot of edits, and reversions of edits, for sauropod lengths and masses. But there still doesn't seem to be a single source about sauropods cited in the article itself. (Some sources have been mentioned in the talk page, although they're mostly websites rather than primary literature.)

It might be best for people to refrain from editing any more sizes until someone can cite a source for them. As I recall, both sets of titanosaur sizes being put forward here have been calculated by paleontologists, with the lesser masses and lengths being perhaps more recent estimates based on more complete remains of smaller titanosaurs. But we need to source our claims.

Cephal-odd 17:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The larger stats are simple do-it-yourself calculations. These can be done based on comparisons with more well known specimens. Argentinosaurus' tibia was 1.55 m long. Brachiosaurus brancia's tibia was 1.15 m long. Using these figures as a basis, 35 m can be calculated for the titanosaur by B. brancia's 26 m length. The more recent, accurate estimates put Brachiosaurus at around 30-35 tons. (1550/1150)^3 gives around 73-85 tons for Argentinosaurs. However, titanosaurs tend to be more heavily built than their cousins, and by multiplying this by a figure of 1.2 giving around 90-100 tons. Using the same methods for Bruhathkayosaurus, we get 44 m, 190-220 tons. Paralititan gives 33 m, and 70-80 tons. Need I say more? Silvertounger

Maybe a bit more . . . The Berlin specimen of Brachiosaurus brancai is a fairly complete skeleton, so at least we know its height and length, and can roughly estimate its mass. But many of the other giant sauropods are known only from a few bones. Scaling up provides a very rough estimate, but the proportions of different genera are likely to be different. Your calculations recognize this by multiplying the weight by a factor of 1.2 for titanosaurs, but not all titanosaurs were identical, so how can we assume they all had the same build? Something as simple as a longer tail or neck can increase the length by several meters, while little increasing the animal's weight. Bigger animals tend to be stockier than smaller ones, so simply cubing the linear ratio may understate mass. We can overlook a lot of unknowns by simply scaling up from a tibia.

Not to say that estimating size is a waste of time. Estimates are good, but we should be cautious, acknowledge a large margin of error, and provide sources both for our numbers and our methods. For example, we could cite references for the size of the Berlin brachiosaur, for the 1.2x scaling factor for titanosaurs, and for the measurements of the bones that we're basing our calculations on.

By the way, in the case where editors are reverting each others numbers, it seems that both groups may be using similar methods to extrapolate lesser known weights from better known weights, but are starting with different values for the latter. For example, one essay, linked in a discussion above, argues that some titanosaur size estimates were too great because they were based on fragmentary material. More recent reconstructions of more complete but relatively small titanosaurs have shown them to be shorter than previously thought. That's why it's useful to state your starting assumptions, so readers can see that our statistics, and statistics revised, are neither revealed secrets nor figments of the imagination. Cheers, Cephal-odd 06:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Since your asking me to cite this, this information was obtained from Mike Taylor. By the way, out of curiosity, what are your estimates for the largest sauropods? Silvertounger

Alas, I'm not a dinosaur specialist, so I've taken no independent measurements of giant sauropods. In the past I have done calculations like those you describe above, to arrive at rough mass estimates over 100 tons for the biggest brachiosaurs and titanosaurs.

The sources I turn to are probably much the same as yours; I like Taylor's site and the Dinosaur Mailing List, because both base their estimates on published data. Gregory S. Paul wrote an elaborate article called "Dinosaur models: the good, the bad, and using them to estimate the mass of dinosaurs", which I've added to the references. It stresses the importance of making a drawing or model that matches the skeleton, since many of the wildly differing mass estimates for Brachiosaurus and other species were based on inaccurate models. These websites made estimates in a similar vein:

• Re: Bruhathkayosaurus
• Re: Largest Dinosaur?
• What were the longest/heaviest dinosaurs?

As good as these sources are, some of their estimates may be in error because they're based on older calculations of titanosaur size. As I understand it, complete titanosaur remains were unknown until the recent description of Rapetosaurus, and length estimates before its discovery were too great. Titanosaurs too large? is an explanation of the smaller length estimates. That message also links to older messages with prior calculations (although some internal links are broken because of a change of URL - try changing the <http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/> part of the path to <http://dml.cmnh.org/>).

Both sites have fine essays discussing the challenge of estimating size from bones:

• What were the longest/heaviest Dinosaurs
• Why do mass estimates vary so much?

Anyway, the main reason I suggested citing sources was that some edits would change a bunch of size statistics and essentially say "No way, those old numbers are way off! Here are some better ones." Usually not much support was presented one way or the other, practically inviting the next editor to do the same thing. My quarrel is not so much with the numbers as how they were presented.

Cephal-odd 06:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As the guy who started this page I'm kind of regretting its present state. My opinion now is that we should only be using published sources for these, individually cited. This is beyond my capability to do, at the moment. Unless someone else can find some good published stats to fill in this page (maybe in The Dinosauria?), I'd even nominate the whole thing for deletion.Dinoguy2 00:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Published sources? As in books? That's probably the worst thing you could do, as most books don't contain up to date information.

As in peer-reviwed scientific papers, or technical books like The Dinosauria.Dinoguy2 21:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be a shame to lose the whole article to deletion, since dinosaur size is a fascinating topic, and one of the most common things people ask about the beasts. The article could use more context for the numbers, though, instead of the Top 10 List sort of format that seems to have emerged. For instance, maybe instead of precisely ranking the heaviest sauropods, we could list the genera thought to be among the heaviest, the skeletal elements they're known from, and the measurements of those bones.

