Talk:Deltadromeus

Size

I have to desagree with Carcharodontosaurus being smaller than Deltadromeus. It states in this page that Deltadromeus weighs about 3.5 tones but in the Carcharodontosaurus page it states that Charcharodontosaurus weighs about 4 tones, close in weight but there is still a defferance. I do agree that Deltadromeus being longer. Spinosaur 06:33, 26 March (UTC)

Yeah, "shorter" would be better.Dinoguy2 01:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote in his Book, Deltadromeus is about 8 m long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.113.41 (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Which book? The problem might be that he's not including specimens once classified as Bahariasaurus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have e-mailed an Guy from Dinosaur Data Dig.

You don't say whether you prefer imperial or metric measures - so I'll settle for metric:)
Deltadromeus:
Length: 900 cm
Height: 240 cm
Weight: 1500 kg
Carnivore; predator of herbivorous dinosaurs.
Cheers,
Alex
Dr Alex Davidovic, CEO 

Dinosaur Central

It is only 8 - 9 m long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.113.40 (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Those sound like measurements for the holotype specimen. What about the referred specimens that used to be classified as Bahariasaurus? Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Diet

Now that Deltadromeus and Elaphrosaurus are recognized as basal ceratosaur (a ceratosaur that is neither a ceratosaurid nor an abelisauroid), their diets is very interesting Now Limusaurus is a basal ceratosaur too: Limusaurus skull clearly shows herbivory. Limusaurus postcranial skeleton resembles so much skeletons of Deltadromeus and Elaphrosaurus. But neither Deltadromeus skull nor Elaphrosaurus skull has been ever found: this means we cannot be sure about their carnivory. What if Deltadromeus and Elaphrosaurus are actually herbivores? This could explain why there were much more carnivores than herbivores in their habitats: Carcharodontosaurus, Spinosaurus, Kemkemia, Suchomimus, Rugops. And the only herbivores are Rebbachisaurus and Ouranosaurus. Maybe there were herbivorous ceratosaurs! Note that Deltadromeus, Elaphrosaurus and Limusaurus are so closely related each other that a new family "elaphrosauridae" could even be created http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/06/limusaurus_is_awesome.php http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/limusaurus-%E2%80%93-an-herbivorous-ceratosaur/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisio (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What about paralititan? Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC) And Jobaria? Spinodontosaurus (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Image

Why does the bottom image (the one with 2 Delta's and a Carcharo) show them with feathers? There is evidence for the smaller ones having them but i highly doubt those two would. If any large theropod would it would likely be T-Rex as (correct me if im wrong) it was closer related to birds than allosaurus. In other words, do we have a better picture? Spinodontosaurus (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

See the last comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carcharodontosaurus#Image FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but to me its about as accurate as giving a croc feathers. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really, because crocs aren't more bracketed by feathered heterodontosaurids :) It's a huge stretch given the allosaur skin impressions though, but it can't be totally ruled out unless other allosauroid skin impressions are found. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wel yes good point. But if they didhave feathers then wouldnt that strongly point towards T-Rex having feathers? Since Rex was closer to Birds than Allosaurids. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, he have a few small patches of T. rex skin showing scales, but it's possible they did have feathers on some parts of their bodies. It's also possible that many large dinosaurs lost feathers due to their size, but we can't know whether this would hold true for all of them. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed something in this image that does require its removal--the hands are flexed as if they had a semilunate carpal! Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Stuff

I just looked at the revision history for Deltadromeus and found that some one added something along the lines of 'Rivaled Giganotosaurus in size' but it was removed. Just wonderin why since it is correct. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on online interpretation of published data, as well as the fact that it's probably synonymous with Bahariasaurus. Once this is all formally worked out we can add it, but this article will probably disappear anyway :) Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

It was not the mid-Campanian age 95 million years ago and this time was actually the late Cenomanian epoch. Buy a book on geology will ya?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.137.134 (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it's fixed. J. Spencer (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

New Image

I went to the Burpee Museum and saw GIANTS: African Dinosaurs. They have a Deltadromeus there and I took a picture. I was just just woondering if I could put it on Wikipedia. Taylor Reints (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that this image focuses on the skull alone. The skull of Deltadromaeus is unknown, and this mount is somewhat infamous among paleontologists for making up a lot of extraneous, unknown details like the large lachrymal horns. Basically, I'd advise against including a photo of a completely speculative piece of paleoart that does not also include parts of the skeleton based on real fossils. I'll add that with the discovery of the apparently closely related Limusaurus, it is possible, if not likely that Deltadromaeus was an herbivore, a discovery that would completely invalidate the entire sculpture in the photo. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I almost even cropped out the head from the current taxobox image. You could technically call it art, because all of the skull is completely invented, therefore violating American copyright. Unless some of it is directly based on some related form? FunkMonk (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The mount was created when it was still thought to be a coelurosaur IIRC, so some of it is probably done after tyrannosauroids. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, there seems to be an alternate version of the skull: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BOpx09vwuYQ/VEP_xedvclI/AAAAAAAAA-s/zLnuPTIFvUU/s1600/DSCN2345.JPG FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Funnily enough, it seems the old skull reconstruction is more in line with the possible neovenatorid interpretation? FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

13.3m

I think Deltadromeus is 13.3m and 3.5t. Source: http://dml.cmnh.org/2003Jul/msg00355.html

I calculated it using the femur and it also shows 13.3m and 3.5t. I guess that's how Mickey Mortimer calculated that. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)