Talk:Torvosaurus

sizes

I was reading the recent 2006 paper describing the European specimens (the 630mm maxilla), in that paper they say that the skull would have been around 1.58m. However looking around the internet at torvosaurus skull reconstructions (including GSP’s torvosaurus and the skull reconstruction in the paper) the maxilla seems to nearly half the total length of the skull. When I scaled the reconstructions to have a 630mm maxilla I get a skull size of around 1.20m. Using GSP torvosaurus the animal would be only about 9.5m long. Smaller than other specimens that I’ve herd of . On Mortimer’s site he mentions an individual (Paratype BYUVP 2003) with a skull of 1.31m this would approach 11m. ) He doesn’t give any other measurements for that animal so I cant check it. One has a Ischium of 736mm (BYUVP 2015) this would also approach 11m. (asuming GSPs reconstructionis correct) The paper mentions the skull that is 118cm long with a maxilla that is 470mm, could it be that the maxilla is incomplete? (only preserved for 470mm)? thanks Steveoc 86 11:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

5 years later... I've also noticed this, I found the paper that is the source of the 118cm skull, Britt (1991) and found no mention at all of the length of the maxilla, going by the scalebar in figure 4, the left maxilla BYUVP 9122 is ~538mm and its described as fairly complete, but laterally compressed and lacking the upper one-half of the nasal process, the most posterior part of the body, the tip of the vomer process and the upper anterolateral margin, It is definitely not as complete as the Lourinha one, If is this the one from which the 118cm skull is estimated, I don't know.

Getting back to the maxilla in Mateus et al. (2006), I've found the same, comparing it to Hartman's drawing yields a skull length of roughly ~1.2m, even more confusing is the smaller, complete skull drawing below that of the maxilla in figure 6 showing how much of the skull it represents, if you measure the pixels and take the length of the maxilla as indicated (630mm) the total skull length is just 118cm, How this even happened? the paper cites a measurement not consistent with the source and uses it to estimate a giant skull but they contradict themselves, not with words but illustrating said skull to be only ~1.2m. which is consistent with the previously cited source... well, I think we can say that, mistakes happen.

About BYUVP 2003, it is also mentioned and illustrated in figure 3 in Britt (1991), it's only an incomplete left dentary and comparing it to Scott Harman's skeletal it seems the complete skull would be a little over 1m. Mike.BRZ (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Paleontologist in training here, how do you calculate dinosaur size based off maxilla size? ThyPaleoMan (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This irks me, not being able to remove the flawed and exaggerated "158cm long skull" claim because no paleontologists has addressed it in any paper since 2006, some day, hopefully. Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, Carrano (2012) has moved the maxilla to a Torvosaurus sp. That means that there is at present no material estimated to indicate a size longer than ten metres that is unequivocally referred to Torvosaurus tanneri. In view of this it seems best to avoid general statements about "Torvosaurus" reaching a length of eleven metres. The 158 cm estimation is indeed very dubious: comparing it with the scale bar, the maxilla described by Britt, BYUVP 9122, seems indeed to have a preserved length of about 54 centimetres. However, it is missing the jugal ramus. If this is added, using the proportions of the skull reconstruction by Britt, a length is reached of 67 centimeters, i.e. longer than the 63 centimetres of the Portuguese specimen which would then have had a skull of 110, not 158, centimetres length!--MWAK (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

picture

Somebody should change that picture. It's terrible. It looks like a kid drew it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.207.155 (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an insult to dino-drawing kids everywhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.159.8 (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Torvosaurus time

It has always been my understanding (and I'm 95% sure) that Torvosaurus was primarily a Kimmeridgian theropod, displaced and replaced by overgrown Allosaurs by the Tithonian (Bakker used that example to "prove" his singlular apex predator theory, i.e. no large Allosaur/ Torvosaurus coexistence), but the article and 21 year old source says otherwise. I'm pretty sure Torvosaurus is listed all over the web as Kimmer- early Tith, but I'm a relative n00b and don't know how to add links to sources and I will not change the article until I can source it.

You're right, I'll fix this. It appears to have been entirely Kimmeridgian in North America. The early Tithonian record is from Portugal. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Eggs and Embryos

Shouldn't we mention the fact of the genus having embryos or eggs found here?

http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130530/srep01924/full/srep01924.html - Link for anybody interested. --Paleontology is a wonderful thing. Shame many people outside of science don't understand the many dinosaurs aren't what they used to be. (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Edmarka and Brontoraptor

Seems all recent papers suggest these are synonyms, so should redirect here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Synonims

Is it appropriate to have Ceratosaurus ingens and Megalosaurus ingens as synonims "in part"? We are talking about possibly undiagnostic teeth... Brutonyx20 (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

We could add question marks, as I just did, we usually do that with tentatively assigned synonyms. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

bite force

Any papers giving an estimate? That's a pretty big lower jaw.104.169.31.99 (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)