The Dinosauria would be indeed be a good reference. Journal articles would be ideal, although those are unfortunately inaccessible to most readers. Even links to the more reputable websites would be constructive. I'll work on adding some references, although it will be a gradual process to document all these groups. Cephal-odd 06:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How about we follow Cephal-odd's suggestion, and also add both the old and new sizes for this articles, noting how they vary wildly. Silvertounger

Are we going to decide on a single size or what? Silvertounger

What old and new sizes do you mean? Generally, aren't old sizes going to be more incorrect compared to newer sizes?Dinoguy2 16:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not neccesarily. Published_ estimates of _Brachiosaurus_ mass include 78 tonnes (Colbert 1962), 15 tonnes (Russell et al. 1980), 47 tonnes (Alexander 1989), 29 tonnes (Anderson et al. 1985), 180 tonnes (for "Ultrasauros") (Norman 1988), 32 tonnes (Paul 1988), 74 tonnes (Gunga et al. 1995), 37 tonnes (Christiansen 1997) and 26 tonnes (Henderson 2003). Isn't the 1988 estimate of 32 tons more accuarate then the 1995 estimate of 74 tons? Actually, I'm not disputing that the old or the new estimates are right or wrong. I simply suggested that we mention both and let the reader decided which is right. Silvertounger

How is the reader to decide which is right, without a detailed discussion of how these estimates were reached? Better to discuss this on the Brachiosaurus (or whatever) article itself. If this page must exist, though, (I think I know how Frankenstein felt ;)), I agree we should include a number of estiamtes, with cites for each one.Dinoguy2 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I read this article, and realized the massive 35-m, 180 tonne Ultrasauros was missing! I think it should be added. dinofan33

See Supersaurus for why "Ultrasauros" doesn't really exist.Dinoguy2 15:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Tyrannosaurus size given differs from the size given in the Tyrannosaurus page

I don't know about you guys, but I believe height should be in the article. Also THINK of this, if a T-rex and a Spino would fight, they may be just as tall or it's just fantasy, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT!

If you have a scientific source that discusses how tall a species is, y all means use it in the article. You didn't say where you were getting your height numbers from, so how are we supposed to know if they're real or if you made them up?Dinoguy2 20:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, does height really matter when it comes to theropod size? Benosaurus 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Now why isn't there any information on the sauropods here? 22:09, 12 March 2006 209.103.198.153

I'll add an (at least provisional) list of largest sauropods using Mike taylor's site [1] and the recent DML thread on the subject [2].Dinoguy2 22:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A problem with height of sauropods is that there is considerable doubt that any of them could hold their necks vertically (with the possible exception of relatively short-necked Camarasaurus Cas Liber 03:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no info on the ceratopsians here.

I'm not sure if there should or shouldn't be a section for the tallest Theropods here.

Probably not. Height varies with how the dinosaur is standing, and there are very few published height estimates out there.Dinoguy2 19:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused with the recent changes that occured, the lengths of the theropods were changed minerly, but I don't think it was necessary to make that miner of a change.Spinosaur 10:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to list down to decimals, we might as well list the right ones. I suppose we could round to the nearest whole number, and we'd have to state this in the text.Dinoguy2 19:54, 15 April 2006

I think that some of the sauropod estimates have gone awry.

Argentinosaurus was NOT 22-30 m long, probably 35+ m is more accurate. 66-88 tons. C'mon. 80-100 is more like it.

Cite?Dinoguy2 00:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few links that cite Argentinosaurus at the dimensions that I gave above.

http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-size/records/ http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/giants/giants.html http://dml.cmnh.org/2001Jun/msg00665.html

By comparison, only one link cites Argentinosaurus at 22-26 m, 60-88 tons:

http://dml.cmnh.org/2004Sep/msg00086.html

A few days ago, I made a few changes to the "Sauropods" section of this article. For one, the estimates for Argentinosaurus are completely unheard of. 66-88 tons? I don't think so. 22-30 m doesn't sound accurate either. To prove this, all other pages on Wikipedia itself cite Argentinosaurus at around 35 m, and 80-100 tons. External links are given above. Same goes for Paralititan. 32 m is much more likely for a creature that weighs 65-80 tons. The given estimates have sourced from Mortimers article (2004). He gives 28-34 m for Bruhathkayosaurus, 22-26 m for Argentinosaurus, and 20-24 m for Paralititan. The weights of these giants would also be proportionately reduced to 157 t, 73 t, and 56 t. However, while 20-24 m is given for Paralititan, 65-80 tons is the weight estimate give here, whcih is about the weihght of a 32 m long creature. Plus, 28 m is the minimum length estimate for Bruhathkayosaurus, while 44 m is the maximum. Why are the maximum lengths not given for the other sauropods as well. Take Seismosaurus. 32 m is given here, while sources put it as high as 54 m. In short, this entire thing is a mess. I made the necessary changes, but someone changed it back, whcih is vandalism. I hope this stops.

Looking only at the

Seismosaurus example, you're right that it was originally claimed to be about 40-50 m long, but this GSA poster

made a case that a lot of additional vertebrae were mistakenly assumed to fill a gap between two blocks, when in reality the two blocks may have been adjacent in life and separated after death, making for an animal closer to 32 m long. I haven't seen any replies in the literature that refuted that argument.

Cephal-odd 03:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a section here for Stegosaurs? Benosaurus 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It could be with the thyreophorans, which is currently just ankylosaurs. You'd also want to include Dacentrurus, which was of comparable size or larger (ignore the popular press on this one, which for some reason decided it was small). I notice we also have no ornithopds; although they are boring, there are several genera in the 15 m (49 ft) range (Shantungosaurus, Mandschurosaurus, Lambeosaurus laticaudus, Hypsibema/Parrosaurus, maybe one specimen of Edmontosaurus (I'd have to check)...). J. Spencer 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Epanterias turned out to be nothing more than a large adult Allosaur and Edmarka is smaller than Torvosaurs in both leagth and size. If you don't argee with me than check the articles of Epanterias and Torvosaurs and you will see of your selfsevelsGoodguy667 00:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Epanterias is probably a large Allosaurus. But it's a distinctive specimen, sometimes still used as a seperate genus, and it may end up as at least a seperate species. This, as well as the fact that the listed sources use it in spite of its dubious status, suggests it should be used, especially since almost all other allosaur specimens are not nearly that large. Same for Edmarka. I think generally, if there's enough doubt about synonymy that they have their own article on wikipedia, they should have a seperate entry here. If WP:Dinosaurs deems there's enough scientific consensus to sink them as synonyms of Allosaurus and Torvosaurus, and their articles are merged into those, then these shuold be changed as well. Dinoguy2 10:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[Threat of physical violence removed] Hut 8.5 14:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be good if there was a size graph for the Ornithopods, similar to the one for the theropods. 69.76.53.190 (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, though it might be tough getting good, usable profile-view reconstructions for some of those species. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The other problem is they're all hadrosaurids, which are all going to look about the same from the side except for cranial gee-gaws. J. Spencer (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll just throw one together using generic lambeosaurs and hadrosaurines. Gonna have to change these in the future anyway, after what Tracy Ford was talking about on DinoForum... Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably if there was section about Height at the Hip would be more accurate then height at the heighest part of the dinosaur because that depends on the posture of the animal. And most animals are either height at the shoulder for quadrupeds, but for bipdeds it is usually at the hip.--SoundBlast (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but the reason we don't have any height sections at all is because this is rarely published along with length or mass estimates. I don't know of any good sources listing height for a variety of dinosaurs. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice that this little fella is still included under the "Smallest Pachycephalosaur" section when it is neither a pachycephalosaur anymore, or possibly even very small. I think it needs removing. 79.74.127.242 (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, good catch! Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is Tyrannotitan above T.Rex

