Talk:Shonisaurus

Weight estimates

I noticed this page had the weight estimate of S. sikanniensis at "100 tonnes [110 sh t] and more." This is actually quite consistent with a 40 tonne (44 short tons) estimates for 15 m (49 ft) long S. popularis, as with identical proportions a 21 m (69 ft) sikanniensis should weigh 110 tonnes (121 sh t). This would make sikanniensis the largest prehistoric animal yet found; much larger than the largest dinosaur, Argentinosaurus huinculensis, at 73 tonnes (80 sh t). However, I'm uncertain how official these weights are, as I've seldom seen any estimates given. A 21 m Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus weighs considerably less than 100 tonnes, cirka 60–65 in fact, but the reconstructions of Shonisaurus indeed give an appearance of a distinctively more robust animal. Note that while this article is titled Shonisaurus popularis it's, in fact, clearly about the Shonisaurus genus. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Body Shape

Here is a better source for body shape than the one currently used:

Nicholls, Elizabeth and Manabe, Makoto. 2004. Giant Icthyosaurs of the Triassic - A new species of Shonisaurus from the Pardonet formation (Norian: Late Triassic) of British Columbia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 24(4):838–849

The last paragraph discusses this subject:

Camp (1980:fig. 66) reconstructed Shonisaurus popularis as a very deep-bodied form. Revised estimates of rib and intergirdle length by Kosch (1990) resulted in a more slender, but still somewhat deep-bodied restoration. This is certainly not the case in S. sikanniensis, which was a long, slender animal. As the pelvic girdle is not preserved in TMP 94.378.2, the exact inter-girdle length is uncertain. However, there are 7 m between the pectoral girdle (at vertebra 11) and the last preserved presacral vertebra (vertebra “L”). Consequently, the inter-girdle length could not have been less than 7 m, and was probably closer to 8 m. Length of the longest ribs in the mid-dorsal region is slightly less than 2 m (190 cm). This would result in a long, slender animal, resembling Cymbospondylus or Besanosaurus (Dal Sasso and Pinna, 1996) in body outline. In order to compare body shape in various ichthyosaurs, we use a “body-shape index” which is defined as the intergirdle length divided by the maximum rib length. This can be measured from articulated specimens, but the values must be considered approximate, and used only as a guideline. The body-shape index for several ichthyosaur taxa is given in Table 1, and it can be seen that S. sikanniensis most closely approaches that of Cymbospondylus. It is not possible to get a “body-shape index” for S. popularis as intergirdle length and rib length cannot be measured in a single specimen. However, in many of the BISP specimens, ribs are preserved swept back along the body. This implies that S. popularis may not have been as deep bodied as previous reconstructions suggest.

I don't know why sources weren't consulted before making the reconstruction of S. sikanniensis - but all of the illustrations should be scrapped in light of this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.111.234.24 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Carpenter, Kenneth (that Kenneth Carpenter?) kindly provided a photo of a mount showing teeth, and recent research[1] indicates it did have teeth, so should we replace the infobox image? FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I am sharing what image I have. I had nothing to do with the reconstruction, so you will need to contact the Nevada State Museum with any complaints. Yes, I am he. Carpenter, Kenneth (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice to see you here! I meant that your image was actually more correct than what we already had, the one of the skull only. So we should probably use your image in the infobox instead. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting story making the news

Involving middens, krakens and artwork. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the news media mindlessly regurgitating this press release, it is utter nonsense. Maybe it should be mentioned just for debunking purposes? [2] [3] MMartyniuk (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. People do enjoy adding stuff from the news. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Already caught this added to Ichthyosaur. I added a section on it here, since it's specific to Shonisaurus. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm thinking it should just be removed entirely? It doesn't really say anything about this animal, and it is given way too much WP:Undue weight in the article... Basically no one apart from one guy supports this, it's like citing David Peters/Reptileevolution. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted it, as, as you've mentioned, only the McMenamins, themselves, have found any evidence of these Triassic art-predators to begin with.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Very large genus?

The page says "Shonisaurus is a very large genus of ichthyosaur," but only lists two species. Perhaps this should read "... is a genus of very large ichthyosaurs?" 70.110.150.51 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)