Jump to content

Talk:Carcharodontosaurus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Updated the size range and sources for 2015

A new paper published this year (Hendrickx et al. 2015) gave a higher range of body length of up to 14 meters. It's on page 21 of Hendrickx et al's (2015) paper. I'll paste it here : " Carcharodontosauridae, on the other hand, forms a well-supported clade comprising medium to very large theropods (6-14m long) characterized by a massive and deep skull with sculptured facial bones, and cranial protuberances on the lacrimals and postorbitals (Novas et al. 2005, 2013; Coria & Currie 2006; Brusatte & Sereno 2007; Ortega et al. 2010; Cau et al. 2013). The earliest carcharodontosaurid is currently Veterupristisaurus milneri (Rauhut 2011) known from caudal vertebrae from the Kimmeridgian-Tithonian of Tanzania. In the Cretaceous, carcharodontosaurids became a diversified clade of allosauroids distributed worldwide "

Reference : Hendrickx, Christophe; Hartman, Scott A.; Mateus, Octávio (2015): An Overview of Non- Avian Theropod Discoveries and Classification. PalArch’s Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology, 12 (1) pp. 1-73

PDF download here : http://www.palarch.nl/2015/08/christophe-hendrickx-scott-a-hartman-octavio-mateus-2015-an-overview-of-non-avian-theropod-discoveries-and-classification-palarchs-journal-of-vertebrate-palaeontology-12-1-2015/ Luigi Gaskell (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It does not say such estimate is for Carcharodontosaurus specifically but whatever, Therrien and Henderson (2007) already gives it a similarly high estimate (It wouldn't surprise me if that is where Hendrickx et al. (2015) got the upper end of their range). Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Silhouette issues

In the inset showing silhouettes of large carnosaurs, the silhouette depicting Charcharodontosaurus is brown, not violet. The caption on the picture says that it's violet, but the violet silhouette is actually Tyrannosaurus rex. This should be ameliorated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.108.25 (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurus iguidensis

C. iguidensis are a chimera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGiganotosaurus (talk • contribs) 09:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but we should wait for published science rather than citing a preliminary blog post (Andrea Cau's Theropoda). MMartyniuk (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Bigger than Giganotosaurus?

I knew that Giganotosaurus was long 13.2 m, and Carcharodontosaurus was length 12.7 m, but in this page it is stated that the Carcharodontosaurus was larger. On the basis of what has made ​​this statement?

In fact, the Carcharodontosaurus had previously been overestimated. In fact, this dinosaur was 12 meters long, a meter in less than Giganotosaurus. I do not know why they put that Carcharodontosaurus was bigger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGiganotosaurus (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not possible to know the length of either of those species to within one meter as neither preserve complete vertebral columns or tails. They are all about the same size as far as we are able to estimate. Any information which says one is larger than the other is not correct. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

However, it has then no sense to put that one is bigger than the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGiganotosaurus (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Madchester

I took a photo of a cast of a Carchadontosaurus skull. I'll probably end up putting it up... --Madchester 21:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurus was discovered before Sereno discovered it. It was a partial skeleton in the early twenties, I believe. (Patrick Marks) Battrarules.

From 40 feet long and 20 feet tall to 50 feet long and 25 feet... what?

One or more people are constantly changing the length in the paleobox and the text from "nearly as large as T. rex" to "bigger than T. rex". This is especially funny since they never bother to change the *source* that follows each of these statements, and apparnetly don't bother clicking on it. Why they think Carcharodontosaurus is 50ft long is beyond me, the only source they care about appears to be the voices in their head.Dinoguy2 22:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How much taller is Spinosaurus than Carcharodontosaurus?

I can't find a reference for hip height in Carcharodontosaurus, but based on Allosaurus, I'd *guess* Carchar would be about 18ft high. All these giant carnivores were probably about the same height, since they were usually more long than tall. A good estimate for the total height of t. rex, Spinosaurus, Carchar, Giganotosaurus, etc would all be 16-20 ft.Dinoguy2 00:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought carcharodontosaurus was bigger than T-Rex.

