File talk:Allosaur size.svg

 

Updating

As suggested on the deletion request by User:Ornitholestes, it is time to update this illustration. I think that the image should not show Saurophaganax or Epanterias, but instead illustrate the different sizes of specimens of Allosaurus. I will provide links to them, but currently I cannot update the image myself. Here are the specimens and their sizes in order by largest of each species:

• Saurophaganax: ~ 12m
• A. europaeus: ~ 9.8m
• A. fragilis
  • AMNH 680: ~ 9.7m (femur 1008mm)
  • Average: ~ 8.5m
  • AMNH 6125: ~ 8.5m (femur 868mm)
  • USNM 4734: ~ 8.3m (femur 850mm)
  • "Big Al": ~ 7.3m (femur 748mm)
  • DINO 3984: ~ 6.5m (femur 605mm)
  • MCZ 3897: ~ 4.6m (femur 428mm)
  • SDSM 30510: ~ 2.9m (femur 274mm)
• A. atrox: ~ 8.7m
• A. "jimmadseni": ~8.2m

Hope these help, Reid,iain james (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two problems I see with this: Firstly many of these are not actually legit size estimates. Big Al is only about 7.3m long based on the Skeletal by Scott Hartman, and USNM 4734’s size was given as 7.7m by Greg Paul and 7.4m by Mickey Mortimer, the alledgedly 85cm long femur may just have been 77cm long (and even if not that doesn’t change the fact that all its other bones are much smaller than those of DINO 2560). There is no published lenght figure for A. europaeus, but based on its skull it is a very far call from 9.8m long. The average in the above list is actually the size of a specimen, which I included. A. tendagurensis is a nomen dubium of unknown tetanuran, non-coelurosaurian affinities, that has been referred based on superficial resemblance, and it may not be a species of Allosaurus. On that ground I think it would be worth including it (as secondly, I did not intend this to become a comparison of Allosaurus specimens, but of genera within allosauridae). I’m not aware of any size estimates, but the tibia is preserved (i.e. at least) 910mm long according to Mortimer, so that makes it comfortably over 10m long. Out of curiosity, where were those sizes you list as "published" from? --Ornitholestes (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If I’m understanding this right your suggestion is a matter of novelty, however no other comparison here on commons includes Saurophaganax, so wouldn”t it be rather pointless to remove it? There are already comparisons showing several specimens of Allosaurus (fragilis). --Ornitholestes (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm yes never mind about Saurophaganax. All the femur lengths can be found in this article, and I estimated the length of each specimen to be what is listed above. Oops, all the lengths for Big Al, AMNH 680, and the average are referenced on the english wiki page. I fact, based on my own estimations, Big Al does come out as 7.3 meters, which is what I myself would recommend listing it as. I removed A. tendagurensis from above, as It is quite possibly from an unrelated theropod. I realized that the illustration was supposed to be about Allosauridae, but a much better one currently in use on wikipedia exists, and having two illustrating generally the same taxa would result in one in use everywhere, and one in use nowhere.

That was the one (actually several) I was referring to: File:Allosaurus_size_comparison.svg. These show specimens of Allosaurus fragilis/sp., not other allosaurids, with the exception of "Epanterias" which has been given its own genus on occasion but is commonly regarded as an A. fragilis. --Ornitholestes (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I would help with the modifications, but I cannot edit .svg files. The modifications that should be done are: smoothing out the stomach so that there is no obvious protrusion, having the text say: [Saurophaganax maximus] [specimen]: ~ 13 m. without the "axial lenght", removed the quotations around Epanterias, lowering the human so his heels are on the line, and covering up the line showing where along the back the measurement was taken. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I did all those things for a reason. The axial lenght and the line indicating it I added to indicate how they are measured, as that is quite frankly not obvious to the laymen seeing a comparison like that and wondering why the silhouette isn’t actually the given lenght. Epanterias, being widely regarded as a synonym of Allosaurus, is a genus of questionable validity. Frankly, there isn’t a single Allosaurus restoration or silhouette in wikimedia that doesn’t have an externally visible pubic protrusion, and most are much more shrink-wrapped than this one. No consensus has been reached as to whether this is accurate or not, but note that the pubis is thought of as a means of weight support while resting (Stevens et al. 2008 in Larsson & Carpenter 2008), explaining its size and robusticity in most theropods, and it may well protrude somewhat from the body outline (unless we envision a thick coat of feathers, as in large animals today the integument on Allosaurus may be relatively sparse). Also note the disparity in the abdominal shape of skeletal reconstructions and skeletal mounts of the same manimal, referrable to differences in rib acticulation imposed by preservation or mechanics of the mount. In drawings, the pubis usually protrudes from the gastral basket. The ventrally swept ribs of mounted and scanned skeletons however inflate the trunk depth and result in a more ventral placement of the lower surface of belly and thorax. See the comments on Hutchinson et al 2011 for more.

I think it would make sense to include Allosaurus sp. (Chure’s jimmadseni) and europaeus, and there are probably more species of Allosaurus besides those (as suggested by Myhrvold 2013), which are not yet described and identified. However Allosaurus is both a bit of a wastebasket taxon and a taxon whose species are the result of overactive splitting–many of those you listed earlier are likely not valid.--Ornitholestes (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)