"Tyrannotitan: ~12.2-?13 m (~40-?42.3 ft)

Tyrannosaurus: 12-13 m (39.3-42.6 ft)"

Notice both say 13m, but the number of feet are different. This is obviously wrong. Tyrannotitan is higher because the lower estimate is higher than the lower estimate for T. rex. The higher estimates should be the same. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This section's out of order. Number 3,4, and 5 are longer than number 1! 122.109.250.74 (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What? No they're not. #1 is 10.7m, #3 is 9m, #4 is 8.5m, and #5 is 7m. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On my computer 1 is 6.25m. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It said 6.25m-10.7m. The numbers go by highest estimate. I've moved the reference tag to make this a little easier to read. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I only looked at the stuff before the citation because all the others end with the citation. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The outage and out-commenting of Theropod Database cites have left a few estimates sourceless. Maybe we should stick to using estimates from published sources only, and remove estimates that are based on web sites? Would likely keep things more stable. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is Bruhathkayosaurus? It was on 1st place in list of Most massive sauropods and second in list of Longest sauropods and it disappeared! It DEFINITELY should be there!

Not definitely... no valid sources mention its size (which is why it was removed, increasing standards mean no mailing list comments as "sources") at all and it's barely even been classified as a sauropod in any official way. Everything you think you know about this beast is an internet rumor for now ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Now this section is out of order. 7, 8, and 9 are heavier than 6. 122.105.217.62 (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? 7, 8 and 9 are all 60 tons or less. 6 is 69 tons. Are you not using a base 10 system of counting? ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about edits to this article by 71.107.107.4, however I do not know enough about this subject to know where the truth actually lies, or whether terms like "lanky" have context-specific meaning. The reference at the end of the article is too vague to be used as an arbiter. Could someone who knows something about these beasts (a) comment here and (b) cleanup the article as appropriate? Thanks. Nick Levine 12:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

71.107.107.4's edits don't make much sense. He switched Spinosaurus and Giganotosaurus, apparently under the (mistaken) impression that the later was longer, but din't bother to correct the size data itself. He added "height" to the article, which is largely meaningless when dealing with these types of animals, and on which little to no published data exists (I can't think of any science papers offhand that include a height estimate, except to the hip). Use of adjectives like lanky and heavy are a little misleading, and redundant with the data provided. If one wishes o know how "lanky" Giganotosaurus was (assuming lanky to mean long and lightweight), just look at its length vs. its wight. Further discussion of that sort of thing should be confined to the species page.

As for the data itself, the estimates by Mortimer are all based on published sizes of specimens and/or individual elements. Since I don't have an extensive library of papers to draw from, I can't say whether or not the *overall* sizes are supported in the literature. If someone has a published source that contradicts one of Mortimer's estiamtes (as in the more recent dal Sasso paper), please modify the data accordingly and add the citation to references.Dinoguy2 14:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Autochthony writes:

This page is a very difficult page to write. It compares, (almost exclusively), incomplete fossils; many of which were damaged or mis-shapen over many millions of years. They have been retrieved by many different people - a few of whom may not have possessed and demonstrated ideal palaentological skills. They are then stored around the world - so few people have seen even half the specimens of any clade - measured in varoius ways [and Imperial and metric measurements may obfuscate a little, too].

Then these fossils are used to give estimates, some published, some of those in peer-reviewed journals (and some of those in properly peer-reviewed journals - cf. AGW). Estimates for mass should vary approximately as the cube of those for length. All your readers and editors have seen different sources.

Nobody is completely familiar with all the literature but every ten-year-old who can pronounce pachycephalosaurus is an expert on Dinosaurs; and not everyone understands about citations.

Gentlemen (are there any ladies editing this?) I like the article, but I treat it with a pinch of virtual salt. Autochthony wrote 2130z 5 december 2009. 86.151.60.238 (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Im in a rush so i cant check all the sources etc, but the list seems to Uberfy Giga and Rex, Sue is 12.8m and ignoring Celeste, is the largest Rex known, so were did 13m come from? Same with Gig, 12.5m is the largest confirmed with a 1.95m skull being estimated (but not published) at 13.2m. So Rex=12.8m and Gig=12.5m, not 13m. And Baharaisaurus/Deltadromeus is 13.3m long, not "omparable to Tyrannosaurus" Spinodontosaurus (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Bruhathkayosaurus should be in this article. Why is it not here??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fylindfotberserk (talk • contribs) 17:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No official size estimates exist, and nobody has ever really studied it's bone to figure out what it is, how big it is, etc. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be mentioned in the list? I'm sure others will wonder the same thing. mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, I dunno if we could find something verifiable enough. Maybe an SV-POW post would work? Bruhath is really nothing more than an internet phenomenon when you get down to it, it's been mentioned in print maybe twice since it was first published as a theropod. I had a hard enough time just trying to confirm that it's sauropod status itself wasn't an internet-only speculation! Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If this article is about filtering out the dinosaurs with incomplete material then many of the dinosaurs listed here should be eliminated. Amphicoelias for example, survived only in drawings and field notes taken by Cope and modern estimates of 'Amphi' are based upon those documents and not on any fossil material. Besides Amphi, some well known dinos like Argentinosaurus, Supersaurus as well as relatively unknown dinosaurs like Hudiesaurus made into this article despite each of these yielding incomplete fossil material. So if this article can take up these dinosaurs why not Bruhathkayosaurus when it is quite a common phenomenon that the most extreme genera tend to give rather incomplete fossils. Many modern palaoentologists recognise it as a sauropod with David Kraus being the one who republished its references so calling it a theropod now would be rather out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fylindfotberserk (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please wikilink

