[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
For a list of materials, see
This all comes from one quarry, and represents at least three large individuals
of similar size and at least one smaller individual (Chure, 2001). Because the
bones are disarticulated, it's not possible to assign specific bones to
specific individuals. Note some large allosaurids like the Epanterias holotype
and NMMNH P-26083 (Williamson and Chure, 1996) are more similar to Allosaurus,
so not all big allosaurs can be assumed to be Saurophaganax.
Whether maximus is a species of Allosaurus or its sister genus isn't a
scientific question, since it depends on your personal concept of how to define
a genus. Currently most experts choose to separate Saurophaganax from
The three known teeth of Saurophaganax (Chure, 2001- fig. 221) have FABLs of
22, 26 and 33 mm, but as some Allosaurus individuals were larger than known
Saurophaganax material and some smaller, it's best to say the teeth of these
taxa overlap in size too.
> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 07:30:34 -0800
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Saurophaganax
> So I'm outside this morning taking advantage of this "Indian Spring" raking
> leaves up, and a downed treelimb looked sort of like a dino-bone, which
> reminded me I was going to post about this big theropod - what is the most
> complete find (to date) of it? Does the paleo-science now have a solid
> opinion if it is its own genus or a species of Allosaurus? What skeletal
> parts have been found?
> Also how do the teeth of this animal compare in size to Allosaurus?