Talk:Dinosaur size

Theropods

I think it is necessary to mention this again. Why should there be a list of shortest/lightest non-avialan dinosaurs? Seems as random and useless as a list of largest non-neoceratopsian ornithischians. What's special about Avialae? It is neither Aves nor "the bird clade" in any meaningful sense. Also, Epidexipteryx Yi and are likely avialan, which is why I removed them. Some say they aren't, but this is far from settled and it's probably better to avoid calling them non-avialan. Isn't Palaeopteryx avialan? And Ligabueino is known from a juveline, so should probably be excluded too. The last time this was almost discussed, it was said this page needed an axe or something. I believe we should start with this useless section. Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You can go ahead. But Epidexipteryx is not avian. Don't remove things that have the right to stay please. Ligabueino should indeed be removed, because the adult would most likely have been larger.PNSMurthy (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hartman et. al. (2019) found scansoriopterygids to be the basalmost members of Avialae, and Cau (2018) found a similar position. I'm not sure if an avialan status is the consensus for these genera, but they definitely have been found within that clade. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that part of the tree is stable at all in any analysis. But we might just have to deal with that. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That section is like a puzzle. Its not exactly the best it can be. I'd suggets an experimentation space, where, people can review articles (I'm not saying we're gonna say which reference is 'reliable or 'not reliable'). This space can be where creatures who are not, lets say, juveniles or avian, can be added. That way, this section can be sorted out.PNSMurthy (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Most analyses found Scansoriopterygidae in Avialae. I'm not sure what you were trying to imply with "Epidexipteryxappears to have lacked wing feathers" since wing feathers are ancestral to Pennaraptora (maybe Maniraptoriformes). This is certainly not what is going to determine if scansoriopterygids are/aren't avialan.Kiwi Rex (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe they glide, do they not?PNSMurthy (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The wing as a structure evolved before flight. Hartman et al. (2019) consider Yi capable of powered flight but they defend Archaeopteryx, Microraptor, Rahonavis, Yi and the Sapeornis+Jeholornis+Pygostylia clade evolved flight separately. However, none of this matters when it comes to what is avialan and what isn't. Avialae is the clade of modern birds and all dinosaurs more closely related to them than to dromaeosaurids and troodontids. Jacques Gauthier tried to redefine it as the clade of flying dinosaurs with flight homologous to birds, but this "retcon" didn't catch on. Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Visualization. Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Link the papers please.PNSMurthy (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hartman et. al. (2019) is linked in my first comment in this section. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you State Weasel.PNSMurthy (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I have read the article(s). All I can say is that, if we are indeed to remove avian candidates, we should be able to replace them with other suitable candidates, and amp up other dinosaurs if necessary. Any thoughts?PNSMurthy (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A. Giganteous

Antarctosaurus Giganteous is said to be between 58 & 63 tonnes. Even though the upper estimate is certainly smaller than the upper estimate of other suaropodmorphs, the lower estimate is significantly larger than a few large sauropodmorphs on the list. Wouldn't it be fairer and safer to rank size through lower estimate(s)?PNSMurthy (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Paul (2019)[1] estimated "Antarctosaurus" giganteus to be 45-55 t heavy. Also, doesn't Holtz use "elephants" to describe mass instead of providing the actual estimate? Kiwi Rex (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

True, but it's still an estimate @Kiwi Rex:.PNSMurthy (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a comparison, not an estimate. It's supposed to give an idea of how big it is compared to a modern animal, but we can't know exactly how much the "elephants" in "A". giganteus' mass weigh because the idea is exactly to not provide a number. Kiwi Rex (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

We need to sort this out

Hi fellow Wikipedians,

We need to sort this out. How are we measuring the dinosaurs in the list? Lowest estimate or highest estimate? Most recent estimate. Many dinosaurs have ranges of sizes. I honestly think we shouldn't do this, but rank sauropods based on the most recent estimate (unless it is obviously inaccurate - like Ultrasauros).

What do you guys think?

