The Amateur Paleontologist Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Found this rather interesting diagram in the Currie & Longrich (2009) paper describing Hesperonychus. The diagram shows outlines of several carnivorous theropods from the Dinosaur Provincial Park assemblage, to illustrate the size & morphological range. I thought some people might like to see this @Troodon @Canadawest @Paleoworld-101 7 Link to post Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Whatever size you are. Wherever you hide. There's something out there that can get you! 1 Link to post Share on other sites
WhodamanHD Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Assuming ricardoestesia isn’t a pterosaur EDIT: R. gilmorei is valid though 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Bone guy Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 I wonder which of these predators is the biggest.... Link to post Share on other sites
The Amateur Paleontologist Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Tidgy's Dad said: Whatever size you are. Wherever you hide. There's something out there that can get you! Absolutely right - If it's got chompers and claws, size doesn't matter... Cats, for instance. They can have completely devastating effects on human physiology . 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Troodon Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 Thanks for posting, nice representation. Nice reference material Put this out on the Hell Creek 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Paleoworld-101 Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 Cool image Interesting how there's no middle-ground in terms of size, there's only small and large. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
The Amateur Paleontologist Posted August 14, 2018 Author Share Posted August 14, 2018 @Troodon thanks for the link to the HC Fm. picture, it's rather informative I found this similar one some time ago: 3 Link to post Share on other sites
The Amateur Paleontologist Posted August 14, 2018 Author Share Posted August 14, 2018 6 hours ago, Paleoworld-101 said: Cool image Interesting how there's no middle-ground in terms of size, there's only small and large. I'm sure a large-bodied dromaeosaur (i.e. Dakotaraptor) will one day be found in DPP Then there'll be a middle ground 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Troodon Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 The Caenagnathid and Ornithomimid theropod dinosaurs are not reflected in that chart since they are not "carnivorous" types but would fit that middle ground. Latenivenatrix mcmasterae was described in 2017 after that paper was written and its a very large Troodontid about 3.5 m long, one of the largest. Im sure new discoveries will keep changing that view. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
The Amateur Paleontologist Posted August 14, 2018 Author Share Posted August 14, 2018 Well then. Time to Photoshop Latenivenatrix into the diagram - and also Albertavenator curriei. Oh, and on second thought, it'd be useful to add a giant question mark over the Richardoestesia... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Troodon Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 15 minutes ago, The Amateur Paleontologist said: also Albertavenator curriei. Not from Dinosaur Park but is earlier in age from Horseshoe Canyon Fm. Richardoestesia is very valid, they are describing R.gilmorei not R. isosceles 4 Link to post Share on other sites
WhodamanHD Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 36 minutes ago, Troodon said: Richardoestesia is very valid, they are describing R.gilmorei not R. isosceles My fault, forgot. Although I still find it strange that they could estimate size based on jaw fragments with any certainty. Link to post Share on other sites
The Amateur Paleontologist Posted August 14, 2018 Author Share Posted August 14, 2018 @Troodon So there's no confusion with regard to the pterosaur/theropod identity of Richardoestesia? It's definitely a theropod? Link to post Share on other sites
Troodon Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 Only R. isosceles not R. gilmorei they are two very different animals 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Troodon Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 3 hours ago, WhodamanHD said: My fault, forgot. Although I still find it strange that they could estimate size based on jaw fragments with any certainty. They are pretty proficient based on looking at skulls from similar dinosaurs. Here is my jaw from a R. gilmorei just missing the back end with 3 unerupted teeth 3 Link to post Share on other sites
TyBoy Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 1 minute ago, Troodon said: Here is my jaw from a R. gilmorei just missing the back end with 3 unerupted teeth Wow that is a incredible jaw especially from the Hell Creek. Thanks for posting nice to see one. Link to post Share on other sites
The Amateur Paleontologist Posted August 14, 2018 Author Share Posted August 14, 2018 5 hours ago, Troodon said: They are pretty proficient based on looking at skulls from similar dinosaurs. Here is my jaw from a R. gilmorei just missing the back end with 3 unerupted teeth That's a wonderful jaw! Did you find it? Link to post Share on other sites
Troodon Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 1 hour ago, The Amateur Paleontologist said: That's a wonderful jaw! Did you find it? Unfortunately no Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now