Nope. They originally thought that when Sereno found his new specimens, but further comparisons showed it was smaller. In fact, 40 ft and 4 tons is actually being generous, it was more like 37 ft and 3-3.5 tons.Dinoguy2 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)That's small compared to most large theripods 360man


That is contradicted by the size comparison of the largest thereipods in one of the pictures. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You may notice that post is from two years ago... I also made the size chart you mentioned. Carch used to be smaller in it but new specimens have shown that yep, it got that big ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Image

What do people think of the image of Charcharodontosaurus with (what appear to be) protofeathers? Personally, I think such an extensive covering unlikely in a multi-ton carnosaur, and it isn't really supported by phylogenetic bracketing either; but I'd like to other people's opinions before doing anything like removing or replacing it. John.Conway 14:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Heck, why not? Good and thought provoking (would be better to have a feathered T rexas much closer to avians though..)Cas Liber 06:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the inclusion. I don't think there's any solid data concerning whether it had such feathers or not, but if these animals are more closely related to birds than to reptiles, I don't see why it's not a possibility. It also helps break the stereotype that dinosaurs were reptiles. 67.76.183.192 23:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
All known carnosaur skin impressions (and there are a few, mostly from Allosaurus) show scales. There's no reason at present to suppose that Carcharodontosaurus had feathers. Scales are much more likely.Dinoguy2 03:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes but there are also scaly skin impressions of tyrannosaurids that are solidly put into coelurosauria (which while being a sister taxon to carnosauria they seemed to have already evolved proto-feathers). Don't you think that it could be a secondary development because of its size like in modern mammal pachyderms (Indian Rhino as the most striking example)? By the way Draco ignoramus here... I forgot my password and I considered that it was a good opportunity to go bandalize Wikipedia >P...--92.118.191.48 (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Just because they're in coelurosauria doesn't mean they're in Avifilopluma... could be Tyrannosaurs branched off before feathers evolved. Then again, Tianyulong kinda thrown a monkey wrench into the whole thing. Still, allosaur skin impressions show scales, so if it is a secondary development it's likely based on size (though we're talking juvenile allosaurs here). That said, again, the phylo bracket has changed so strictly following the rules I helped create for images, the image can now be allowed. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

UPDATED (2014)!!! Carcharos HAD FEATHERS. Non Coelurosaur dinos had feathers, or quilled structures, as far as the ornitischians (Ceratopsians and Dryomorpha). We have FOSSIL EVIDENCE - go read for it. There is a reason based on new evidences that quills and protofeathers might had appeared early in Dinosauria. The Carcharodontosauridae found with quills is the Spanish 'Concavenator'. Evolutionary adaptations like that just do not disappear and show up again in closely related groups. The giant non-avian dinosaurs might have had less feathers, quills, than the smaller ones. That is similar to what happens in modern day mammals. Aureliano.Tito 14:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC-3)

There is no direct evidence for feathers in carcharodontosaurs. Even the "quills" of Concavenator" are questionable.[1] Anyhow, they may have had some sort of feathers. But the evidence isn't strong enough to say these images are wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course, any new images of any dinosaur with feathers would also not be wrong and would probably be slightly more right ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but that statement needs to be .... 'amended,' don't you think? 68.19.0.12 (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
No, the evidence is currently equivocal for most dinosaurs, so for any given species lacking skin impressions, there may or may not have been feathers on some part of the body or other. An image of, say, Thescelosaurus with feathers and an image of the same dinosaur without feathers should be considered equally correct given the current evidence, because we know at least some ornithopods suppressed their feather genes, but we don't know where on the ornithopod line this happened or how many times. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
"Most dinosaurs" - what the heck? You're going waaay out on the edge there. Many theropod dinos and probably most of the "egg thiefs" were no doubt feathered, but we don't know or will ever know all species that existed, or what their proportionate numbers where. Sauropods with feathers is pretty much dismissed, for instance. 98.67.15.158 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Better picture please

Can someone put a better picture than the other one becasue not only is it crappey looking but is kind of coused false information showing Carcon and Deltadrormes with featers even these animals were not related to the colurasaurs 360man

I don't have a better pic to provide, but it does violate the project image rules for accuracy, so I'll remove it. Dinoguy2 09:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I've requested a new image on the image requests page. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems wrong