PNSMurthy (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we should redo all lists or even get rid of them. Many of those species were more or less the same size. It's very misleading to say X is bigger than Y just because one specimen of X is 10 cm longer than a certain specimen of Y. If we keep the lists, I think we should do something similar to this, and maybe add notes to explain certain estimates (i.e. Molina-Pérez & Larramendi disagree with Paul about the "Mamenchisaurus" sinocanadorum fossil indicating a ~35 m long animal, and the note could explain their argument). Kiwi Rex (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I believe we should give precedence to the most recent estimate, and should not give a range of widely differing estimates. By the way; in your sandbox, you have produced an unreasonably small size for Futlongkosaurus.PNSMurthy (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Number lists are honestly rather doomed to be misleading no matter what we do, because they present a strict hierarchy, as opposed to the more ambiguous reality of size estimations. The Dinosaur Facts and Figures books are not reliable sources. Also, I don't understand how 29t is "unreasonably small" for Futalognkosaurus, going by Paul (2019). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It's been suggested in the past that we should just WP:BLOWITUP and I'm inclined to bring that back to the table. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@State Weasel:, scaling down from Puertosaurus, I gained 41 tonnes. And, like Dreadnoughtus, many estimates give higher sizes. Honestly, I think its shrinkwrapped.PNSMurthy (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lusotitan: Okay suggestion, but I disagree. I have a mind to sort through the list and only keep 1 estimate (favorably the latest one).PNSMurthy (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the list format is too flawed to ever work, hence why this article never has. Dinosaur size estimation is too uncertain for a list to be reliable or substantive. It feels more like the kind of dick measuring contest you'd find on Carnivora forum than something of any encyclopedic value. The article would be best entirely abandoned and just redirected to dinosaur or shifted in focus to be about how dinosaur size is estimated and the biomechanics behind that size (along with some more limited text-based discussion of the largest and smallest dinosaurs over the years). Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 07:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Removing the lists and devoting the article to how dinosaur size is measured, biomechanical implications, and history of scaling is actually an interesting idea... Anyways, why would one scale a dinosaur known from 4 vertebrae to get a mass estimate for a significantly more complete one? If anything, the opposite should be done. Also, the supermassive Dreadnoughtus estimates have been deemed inaccurate by Bates et. al. (2015), who found a mass of 22-38t, comparable to the results published by Paul. But then again, this is not the place for WP:OR, we cannot claim that Paul (2019) is unreasonable based on WP:OR. As for lists, keeping only the latest estimate is problematic in and of itself, as different studies will reconstruct radically different flesh profiles or use entirely different methods to determine body size, and use different taxa. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Putting the most recent study may or may not be good. For example, if a less recent study is well-supported, and then a more recent study is published but only few studies support its conclusions, I will still go for the well-supported study, even if it's less recent. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lusotitan: This article is relatively well know and popular. What will happen if it disappears one fine day? Even though WP isn't generally considered reliable, its still public, and, if publicly visible. We aren't the only viewers of the page. Again, what will the public do?PNSMurthy (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't fully understand your worries - it seems like the main options the article will be overhauled, in which case the public can read the new article, or the article gets redirected to a section in Dinosaur, where the public can read that section. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the contents won't "disappear", they'll perhaps just change or will be redirected to another page. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That's perfect. Let's all start practising what we preach now okay? Lets get to work.PNSMurthy (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the inclusion of estimates from that book, my intention was initially to have something to create the table with, and only later put more estimates from better sources. I chose that one to start with just because it's one of the few compilations of multiple estimates. It wasn't my intention to actually put those numbers in an article - I also think they are fishy. Kiwi Rex (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way, this is also why I think the theropod version is better - it lists the numbers for length and mass together instead of dividing by source, but still mentions exactly who estimated what number. (Unreliable sources here too; this is just a model). Kiwi Rex (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Another Source

Found a blog post that shows a massive sauropod (at least 80 tonnes as far as I can tell). If you think the source is still unreliable, the blog cites a source that also describes the sauropod in question (albeit briefly). Can this be catalogued - that is, if we do not rework the whole list?PNSMurthy (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I realise have forgotten to link the post, here is the link:https://thesauropodomorphlair.wordpress.com/2020/06/04/the-candeleros-monster/.PNSMurthy (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This, again, does not qualify as a reliable source. With blogs, stick with those published by the experts in the field (i.e. SV-POW!). Rib scaling is honestly quite a terrible method to get a reliable estimates. This post assumes that "proximal half" means exactly one half of the rib AND that this rib belongs to a lognkosaur in order to reach the conclusions. The error margin for such estimates is immense. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

State Weasel, I also mentioned that this blog post cited the article in which it got the rib from. The same source also hints at this dinosaur being similar (or even a sister taxon), to Argentinasaurus, which is a Longkosaur.PNSMurthy (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)