Talk:Titanoceratops

Size
I haven't found any convenient size estimates of Titanoceratops ouranos. But I heard its pretty big, based off of Longrich's size comparison. If anybody has any further information about its size please notify me. Taylor Reints (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was estimated to be 9 m by Holtz in 2012, about the same size as Triceratops and Torosaurus. IJReid (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The skeletal in Longrich's paper is 6m in axial length (measured in GIMP using a path measurement script) based on the femur being 102cm long as reported in the paper, the holotype of Titanoceratops ouranos is definitely on the size range of "adult" Triceratops but is no where near as big as the big specimens that are the only ones that realistically can approach or reach 9m in length, specimens like CM 1618 that have femora 127cm long or AMNH 971 which have humeri 84cm long (Chinnery 2004 supplemental) and if it had the same proportions as USNM 4842 and CM 1618 its femur will be about 140cm long. This is not acknowledged in any scientific publication thought and above we can see that even Holtz fell for how long the skull is, being only so long for the incredibly long frill it was reconstructed for it. Mike.BRZ (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On size, this comparison seems to show the animal as barely three metres long? FunkMonk (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * lol Farke is a giant, that needs to be corrected. Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry. I have absolutely where he became so huge when I created the comparison. Phylopic is a very useful site. Does either of you think that the article could be renominated now, we have better images and all the old comments have been corrected? IJReid  discuss 22:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it might still be problematic that the genus was named so recently, and there is still some controversy over its validity... FunkMonk (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would personally wait until someone does an actual thorough study and comparison of the various members of the "Pentaceratops grade". The validity of this taxon and Utahceratops at this point seems to depend on lumping vs. splitting genera and how to handle paraphyletic genera. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Another thing, given the above, we should perhaps be a bit cautious with the images, as they all restore it after Pentaceratops. Perhaps this photo is better for the taxobox (it was there before), as it doesn't show the "fake" frill: Then we should probably also cut down on the other images, and note in the captions of those we keep that the frill is restored after Pentaceratops. Might be misleading otherwise. It is also too premature to "correct" the restorations, since we don't know what the animal is closest related to. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Fowler & Fowler 2020 consider the specimen "aff. Pentaceratops sp.". FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Can someone confirm the pronunciation? It seems less than natural, or perhaps even taken from another language's. 8ty3hree (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the promunciation. IJReid (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nominating this seems a bit premature anyhow. First, it is a very new taxon, so it has very little coverage, which is almost a quickfail by itself, and there is even controversy about whether it is a distinct taxon, which make sit fail the stability criterion. So it should probably not be nominated until these matters are more settled. Perhaps it will even be merged back into Pentaceratops. FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree on the nomination being premature but I don't find this Perhaps it will even be merged back into Pentaceratops likely. Contra the comments made above, Wick and Lehman (2013) never mount a case as to why Longrich (2011) was wrong, they cite him in regards to Titanoceratops just twice, one saying they are ignoring his referral and a second one saying that large horn-like epijugals are not necessarily diagnostic because Bravoceratops (and others) have them, ironically "large horn-like epijugal" is one of the 3 characters Lehman (1998) used to assign it to Pentaceratops in the first place, Longrich (2011) actually recognize this feature is present in other taxa but differentiate Titanoceratops because its epijugals curve dorsally, still what about the other 20 characters differentiating OMNH 10165 from specimens of Pentaceratops proper? they don't even attempt testing the hypothesis by separating OMNH 10165 and Pentaceratops into individual OTUs to see if they find them in a sister relationship or not. At last Longrich (2014), using a new larger improved matrix that draws from all others previously utilized to test chasmosaurine phylogeny, finds Titanoceratops once again in a sister relationship to a clade compromising Eotriceratops+Torosaurus+Triceratops while Pentaceratops sternbergii is far out there where it has always been recovered recently. Mike.BRZ (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Not largest animal in north america / its ecosystem
The kirkland formation also includes e.g. daspletosaurus at 9 m length. So this sentence is not factual. Ubilaz (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)