There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Triceratops

kuartus4 Offline
New Join
#61

(01-02-2020, 12:02 AM)DinoFan83 Wrote: Alright, since my last post here, I've re-examined the Triceratops mass estimate and will redo my post.

As was previously stated, this GDI (link) gives a Triceratops with a 2.5 meter skull and total length of 8.26 meters a mass of about 10.5 tonnes, and I'd in fact argue it would be closer to 11 tonnes given that the parts of the head in red are excluded and that there is very little soft tissue on the legs, tail, and chest, as I did earlier. This would give the largest specimens (UCMP 128561 and AMNH 5040, est 270 and 275 cm skulls respectively) masses of 13.26 and 14 tonnes.
But - these mass estimates are still probably undersized at least a little bit. The width of the top view of the hyperlinked GDI is about 3/4 of the length of the skull, which would give us about ~185 cm width for the top view. The thing is, a smaller specimen of Triceratops called Kelsey, at 6-7 meters, is also 185 cm wide in top view 
(link). Thus, this 8.26 meter Triceratops has the width of a 6-7 meter one and is therefore almost certainly underestimated in terms of mass. If we choose to go by direct scaling from Kelsey, this specimen would have a width of about 235 cm top view, and is probably undersized width wise at 11 tonnes by about 27 percent. As for the largest Triceratops specimens, the same would apply; they are just under 200 cm (199.8) wide directly scaling from the GDI as-is, but this also appears to be an underestimate as scaling from Kelsey would give us about 253 cm for the top view-width of these specimens. Note that this is by no means to be taken as 100% factual or set in stone whatsoever as it is, just like every other mass estimate for every extinct animal, an educated guess. However, it is entirely possible and on the table that the largest specimens of Triceratops could have exceeded 13-14 tonnes quite substantially, and even more average ones would have been a good bit larger than 11 tonnes, significantly more than the 5-6 tonnes commonly quoted in sources such as books and some websites.


Big John has a 2.67 meter skull and it's only 7.15 meters in total length.


https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/new...ion-678568
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB