Titanoceratops ouranos

Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Titanoceratops ouranos
Tweet Topic Started: Feb 18 2012, 10:26 PM (3,897 Views)
DinosaurMichael	Feb 18 2012, 10:26 PM Post #1
Apex Predator Posts: 6,971 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: Jan 6, 2012	*Titanoceratops ouranos* Fossil range: Late Cretaceous, 74.5–73.7 Ma Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Reptilia Superorder: Dinosauria Order: †Ornithischia Suborder: †Ceratopsia Family: †Ceratopsidae Subfamily: †Chasmosaurinae Tribe: †Triceratopsini Genus: †Titanoceratops Species: †T. ouranos Titanoceratops (meaning "titanic horn face") is a genus of herbivorous ceratopsian dinosaur. It was a giant chasmosaurine ceratopsian which lived during the Late Cretaceous period (late Campanian, 74.5–73.7 Ma) in what is now New Mexico, and the earliest known triceratopsin. It is known from the holotype OMNH 10165, a partial skeleton including partial skull and jaws. The holotype has been recovered from the upper Fruitland Formation or the lower Kirtland Formation. It was formally named by Nicholas R. Longrich in 2011 and the type species is Titanoceratops ouranos. Previously, its fossils were assigned to Pentaceratops. It is estimated to have reached about 9 metres (30 ft) in length, making it among the largest known ceratopsians. Tom Holtz (2010) noted that it is extremely similar to its closely related contemporaries Eotriceratops and Ojoceratops, which may all be synonymous. Edited by Taipan, Feb 24 2012, 07:20 PM.



Megafelis Fatalis	Feb 19 2012, 03:07 AM Post #2
Carnivore Posts: 2,590 Group: Members Member #44 Joined: Jan 12, 2012	Image



dinosandbutterflys	Feb 19 2012, 03:24 AM Post #3
Unicellular Organism Posts: 10 Group: Members Member #200 Joined: Feb 19, 2012	Wasn't there much discussion about if Titanoceratops was a synonym or not? Did they finally rule that it was a distinct species?



Megafelis Fatalis	May 30 2012, 09:52 PM Post #4
Carnivore Posts: 2,590 Group: Members Member #44 Joined: Jan 12, 2012	tuomaskoivurinne >> FULL SIZE



blaze	Feb 20 2013, 05:58 AM Post #5
Carnivore Posts: 2,520 Group: Members Member #365 Joined: Jun 9, 2012	So much for its great size, this should support my view that Holtz puts in his book the biggest sizes he can make for a lot of Dinosaurs even if they're pure BS. From the Titanoceratops description paper (emphasis mine). Quote: Titanoceratops was a remarkably large ceratopsid. Using a nonlinear regression equation to estimate mass from the circumference of the humerus and femur (Packard et al., 2009), with a humeral circumference of 401.5 mm and a femoral circumference of 511.5 mm, *the mass of Titanoceratops is estimated at 6550 kg. Titanoceratops is therefore the largest dinosaur known from the Campanian of North America, and rivaled the Maastrichtian Triceratops in size. A large individual of Triceratops (USNM 4842) is estimated (using volumes estimated from models) to have weighed 6400 kg, approximately the same mass as Titanoceratops. However, the largest known specimens of Triceratops are somewhat larger than the holotype of Titanoceratops: e.g. Triceratops LACM 150076 has a femur that is 1171 mm long and 533 mm in circumference, 115% and 104% of the corresponding dimensions of Titanoceratops. No humerus is associated with this specimen, but assuming that the ratio of humeral to femoral circumference was the same as in Titanoceratops, then this individual would have weighed 7150 kg. And that isn't even the biggest Triceratops femur, CM 1618 has a femur 1269mm long and then there are several specimens with humeri in the 830mm+ range like AMNH 971 which would have a femur around 1.4m long based on USNM 4842 and CM 1618. This completely dwarfs Titanoceratops 1.02m femur. It is true however that Titanoceratops skull is estimated at 2.65m but 1.45m of that is just the frill. Whole body along the curves, according to the skeletal in the paper (with the scalebar corrected because is wrong) is no more than than 6.5m. From where did Holtz (and Paul too) got 9m long? he probably only took into account the total length of the skull and went from there, ignoring everything else. Edited by blaze*, Feb 20 2013, 07:17 AM.



Jinfengopteryx	Feb 20 2013, 06:51 AM Post #6
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer Posts: 12,463 Group: Members Member #363 Joined: Jun 8, 2012	blaze Feb 20 2013, 05:58 AM So much for its great size, this should support my view that Holtz puts in his book the biggest sizes he can make for a lot of Dinosaurs even if they're pure BS. I think this depends a bit on the dinosaur group, for Sauropods, he was quite conservative (45m Amphicoelias), he aswell was conservative with some theropods (3m Lophostropheus).



blaze	Feb 20 2013, 07:20 AM Post #7
Carnivore Posts: 2,520 Group: Members Member #365 Joined: Jun 9, 2012	I just said a lot, from what I've found, it is likely that the whole of Ornitischia's has estimates as bad as this ones. I'm just finding more: Ojoceratos (166cm skull, comparable to small adult/subadult Triceratops in length and shape) 8m long. Coauilaceratops (143cm skull, same as above, dentary barely bigger than large Styracosaurus specimens) 8m long. Nedoceratops (164cm skull, same as Ojoceratos) 7.6m long. Utahceratops (2.2m skull but 1.2m is the frill, total body length probably around 5m) 7m long. Sinoceratops (estimated 1.8m skull... can't really make much from the photographs in the description) 7m long Vagaceratops (looks similar to Utahceratops, probably also 4-5m long) 7m long. bleh, Holtz made up all those sizes, they don't have any consistency with the actual fossils, that's the only explanation. Edited by blaze, Feb 20 2013, 08:42 AM.



Archosaur	Sep 8 2013, 06:32 AM Post #8
Unicellular Organism Posts: 45 Group: Members Member #531 Joined: Aug 15, 2012	If it's closest relatives are ojoceratops, eotriceratops it means that the frill is wrongly reconstructed as it resembles that of chasmosaurus or pentaceratops.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Species profiles · Next Topic »