Talk:Sarcosuchus

message: The only indicators on the page are that it says 'early cretaceous' and that it could have come into contact with suchomimus which lived at the same time. But it doesnt give the acctual millions of years that it was around for so you have to look at suchomimus's page just to get an idea, even then it isnt perfectly right. Can this be fixed by some one who knows its time range? Spinodontosaurus (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Range 

message: It says in the article that Sarchosuchus was 11-12 m long, nearly as long as Spinosaurus. Spinosaurus was 17-21 m long. What's up with that? Benosaurus 02:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's proably using an outdates measurement of Spinosaurus. I'll fix it. Dinoguy2 16:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinosaurus 

message: In the article it says   'Deinosuchus is only known from skulls, which are smaller than that of the SuperCroc but the Deinosuchus has a broad snout.....'    and it gives a measurment of    ‘1.78 m’ for Sarcosuchus.    In the Deinosuchus article however, it says that  its skull is ‘more than 2 m ’  which statement is correct? There has always been a lot of  conflicting measurements with prehistoric creatures in books and on the internet. Its always annoyed me as I’m never sure what to believe. oh well :) Steveoc 86 20:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deinosauchus 

message: * In proportion to its skull length, and to the animal's total length, what was the internal width between its jaw hinges? That will give some estimate of how big prey it could swallow. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Swallowing capacity

message: An image used in this article, File:Sarcosuchus lunges at Nigel.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Sarcosuchus lunges at Nigel.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I originally removed that image without explanation so I'll explain it now. I consider it outdated and having other problems, for example Purussaurus is portrayed at 12.5m but that seems like an arbitrary number since the source from where it says it got that size (Bocquentin & Melo, 2006) gives a range of 11-13m. The size of Mourasuchus is referenced to Schwimmer (2002) which does say it was 12m but offers no explanation for that. More recent papers like Salas-Gismondi et al. (2007) give a length of 7.8-11m for Purussaurus which is more realistic as the biggest skull has a snout to skull table length of "just" 1.3m, compare that to 1.6m for the biggest Sarcosuchus skull; though it is true that Sarcosuchus has a longer snout. About Mourasuchus, Langston Jr. (2008) estimates the body length of one large specimen of M. arendsi with comparable skull length to the holotype, at 6.6m, I'll quote a bit of the text:
Mourasuchus was a large crocodilian. Known skulls of M. arendsi are approximately 1m long, depending upon the definition of “total skull length” used by various authors.
Skulls around 1m long are Terminonaris/juvenile S. imperator territory, how the 12m estimate came to be, I don't know but I'm searching for the papers describing M. atopus to see if it actually has a 2m long skull. Mike.BRZ (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so it is not Sarcosuchus itself that is wrong. How about this image? FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Sarcosuchus is fine in it and at 11.5m is close enough to the 11.65 given in Sereno et al. (2001). That other image portrays it at 12m which is fine but the skull looks a bit too long but I'm not sure, anyway is the other elements that bring it down, Deinosuchus hatcheri is not a valid species and the 12m+ individual portrayed there has a skull that appears to be 2m or more in length, and that is too big, not even the original reconstruction based on the Cuban crocodile was that long. BTW I've found Langston (1965) a length of the skull of Mourasuchus atopus is not given but is said to be 2.5m times smaller in abosulte terms than that of Stomatosuchus, I remember that the skull of Stomatosuchus was 2m long more or less so Mourasuchus atopus skull has to be some 80cm long at most. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have suggestions for how either image could be improved, we could ask the authors, they're both on Wikipedia still. Which one do you think would need the least modification? FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for taking so long to answer, I think the first, it will probably only require resizing the silhouettes and suggestions, well, I think the two previous posts are good suggestions but I can expand on that if necessary. Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've notified SmokyJBJ, the author of the first image, of this discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why I don't like size guestimates! Anyway, these should be easy fixes. I'll probably remove Mourasuchus because its under the (admittedly arbitrary) 10 m size limit for the diagram. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! And sorry for spelling your name wrong in so many ways... FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha, no problem. I chose the most random user name I could think of when I started editing (my cat's name and my initials), so it's bound to be misspelled sometimes. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Thank you! Mike.BRZ (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it now? I shrunk down Purussaurus to 11 m (low end of Bocquentin & Melo, high end of Salas-Gismondi et al.) and removed Mourasuchus. I also shortened Deinosuchus to 10.5 m based on Farlow et al. (2005), which estimates the total body length at 10-11 m based on skull measurements (femur measurements gave a significantly smaller length of 6-8 m, but the authors suggest Deinosuchus may have had a shorter femur length relative to body size than alligators do). Smokeybjb (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, I hadn't realized that deinosuchus had been downsized too, I have that paper but since I only searched for mentions of Sarcosuchus in it I completely overlooked the Deinosuchus stuff. One last change though, would be to change the species of Deinosuchus, the specimen in question is housed at the Texas Memorial Museum which means that it's almost a given that it's a specimen of Deinosuchus riograndensis, as per Schwimmer (2010). I've seen other workers following that convention since it was tentatively proposed in Schwimmer (2002) and the only papers I've been able to find on Deinosuchus more recent than 2010, dealing with Texan and Mexican finds use D. riograndensis. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I just found out something more, another estimate for the largest Purussaurus, it's from an SVP abstract, Moreno-Bernal (2007) Size and Palaeoecology of the giant Miocene South American Crocodiles (Archosauria: Crocodylia), a more detailed version of which can be found here. Its dorsal skull length was estimated based on more complete specimens at 145.3cm and its total length calculated on regression equations for the American alligator and the saltwater crocodile; at 10.3m, a smaller specimen was also estimated with the equations for femoral measurements from Farlow et al. (2005) and the results were pretty much identical between femur and skull based estimates. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size chart 

message: Should this be mentioned in a serious paleontology article?  It would be better if this was treated as trivia, and the article on "Supercroc" linked back to this one. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  the "Supercroc" film