Re: Saurophaganax questions

["Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

dexter dexter wrote-

> I've still got a doubt... Should I call it Allosaurus maximus or
Saurophaganax maximus?

Apparently Holtz's genericometer posts have done no good.  It's a subjective
choice at the moment, though I would recommend keeping it separate until
there's evidence maximus is more closely related to Allosaurus than other
named allosaurids.

See http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2001Jan/msg00445.html for all the details
on big allosaurids.

> Do we have more than just fragmentary remains?

The holotype is OMNH 001123, a dorsal neural arch.  Material referred to
this species includes a postorbital, two quadrates, three teeth, an atlas,
cervicals, caudal centra, chevrons, an ilium, a pubis, an ischium, a
humerus, manual phalanges and unguals, a femur, a tibia and pedal elements.

> How big were the claws, I heard they had the biggest claws of any dinosaur
(now if that's not a big title...).

I don't have actual measurements for the manual unguals, but manual ungual I
of a 13 meter long allosaur (the largest size suggested by known remains)
would be about 210 mm long.  A manual ungual of Therizinosaurus is about 650
mm for comparison, so Saurophaganax did not have the largest claws.

> Based on Allosaurus (or other remains), how big was it? Some say 11
meters, some say 14.

I estimate up to 13 meters.

> How heavy? Again, some say 5 tonnes, others say 3 (I know weight estimates
are controversial, but
> there must be a method that is more trusted by professionals than
another).

I estimate up to 6 tons.

> Finally, would it be unreasonable -- given the lightly built frames of
allosaurs -- to think this was a very > fast animal, possibly the fastest of
forty-footers?

I doubt it, as carnosaurs have shorter lower limb elements than
tyrannosaurids.

Mickey Mortimer