) 07:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Got it! J. Spencer (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Are there any published sizes for Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx? I'm under the impression that they were rather small theropods (under a meter in length), but they don't appear to be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertonykus (talk • contribs) 14:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'll add them. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

can dinoguy 2 make a size comparison of mapusaurus, carcharodontosaurus, tyrannosaurus, giganotosaurus, spinosaurus, and a theropod that is 82 feet long and kelmayisaurus(even though it's fake)just to see how big it is if it was real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.48.46.183 (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What kind of fake theropod would I make Klamelisaurus? A sinraptorid, herrerasaurid, therizinosaur, or what? Maybe I should throw in Bruhathkayosaurus, which was also thought to be an 80ft theropod at first :) MMartyniuk (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

yeah that bruhathkayosaurus or whatnot would be nice. can you? (btw make brukay. as a allisaurid?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.174.186.184 (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If I get time in the future, it might be a fun experiment. But I wouldn't upload it here to Wikipedia, because it's based on outdated science, some of which was never more than rumors anyway. Maybe for a future post on my blog (DinoGoss) or something. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The '23 metric ton' ?L. laticaudus is almost certainly wrong. Scaling up from Gregory S. Paul's estimate of the better-known Lambeosaurus lambei (specimen ROM 1218) at 2430 kg gives a L. laticaudus at a bit under 12 tonnes.

Of course, as there's no source for this it can't go in the article, but I thought I ought to at least mention it.

Actually, the problem is worse, since in the paper naming L. laticaudus, Morris gives the 23 tonne estimate cited to his 1972 paper 'A giant hadrosaurian dinosaur from Baja California'; but in that paper, the 23 tonne estimate is given for LACM 26757, which Morris does not actually refer to L. laticaudus in the 1981 paper naming the species (in fact LACM 26757 appears nowhere in that paper)! So I'm not sure if the '23 tonne' estimate should be in the article at all, as it may not even be for the right species! Vultur (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

on the largest dinosaurs from 5 suborders isn't triceritops supossed to be eoceritops and stegosaurus supposed to be anklyosaurus] it would be great if u could —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.48.47.112 (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, this taxon/taxa cleary doesn't have a lower estimate of under 12 meters, but the higher ones for AMNH 5767 are just over 12 meters, and the overall situation of the animal is similar to that of Mapusaurus (that, if Epanterias is sunk into Allosaurus, if kept separate, I'd say it qualifies for one of the longest theropods). I'd like to know if there is something that keeps said animal out of the list, however, as I recall seeing it in the article some years ago. Eriorguez (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem was for many of those aberrant/big taxa, we couldn't track down any reliable sources for their size. I rmeember removing a lot of taxa which had stood a long time unsourced myself. I just took a run through Holtz's latest encyclopedia appendix and added some 12m+ taxa that were missing previously due to lacking citations. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have a cite for the size of Microraptor? Holtz puts it at a bit less than a meter, but he includes "

) 14:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I added it based on Holtz. There are specimens longer than 1m known but I can't find a cite for this at the moment. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

on the theropod scale where is oxalaia and chilantaisaurus? they are in the top 5...--66.169.14.16 (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Diplodocus's 38 ton estimate is ridiculous, Diplodocus is much lighter than its relative Apatosaurus, it is significantly more slender. The Diplodocus article gives 17 tons as a high-end estimate.

Bruhathkayosaurus, present in this article's very own diagrams, is missing from the list of heaviest and longest dinosaurs/sauropods despite being the heaviest ever and known from much less scanty evidence than Amphicoelias and Argentinosaurus

Ultrasaurus (not Ultrasauros) and others are also missing

This quote is from the Sauropod article: "Argentinosaurus is probably the heaviest at 80 to 100 metric tonnes (90 to 110 tons), though Paralititan, Andesaurus, Antarctosaurus, and Argyrosaurus are of comparable sizes." Andesaurus and Argyrosaurus (estimated 70 and 80 tons respectively) are not on this article's list either