"However, the closely related carcharodontosaurid Giganotosaurus was present in South America at this time (Campanian, Maastrichtian)."--195.130.92.43 (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely wrong, Gig is Cenomanian. Will fix. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Size and mass

How can Carcharodontosaurus weight 13-15 t? But to me Carcharodontosaurus is really 14 m long:

The specimen found by Sereno is 12,79 m long with a 1,6 m skull Neotype- (SGM-Din 1) (12.79 m) incomplete skull (missing premaxillae, squamosals, quadratojugals) (~1.6 m) (Sereno et al., 1996) From http://home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Carnosauria.htm#Carcharodontosaurussaharicus Now its widely said that the skull of C. iguidensis is 1,75 m, right? This means: 1,6:12,79=1,75:X X=13,989 m —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisio (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that original research you just performed there...? Publish your length estimate and methods in something peer-reviewed and we can cite you ;) However, given that your base data isn't from the literature but an unpublished web site, you may not get far. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Al i think i can help here, he is right about Carcharodontosaurus being 14m. http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/student_identifies_carcharodontosaurus_iguidensis_as_new_species_of_carnivorous_dinosaur Will this do?Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No... I have the actual paper and it says nothing about a 14m size estimate. I don't know where the press release got that figure but it certainly isn't in anything published. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, but as Brisio said, 14m seems right. But thats O.R and is a big no no o wiki. (another reason is that the sahiricus species, i belive, was 13m long. So since Iguidenis has a bigger skull it would be bigger.) Spinodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with spinodontosaurus and brisio (big al). C.sarharicus was 12.7 meters but C.iguiensis was 14 meters. I have several sources, ill post them soo.Dan6534661 (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, lenth of skull has a big effect on Theropod lenth, take spino. 1.4m skull = ~14m long Spino. 1.75m skull, not much difference in skull size, but it comes from a 17-18m animal. So i dont know how a 1.6m skull from C.Sahiricus ~13m long Carcharo. But C.Iguidennis has a 1.75m skull but is apparently also ~13m. Since they would be in proportion 13m for C.Iguidennis cant be right. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

AgreedDan6534661 (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I remember the old edition (before 2009 July) said 11.1-13.5 meters long and weighing up to 2.9 metric tons. And one of the references come from Dinodata, it was referenced from <<Sereno, P.C., Dutheil, D.B., Iarochene, M., Larsson, H.C.E., Lyon, G.H., Magwene, P.M., Sidor, C.A., Varricchio, D.J. & Wilson, J.A. (1996). Predatory dinosaurs from the Sahara and Late Cretaceous faunal differentiation. Science, 272: 986-991.>>

But this edition (after 2009 July) says ranging between 12 and 13 m (39-43.5 ft) and weight estimates between 6 and 15 metric tons. One of the three references also comes from <<Sereno, P.C., Dutheil, D.B., Iarochene, M., Larsson, H.C.E., Lyon, G.H., Magwene, P.M., Sidor, C.A., Varricchio, D.J. & Wilson, J.A. (1996). Predatory dinosaurs from the Sahara and Late Cretaceous faunal differentiation. Science, 272: 986-991.>>

Why they have so large differeces, if in 1996 Sereno said it had 11.1-13.5 meters long and weighing up to 2.9 metric tons, why this edition says ranging between 12 and 13 m (39-43.5 ft) and weight estimates between 6 and 15 metric tons, instead of ranging between 11 and 13 m and weight between 2.9 and 15 metric tons?

Can this article write in more detailed? Such as Sereno's estimate, Seebacher's estimate, and Henderson's estimate. Thank you. hoseumou 14:44, 05 January 2010 (UTC)

The only estimate is 10m by Gregory S. Paul and as same as carcharodontosaurus saharicus. For Carcharodontosaurus iguidensisDinosaur Fan (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • On a related note, since it has been pointed out that the premaxilla of Carcharodontosaurus may have been reconstructed as to long[2], as seen in the current cast in the infobox[3], it appears there are now other casts with shortened premaxillae[4] following that idea. We can' really know, but should we use one of the more cautious reconstructions in the infobox instead? FunkMonk (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected page? please edit

Please wikilink C.A. Sidor. Hryhorash (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be deleted

In the popular culture section, it says: ".... The program erroneously depicted Carcharodontosaurus living in South America and preying on the sauropod Saltasaurus. In reality, Carcharodontosaurus remains have only been found in northern Africa." In the movie, they said Carcharadontasaurs, meaning the family, not the genus. The Carcharadontasaur they were depicting was Giganotosaurus. Should this be deleted? Paleo Kid (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.70.80.95, 24 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the "Popular Culture" section for this article, I would like it to mention that the carcharodontosaur failed in his attempt to attack Spinosaurus. That is all.

