RE: Tyrannosaur stuff

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

T. Michael Keesey wrote:

> I'm not sure where the cut-off between "small-bodied" and "big-ass" is,

:-)   Let's go for an arbitrary cut-off of 4-5m.  Above that is 'big-ass".

> but _Alectrosaurus olseni_, _Alioramus remotus_, and _Dryptosaurus 
> aquilunguis_ were smaller than any tyrannosaurines,

There is a school of thought that _Alioramus remotus_ is based on an 
immature specimen, and so some of its 'autapomorphies' may be related to 
ontogeny.  It could be a bona fide tyrannosaurine.  _Dryptosaurus 
aquilunguis_ is estimated to be have been a little over 6m long, based on 
the type material (which appears to come from an adult individual).  (The 
type material for _Appalachiosaurus_ indicates an animal around the same 
size as the _Dryptosaurus_ type specimen, but the former was immature when 
it died.)  I'm not sure about the maxium dimensions of _Alectrosaurus 
olseni_, given that the hypodigm for this species requires revision.  In any 
case, all these guys were much larger than _Dilong_ (1.6m; type) and 
_Aviatyrannis_ (ilium only 90mm long) and significantly larger than 
_Stokesosaurus_ and _Tanycolagreus_ (both maybe 4m in body length).  
_Eotyrannus_, with an estimated body length of 4-5m, falls in the middle of 
the "small-bodied" and "big-ass" categories.  :-)

> and not terribly larger than EK tyrannosauroids.

Some of the less well known theropod taxa from the EK may turn out to be 
tyrannosauroids - like the rather large (but perhaps not "big-ass") 
_"Chilantaisaurus" maortuensis_.

Cheers

Tim