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleaman5000 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Diplodocus article says that the 17t estimate excludes the largest known species, D. hallorum (formerly Seismosaurus). Bruhathkayosaurus has never had a valid size estimate published, it's essentially a nomen nudum at this point. Without a valid published source, we can't include it on the list. Tom Holtz didn't even include it in his list of dinosaurs, let alone provide an estimate. Ultrasaurus was not particularly large, it was named that because the scientist mistook a piece of a large upper arm bone for a small lower arm bone. If you have a reference ror Andesaurus and Argyrosaurus being 80 tons please cite it. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway 38 tonnes for a D. halllorum is still stretching it, more recent estimates of D. carnegii that account for airsacs give 9.7 tonnes, so around 20 tonnes for a 35m D. hallorum... this creatures were really lightly build... Mike.BRZ (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not that is the case, this is an encyclopedia and its job is to accurately report what the experts say. If you have a gut feeling it's wrong, publish a study. Anybody can publish scientific studies after all. I suggest reading the cited studies and reporting what you find wrong with their methods. Anyway, please note the estimates presented are a range of possibilities. It doesn't say "38t", it says "16-38t". The real upper limit could be anywhere in that range.MMartyniuk (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I know, I was just pointing that out, and I do the read the papers, used to actually, well, I have a question, why when the published estimates for the Diplodocus genus has the lightest at 10 tonnes (as it says in the Diplodocus article) we have it here as 16-38 instead of 10-38?187.162.186.172 (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Which species of diplodocus? One major problem with this article that we should fix is that "Diplodocus" is a category, not an animal. These estimates are for the species Diplodocus hallorum. I would bet the 10t estimates are for the better known D. carnegii, a completely different species of animal. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to Diplodocus as the whole genus, I thought that in the case of genera with more than one species we listed the smallest to biggest estimates of all the species within it, as in, we have 38tonnes for D. hallorum as the biggest and 10tonnes for D. carneggi as the smallest, the 16t is in fact an estimate for the holotype of D. carneggi (as are all D. carneggi estimates), so we already have estimates for more than one species of the genus listed but instead of having the smallest for D. carneggi we got the biggest. Mike.BRZ (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the stance on this source? of course is a book and it was made by a paleontologist but is giving some weird numbers, as far as I know Tyrannotitan doesn't have a size estimate, this books assumes is equal to the G. carolini holotype, we also have Allosaurus fragilis, it puts it at 12m long, which is a size that, unless we count Saurophaganax and Epanterias it was never squired by A. fragilis. Is the same issue with Torvosaurus, we have other sources, the papers when they were first described given some estimates if at all, but now, they don't count because that book gives other sizes despite never being been seen or discussed on the literature before, I ask this because I've seen that in the last days a lot of lenghts have been sourced from that book and it that even caused the inclusion of more dinosaurs to the lists.Mike.BRZ (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously an estimate from the literature with methodology would trump anything from Holtz's book, however I don't see any glaring issues with any of the estimates. Guesstimates, as for Tyrannotitan, are as good as it gets in some cases (at least as good as "comparable to x"). I see no problem with the A. fragilis estimate. This obviously refers to Epanterias but a majority of scientists consider them synonyms. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What about Saurophaganax? The only estimate that I know of comes from Mike Mortimer, at 10.9 for OMNH 1708 and 9.9 for NMMNH P-26083 (there's uncertainty about what this one is) and according to him, both are smaller than Epanterias (which he estimated at 12.1m) where's the origin of the 13m long Saurophaganax? just curiosity.Mike.BRZ (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Anyone? well, I'm gonna remove Deinocheirus as the 12m estimate originally comes from Greg Paul and it has recently (2010) been revised to 10m. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking if I can remove Bahariasaurus from the most massive therapods list, the paper it reefers mentions it as Tyrannosaurus sized but it doesn't specify in what sense, giving that the holotype is estimated at 12m it must be Tyrannosaurus sized in length as the only weight estimate (mike mortimer's) is of 2.5 tonnes. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? I'm gonna remove it then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.BRZ (talk • contribs) 09:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Does height really matter when it comes to Theropod size? Benosaurus 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it matters (or whether length matters for that matter) is subjective, but it's not constant, since it depends on posture, so it's much less accurate than length. Dinoguy2 03:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that height is more important than length for some reason .B903hd11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by B903hd11 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The smallest theropods specifically avoid taxa known only from juveniles, but juveniles like Liaoningosaurus and Wannanosaurus are listed for other groups. Albertonykus (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, those should be removed if there's a valid source demonstrating the taxon is known only from juvenile remains.MMartyniuk (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the Wannanosaurus article only cites the 1990 description claiming the specimen is fully adult. If this has changed, can somebody with access to more ornithischian lit update it? MMartyniuk (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The new "

Ornatotholus"/Stegoceras paper cites several sources for Wannanosaurus being a juvenile; perhaps those can be tracked down? Albertonykus (talk

) 07:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Also found this one which mentions known Wannanosaurus specimens being "probable juveniles". Albertonykus (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we have sources for Stegosaurus? other than popular books like the one of Holtz? I haven't done much in the way of searching papers on it but is the 9m estimate real? or it was born on the internet? I'm also something skeptical on all the other genera on that list.

Some of them, like Cedarpelta, have a skull about the same size as that of the largest Ankylosaurus skull, from an animal about ~6m long, yet Holtz says it was 9m long? Also Tsagantegia, Dyoplosaurus and Tarchia are only known from skulls 30-40cm long, assuming similar proportions to Ankylosaurus they'll be 3-4m long yet Holtz claims they were 7-8m long? There are other cases were published (as in scientific paper published) estimates give lengths of 5-6m for Sauropelta and Euoplocephalus yet they are 7-8m according to Holtz, I don't feel we should use this book, and I'm also very skeptical of the 10.7m length for Ankylosaurus but I can't access that paper to know if its real.Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll add the estimates from "The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs" of Greg Paul to offset those of Holtz, I know it's a popular book too and it also has its cases of weird, probably innacurate sizes but at least in the case of Thyreophora it gives sizes much more closer to the scientific papers than the seemingly exagerated sizes from Holtz. Mike.BRZ (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I felt that my original comments were all over the place and didn't explain well the reasons of my doubt of Holtz book. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Holotype Giganotosaurus is 12.5m long, so were do we get 13m from? same for T rex, sue is12.8m long, so were does 13m come from? But as rex is longer, it should be above Giganotosaurus, not below. Also how is it possible for a slim Giganotosaurine to weigh more than a bulky Tyrannosaurid??? It cant, unless it ismuch longer, but it is not it is shorter. as a side note, Deinochierius, 9t? Insane? yep. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

