Talk:Pentaceratops
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
inline referencing error
editOK, I give up. Can anyone tell me why the inline referencing has gone wonky?Cas Liber 10:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (Same has happened on Triceratops)
Exact Skull Size
editI know the skull is 'big', but exactly how big is it. I want to know this stuff. Can someone edit this article to reflect the skull size, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.137.134 (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- A bit late, but several exact skull lengths have now been added.--MWAK (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect Photo for 'Restoration'
editI have noticed that the photo used to the 'Restoration' caption seems to be incorrect. The photo is on the wrong page, and so it should be on the "Titanoceratops" page, not this one. The photo needs to be replaced with the image that was given the caption 'Artist`s Impression of Titanoceratops.'
66.115.89.52 (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Jessica Mansfield
- According to the artist's blog, it is of Pentaceratops, not Titanoceratops.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I guess the problem is that it might be based on the specimen that was first referred to Pentaceratops, but later became the type specimen of Titanoceratops. That skeleton had its frill restored after Pentaceratops. And since this restoration uses that frill, it should be pretty safe to keep it here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't based on the specimen of Titanoceratops. I actually went through "Pentaceratops" images when I was working on Titanoceratops, and Ive noticed differences between the Titanoceratops and Pentaceratops heads. IJReid discuss 00:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- What do you mean? The single Titanoceratops specimen apparently has no frill, it is just a sculpt based on Pentaceratops. FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the horns are known, and they are different in the genera. In Pentaceratops, the nose core curves posteriorly, where as in Titanoceratops they are more low and curve anteriorly. And the skull itself is longer and lower in Titanoceratops. IJReid discuss 01:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- (Which is exactly what would be expected in a growth series based on other ceratopsids... :X) Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the horns are known, and they are different in the genera. In Pentaceratops, the nose core curves posteriorly, where as in Titanoceratops they are more low and curve anteriorly. And the skull itself is longer and lower in Titanoceratops. IJReid discuss 01:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- What do you mean? The single Titanoceratops specimen apparently has no frill, it is just a sculpt based on Pentaceratops. FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't based on the specimen of Titanoceratops. I actually went through "Pentaceratops" images when I was working on Titanoceratops, and Ive noticed differences between the Titanoceratops and Pentaceratops heads. IJReid discuss 00:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I guess the problem is that it might be based on the specimen that was first referred to Pentaceratops, but later became the type specimen of Titanoceratops. That skeleton had its frill restored after Pentaceratops. And since this restoration uses that frill, it should be pretty safe to keep it here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Size graphic
editThere are two sizes listed in the article:
"Pentaceratops was a large ceratopsid; Dodson estimated the body length at 6 meters. The skull length of AMNH 1624 is 2.3 meters while PMU R.200 has a length of 2.16 meters.[7] In 2016 Paul estimated its length at 5.5 meters (18 ft) and its weight at 2.5 tonnes (2.75 short tons).[13]"
But the size graphic matches neither - it puts the animal at roughly 6.167 meters from brow horn tip to tail tip, and 5.5 m from tail tip to the furthest projecting part of the beak.
Which measurement is this supposed to represent? It might be helpful to include whether Dodson's or Paul's estimates were meant to be from tail tip to beak or tail tip to horn tip. Or perhaps have two silhouettes in the graphic, one indicating each estimate.
Also: in that above passage, it's not clear which specimen the "6 meter" body length estimate was referring to. Is it saying that AMNH 1624 is estimated to be 6 meters, and PMU R.200 is estimated to be 5.5 meters? --2601:206:8003:4060:D004:953:61C:857C (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)