Ad
related to: suchomimus size height calculator
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Suchomimus was a relatively large theropod, reaching 9.5–11 metres (31–36 ft) in length and weighing 2.5–3.8 metric tons (2.8–4.2 short tons). However, the age of the holotype specimen is uncertain, so it is unclear whether this size estimate would have been
Size comparison of spinosaurid genera (from left to right) Irritator, Baryonyx, Oxalaia, Spinosaurus, Suchomimus, and Ichthyovenator with a human. Although reliable size and weight estimates for most known spinosaurids are hindered by the lack of good material, all known spinosaurids were large animals. [17]
Animals now have uniform color, less skinny neck on Suchomimus, better contact with the ground. 22:51, 20 January 2018: 5,389 × 1,807 (239 KB) PaleoGeekSquared: Suchomimus's tail is now visible, fixed misaligned grid, thicker 14m scale bar. 08:28, 15 January 2018: 5,389 × 1,807 (239 KB) PaleoGeekSquared
English: Scale chart of six spinosaurid species compared with a human (Ernst Stromer). References: . Spinosaurus: Francisco Bruñén (2019) and Ibrahim et al. (2020) Oxalaia: Kellner et al.
Majungasaurus compared in size to a human Majungasaurus was a medium-sized theropod that typically reached 5.6–7 m (18–23 ft) in length and weighed 750–1,100 kg (1,650–2,430 lb). [ 2 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ] [ 13 ] Fragmentary remains of larger individuals indicate that some adults could have been similar in size to its relative Carnotaurus ...
The size/skeletal diagrams should be easy enough to change. I added the current "sail" restoration above in case there are any comments regarding accuracy, in light of the new research. - SlvrHwk ( talk ) 18:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Known material of Ceratosuchops (rear) and Riparovenator (front) diagrams by Dan Folkes. The holotype remains of this taxon consist of IWCMS 2014.95.5 (premaxillary bodies), IWCMS 2021.30 (a posterior premaxilla fragment), and IWCMS 2014.95.1-3 (a nearly complete braincase).
In 2022, Sereno and colleagues tentatively combined Ceratosuchops and Riparovenator into a single taxonomic unit for their phylogenetic analysis. They reason that the different features between the two taxa could be attributed to individual variation, citing the cranial variation present in specimens of Allosaurus fragilis.