They come from wherever the source says they come from (those little blue superscript numbers after the size). We're not making up these lengths and it's not our job to interpret them, just give the range of what's been published by scientists. If you read the linked sources and think their methods are wrong, publish a rebuttal! Anyway, what makes you say the largest Gigantotosaurus was 12.5m as opposed to 13? This specimen is a partial dentary! With such an incomplete specimen do you really think it's possible to differentiate by only half a meter? The holotype is more complete (still missing some of the tail, which is necessary to measure accurate length) but is smaller, maybe 12.2m long ([3]). It's subjective, but I would never call a giganotosaurine slim to its face. Looks pretty hefty to me. The torso isn't as wide laterally as a barrel-chested tyrannosaurine, but it looks deeper, and the nerual spines are taller making for a taller toroso overall, meaning that much more bulk. [4] Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The partial dentry one hasnt had a size published yet, while the holotype is 12.5m from what ive heard. But my main point was, is that the Gig article itself says it was 12.5m, while the T rex article is wron about sue being 13m (it is 12.8m). Gignotosaurus is slim,like Carcharodontosaurus who's size etc is actually based of Giganotosaurus alot as no close relatives of it other than Gig and Mapu have been found. Among the dinosaur comunit Wikipedia is becoming a laughing stock (im not joking), It oversizes Gig who is smaller than Sue, also it oversizes sue itself by 20cm (yep, a whole 20cm! OMG!). Deltadromeus and Bahariasaurus have now apparently ben synonymised andthre is much more accurate pic of it i belive on wiki commons showing it as a shortarmed omnivorous theropod. I am currently typing on my Wii, so i cant give anylinks at all, im also prone to typo's. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have published citations for any of this? Or are you getting info from internet message boards? Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; if there are published sources which dispute the sizes present in Wikipedia, let's see them. Also, if Wikipedia has become a "laughing stock in the 'online dinosaur community'" based on a 20 inch difference on a 30+ ft long animal, these people have too much time on their hands. "OMG! A massive 20 inch difference! Sound the alarm!" Firsfron of Ronchester 01:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Half the info i am talking about is on wikipedia anyway, while Wikipedia says T rex is 13m, yet one of its own sources contradicts it! So it okay to say Giganotosaurus is 13m (which it isnt, as Wikipedia itself shows)but not to say Spinosaurus is 18.5m? If i put that on Spino's page that it was 18.5m long it would be changed, so why isnt Giga changed? Also 20inches is alot if it puts up the list of largest which it does in this case. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Spinodontosaurus, we are asking for your sources for size information. Where are your sources for the sizes of each of these dinosaurs? Other editors have worked to provide sources for size data. Wikipedia's article on Tyrannosaurus states it measured "up to 13 metres (43 ft) in length,[1] up to 4 metres (13 ft) tall at the hips,[2] and up to 6.8 metric tons (7.5 short tons) in weight.[3]" This does not at all contradict the Field Museum's data, because these numbers are clearly estimates, and up to 13 meters certainly includes 12.8 meters.

If you are using Wikipedia as a way of "proving" something like "which dinosaur would win in a fight" (as shown at this web forum, which you frequent), please don't waste our time pushing your point of view. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are not getting my point, Sue largest T rex found. we all know that, it was 12.8m, that IS NOT 13m. All the things i have been saying (other than Carcharodontosaurus length which has already been ignored) is here on Wikipedia, just THIS article contradicts some of it OKAY? Oh and like i said, the forum i use hardly even uses Wikipedia anymore, we rely on a user to do the calculations which 90% are more accurate than wiki anyway. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If your "point" is that 12.8 meters is NOT 13 meters, I've already responded to that: these are estimates; we may never truly know the exact sizes. Insisting that 20 inches on a gigantic animal is a "huge" difference is lunacy. Relying on web forum "I heard that..."-type posts is also, quite frankly, bizarre. You've been asked over and over to provide sources for your assertions, but your responses have evaded this over and over ("I can't because I'm on a Wii"-type stuff). The idea that a web forum user's posts at Topix are "more accurate" than a Wikipedia article which is sourced to actual papers, studies on these animals, is complete nonsense, and you are wasting real editors' time with it. Please don't push your own POV here. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Tell me what to source for you and i will, but as i have said my point is is that Wikipedia is contradicting itself and its sources. And i was typing on my Wii at the time so dont call me a lier K? If Wikipedia is to stick to its sources, no matter what the difference in size is, why is T rex rounded up? should we just round down Mapusaurus cause it is 12.2m to 12m because 20cm is nothing for a large animal? But what about Giganotosaurus? Still you dont seem to get that this atricle oversizes it and you ramble on about things ive already said. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, this whole article is balls when considering the extrapolation of sizes from the known material, but hey, it's cited, so we at least have some idea of the pedigree of the information.

Do you realize what size estimates are based on? Almost invariably, single individuals known from incomplete skeletons. For some significant fraction of dinosaurs approaching 100%, we have no clue as to individual variation, sexual variation, variation based on geographic area, variation over time (tyrannosaurs that lived at 67 Ma versus those from 65.5 Ma, for example), variation over growth, and so forth. Even when a complete skeleton is present, an individual is well shy of a statistically useful population. Is the type specimen of Giganotosaurus average, deficient, fully grown, male, female, or a monster among its own genus? We can say a few things about proportions, but you are deluding yourself if you think that a given size estimate is particularly useful for more than the individual it is based on. Furthermore, length is subject to the vagaries of how you measure it. Is it along a straight line? Is it along the curves of the body? Did you include intervertebral discs, and how much did you add for them? (Height is even worse; I do not hesitate to delete any height estimate I see. Was it from the head, or the hips, or was it the animal on its tip-toes, was it stretching, etc.)

And you propose to make a fuss over 20 centimeters? J. Spencer (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That still doesnt answer what i was origionally asking. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that it's not really worth your time to worry about it. Based on the scanty information in hand, the sizes of the giant theropods are close enough as to be statistically the same, except for Spinosaurus. The big guys (Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus, Tyrannosaurus, probably Bahariasaurus) so far all max out in the 12-13 m range (and only the authors know how they made those estimates), except for Spinosaurus which as usual was doing its own thing. Of these, only Tyrannosaurus has a described sample size remotely close to being worthy of the name "sample". It's reasonable to figure that they all, except for Spinosaurus, maxed out in the same weight band as well (7-15 m tons, depending on your methodology). There are some proportional differences, but big whoop. I'd be happy to just lump them all as "elephant-class" per Holtz 2008 (http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/dinoappendix/DinoappendixSummer2008.pdf), which works out to 4-8 long tons (3.6-7.2 m tons) per his explanation; it's a little on the skinny side, but you get the idea.

Other miscellaneous points: the high masses for Tyrannosaurus and the carcharodontosaurids come from Therrien and Henderson 2007. If you don't buy their results, read their journal article and take it up with them. It doesn't make any sense to make WP the bad guy when someone else is responsible for coming up with those numbers. Deinocheirus is just odd to have anyway, given it consists primarily of shoulders and arms. J. Spencer (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The estimate of 13.2 meters is from MUPCv-95, 6.5-8% larger than MUPCv-ch1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGiganotosaurus (talk • contribs) 23:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Again, I just wanted to point out that Dinosaurs like Alamosaurus should be included in the Largest Sauropods, but its not, why??--Dinoexpert (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It's there, currently #11 under Longest Sauropods. MMartyniuk (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I am for semi protecting this article because there is a LOT of vandalism (every week, someone changes 14.3-18 m to 18-30 or 18-25 m). The last vandalism attempt was made today. Jinfengopteryx (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree. This page has way too many vandalism attempts. Ashorocetus (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Could anyone give me a reply to this proposal? Jinfengopteryx (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't there supposed Sauropelta remains from Cedar Mountain that are supposed to be the largest ankylosaurs?

(p.s. Should Ichnotaxa count?)142.176.114.76 (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's actually a different genus; not sure if it has been described or not. J. Spencer (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Sauropelta otherwise represented in Cedar Mountain?142.176.114.76 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please answer very accurately. Seismosaurus (Diplodocus) was 33-36 metres long and the second longest. It wasn't under 33 metres. The Diplodocus page even says it was around 35 metres. Also most weight estimates of Seismosaurus are over 50 tonnes. Secondly Argentinosaurus was only 30-35 metres long, more likely just 30. Supersaurus was 33-35 metres long. Sauroposeidon was 28-32 metres long. Why aren't these estimates published? Also some estimates of Seismosaurus and Supersaurus point to 40 metres. Is this accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.14.176 (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

We go by estimates published in either peer reviewed scientific publications or at least semi-technical books written by a paleontologist, if it is not mentioned by a source that meets that criteria we can't include it. Now, to answer your questions.

1. The 39m+ estimates of the length of "seismosaurus" were based on an incorrect assumption regarding the position of some tail vertebrae, current estimates put it at 33m (Lucas & Herne, 2006) or 30m long (Lovelace et al., 2007). Regarding mass, there is just a single mass estimate for the "seismosaurus" specimen and is 30 tonnes, from Greg Paul's 2010 book, IMO is an overestimation.

2. The 36m estimate for Argentinosaurus cites a reputable source, I too think is too long and I might be able to do something about it (the authors that described the fossils saying it can't be much over 33m long in an abstract from a few years ago).

3. 33-34m for Supersaurus have as reference the scientific publication in which this taxon was described.

4. 28-34m for Sauroposeidon, same as above.

5. Is not accurate, at least not for "seismosaurus" (currently recognized as just a big Diplodocus individual), for Supersaurus, one of the authors has hinted that is possible to reconstruct the BYU specimen at 40m long but he considers 35m more likely however as his comments were not made in a place that complies with the criteria I previously mentioned, we can't cite them. Mike.BRZ (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Saurophaganax, based on the most modern estimates is 12-14 metres along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.14.176 (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There are no modern estimates, in fact there isn't a single length estimate that appears in a peer-reviewed scientific publication, we only have 12.8m from a magazine article from 1941, the 10m estimate made in Greg Paul's 2010 book and the 13m one from Tom Holtz's book, the last two are already referenced here. Mike.BRZ (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There is an article above on this matter but it doesn't seem to give a direct answer. How long and heavy was Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum? Please answer.112.134.196.142 (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't know, the giant specimen which is still undescribed, we are not even sure it's M. sinocanadorum, we only have the word of the museum/expo exhibiting it. btw, you should sign your comments, just write this ~ four times at the end of your comment. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

If it isn't a mamenchisaur then what is it? and the page says it weighed 75 tonnes. Isn't this highly exaggerated, since the largest non titanosaur sauropods were (excluding Amphicoelias) Seismosaurus/Diplodocus hallorum and Supersaurus both of which were 33-36 metres long and weighed between 30-60 tonnes (though some estimates are 80). Mamenchisaurs were lightweight so wouldn't a weight of 30-60 tonnes or even 30-50 tonnes be more accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.63.233 (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The point is, it hasn't been scientifically described yet, so we can't tell if it's really an M. sinocanadorum or some other sauropod. It could be a titanosaur or a diplodocid or something like that, we can't tell until there's some data in the scientific literature. Also, we can't really tell if the mass estimate is reliable or not until we get some data. Anyhow, 75 tons far larger than would be reasonable for the holotype specimen of M. sinocanadorum, and I agree, it's probably an exaggeration for this specimen too, but we can't be sure until the specimen gets some published material on it. Ashorocetus (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

We have a verifiable source that calls this specimen sinocandaroum and gives size estimates. It is a book, not a paper, and certainly the paper will take priority if and when it is ever published and if it addresses any differences in results with previously published estimates or classifications. Until then, we should use the published sources we have, since there is no good reason to mistrust them. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I might be wrong but isn't an estimate of Giganotosaurus' and Carcharodontosaurus' max weight placed at over 10 tonnes just exaggerated (save for T-rex which was only 5-6 tonnes). The best estimates and most common are 6-8 tonnes and 6-7 tonnes respectively. Isn't it exaggerated for Spinosaurus too. A weight of 20 tonnes seems too much. 11 tonnes was most widely accepted and mentioned by bbc's 2012 documentary Planet Dinosaur. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.63.233 (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with them either but they come from a scientific publication, which has been criticized by other paleontologists but since that criticism was not done in other scientific publications we can't remove them. Mike.BRZ (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Spinosaurus doesn't weigh 20 tonnes, because it seems too much, just like Argentinosaurus, when they thought it weighed in at 100 tonnes, but that seemed to heavy for a sauropod like that, so they revised it down to 70 tonnes. Anyway, I think Spinosaurus weighed 9-12 tonnes, whilst the biggest specimen could weigh around seventeen-and-a-half tonnes, meanwhile Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus weighed 6-8 tonnes, so they were some of the biggest land predators ever to stalk this planet.Jk41293 (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Mapusaurus bigger than Tyrannosaurus? I remember reading somewhere that Redolfo Coria said that Mapusaurus was orobably somewhere between 13 and 14 metres long, not 12 and 13 metres long. And why refer to the 18-metre Spinosaurus like we've found a complete skeleton? That theory is based on a jawbone. --Isna 'Kasamee (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Many size estimates are based on incomplete skeletons. A jaw bone is enough to scale based on relatives. Either way, there are published estimates and it's not the job of Wikipedia to question the findings of professionals, just report their findings. Also note that the larger estimates for Giganotosaurus is also based only on a jaw bone, the more complete specimen is smaller. The original specimen of Spinosaurus, known from a more complete skeleton, was only slightly smaller than the new jaw bone, and estimates as far back as the 1930s placed it as 15 meters long. Why this was laways ignored in future surveys of large dinosaurs such as Giganotosaurus, I don't know. Mapusaurus was initially reported to be larger than Tyrannosaurus but the actual published paper reported a much lower size. News reports tend to blow things out of proportion, we should always go with the actual studies than word of mouth reports. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Also, this shows Tyrannosaurus being bigger than Giganotosaurus.