98.70.80.95 (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Spinosaurus is already mentioned in that section. What specific wording would you like to see changed? -Atmoz (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

carcharo means 'shark'

Carcharon in ancient Greek meant saw hence the word 'καρχαρίας' for shark.'Καρχαροδοντόσαυρος' (Carcharodontosaurus) translates in modern Greek as shark-toothed lizzard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsof (talk • contribs) 17:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, carcharodon does mean "sharp tooth" in Greek. In creating the name for the dinosaur, Stromer writes: "...die ich nach ihren, groβtenteils Carcharodon ähnlichen Zähnen Carcharodontosaurus nenne." ["based on the Carcharodon-like teeth, I name Carcharodontosaurus"]. Hence, the name as meant by Stromer is actually "Carcharodon-lizard", in which Carcharodon refers to the white shark. He never intended the name to mean "sharp toothed lizard."66.111.125.85 (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

C. iguidensis

Is there any evidence whatsoever that it was larger than C. saharicus other than news sites? I'm trying to get the paper to see if it makes mention of such thing, going by the abstract... "and grew to the same large body size as C. saharicus" I guess it isn't bigger. Mike.BRZ (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No, and I just checked the paper--it explicitly says they're the same size several times. Don't know where that news article got it from but it's not a reliable source. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Size... just wrong

Here, it says that Carcharodontosaurus size is like 13 m, and it says that is bigger than Giganotosaurus. The spanish Giganotosaurus article says that MUCPv-95 was about 13,2 m. 186.63.58.119 (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC

Did I miss something? There has been no recent discovers indicating that Carcharo is larger than T-rex or Giga so will are we indicating false information?Mcelite (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply, it is not possible to predict the size of a fragmentary skeleton to within 20 centimetres. Giga and Carch re both ~13m and anything saying otherwise is too speculative. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
That's what I'm simply trying to understand. There's no true solid evidence that it was larger than T-rex...unlike Giga which is marginally larger than T-rex. They both have the same hip height however Giga is longer mostly due to it's skull. So please forgive me Dinoguy2 I've been a bit overworked with studies so was there was detailed discussion with this change?Mcelite (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The largest known complete T. rex specimen is 12.9m long. Some bone fragments have been dubiously identified as being larger than this, so T. rex should be considered ~13m long as well. As far as our current knowledge and margins of error allow us to tell, Carch, Giga, and Rex were all pretty much the same length. Anyone who says one was longer than the other two is severely misrepresenting the facts. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 October 2013 - parenthesis in wrong place

Pls change "... and οδοντο odonto meaning "teeth", and σαυρος sauros, meaning "lizard") — "Carcharodon lizard"." to "... and οδοντο odonto meaning "teeth"), and σαυρος sauros, meaning "lizard" — "Carcharodon lizard"."; ie move ')' from after "lizard" to after "teeth". Thx. 124.148.64.48 (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

C. iguidensis

C. iguidensis was 10-13m according to Gregory S. Paul and BBC. Why isn't it mentioned? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Because the BBC is making things up (they are the ones that started the "it has an 175cm long skull!") and we agreed to go by what the scientific publication says, ultimately Greg Paul estimate is only based on the mention of the maxilla being 82% the length of that of C. saharicus. Also there's the possibility that the species is a chimera. Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I bet that is how blogs and unpublished sources calculated 13–14 m (43–46 ft). Because they think C. iguidensis really has a 175cm skull and scaling by C. saharicus it would be 13 point something meters to 14 point something meters. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carcharodontosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2017

Hi I just wanted to edit the size or C.Iguidensis. Thank you for your time. CretaceousCraft (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carcharodontosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carcharodontosaurus/Archive_1&oldid=1247039166"