T rex: 42.6 feet Giganotosaurus: 41 feet

Either we should move Tyrannosaurus above or use the evidence we have fo a 44 foot (14 metre) Giganotosaurus. XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isna 'Kasamee (talk • contribs) 14:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Somebody must have removed the larger estimate at some point, and reverts missed it. Notice they also accidentally removed the 'm' symbol. This article is the biggest vandalism target I've ever worked on :P Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus, Mapusaurus and Saurophaganax were roughly the same length (11-13m),so Mapusaurus and T.rex should stay where they are and Saurophaganax should also stay there.Jk41293 (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

i heard they found a jawbone of a theropod that suggested lengths of 22 meters. it was found in china in 1978 and it is pretty much true to me. so on the longest and heaviest theropods it should be number 1 at 22 meters and 30 tons. (if spino is 20 tons) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.173.253.125 (talk • contribs)

"Kelmayisaurus gigantus" has never been officially described. As such, there is no way of determining between the following possibilities: it is in fact a giant theropod; it is actually a misidentified sauropod; it was published elsewhere under another name; it is actually a typo for Klamelisaurus, as has been suggested elsewhere. J. Spencer (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Kelmayisaurus did exist, but the species you say might just be an unidentified sauropod. Plus,Kelmayisaurus gigantus could be a typo for another type of theropod dinosaur. Plus, the size estimate might be inaccurate for this big animal. I'm sure the animal should have been estimated at 15 and a half metres, the highest of the carcharodontosaurids. So it should be at Number 2 instead.Jk41293 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Should these two be listed here? Although it's certain they were very large animals, their size consists of vague estimates based on just their arms (which may have been very long in comparison to other theropods', or not). Jerkov 11:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Therizinosaurus, but when it comes to Deinocherius, it was 10m long. Because of that estimated size, I'll add it on there.Jk41293 (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume that we should logically change "Smallest theropods" to "Smallest non-avian theropods", since the smallest known theropod is the

16:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That is true, but since most theropods include carnivorous dinosaurs, and the pages exclude birds, Epidexipteryx hui should keep its title as the 'smallest land animal ever to walk the Earth.'Jk41293 (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The pachycephalosaur section has almost no species in it, and the range between the cutoff for biggest and smallest is only a meter. Does anyone else think it might be a good idea to merge it with ceratopsia section for a marginocephalia section? Ashorocetus (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I am highly skeptical of the dimensions given for Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum. Assuming M. hochuanensis was 22 meters long, that would mean M. sinocandorum would have to be about 60% longer to be 35 meters long. However, if one looks at the measurements of the first four cervical vertebrae of these two species, one finds that M. sinocanadorum is nowhere close to being that much bigger than M. hochuanensis. The greatest discrepency between the two species is in the posterior width of the third cervical, where M. sinocanadorum is about 50% larger than M. hochuanensis. This is an outlier, however, in most dimensions, M. sinocanadorum is about 5-15% larger than M. hochuanensis. The mass estimate is also questionable. Assuming M. sinocanadorum was 35 meters long, and M. hochuanensis was 22 meters and 15 tonnes, isometry (assuming mass increases with the cube of length) predicts that M. sinocanadorum would way about 60 tons. Only if one assumes the maximum estimated mass of M. hochuanensis, 18 tonnes, does isometry predict anything like 75 tonnes. However, this 18-tonne figure for M. hochuanensis was made assuming that its density was 1, not 0.8, which is more likely for sauropod dinosaurs. If we assume M. sinocanadorum was 26 meters (which is what was estimated in the description paper, and I find much more likely), isometry predicts that it weighed roughly 25 tonnes. This seems a lot more believable given the dimensions of M. sinocanadorum. Ashorocetus (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It's all Greg Paul's fault, you're right, M. sinocanadorum is no that much larger than the other species but the specimen that Paul mentions in his Field Guide is based on a skeletal mount of an undescribed specimen that the museum says is M. sinocanadorum. I'm all for removing it from the list on those grounds but I'm not sure how other people think. Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't disputing the validity of a published source based on counter-arguments published on the talk page OR? If the big mount is not sinocanadorum we can change the name when it's published. But as a valid, published length estimate of a real specimen of something everybody currently calls sinocanadorum, it should stay. Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's an undescribed specimen, never mentioned in the scientific literature, that's my main gripe with it but I recognize that our opinions, no matter how informed, don't carry weight compared to Paul's book. So I apologize for essentially suggesting we use OR in this Wikipedia article. Mike.BRZ (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It is kinda OR. Looking back, I wish I'd looked into it a little more before I wrote the above rant. But still, if we're using only published length/mass estimates, wouldn't it make sense also to only include published specimens? Ashorocetus (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

So, if it was only 26 metres long, then why is it still on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.96.107 (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The type specimen is only 26m, but apparently there's an undescribed specimen that's 35m. It's not referenced in any scientific publications to date, so I personally don't think it ought to be on this list, but my opinion is not the only one to be considered here. The 35m does come from a valid source (Greg Paul's "Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs") that is cited numerous times in this article. Ashorocetus (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)