How big was Styracosaurus albertensis?

[Everything_Dinosaur]

Having posted up details of the first of the three new CollectA models, we note some queries have been raised about the 1:40 scale credentials of the new for 2017 Deluxe Styracosaurus. Everything Dinosaur is in the process of updating the Styracosaurus fact sheet that gets sent out with all purchases of Styracosaurus models from our company.  There were a couple of changes made this year to the fact sheet, but we have not changed the estimated length.  Our fact sheet states that this dinosaur reached a length of 5.5 metres.

If forum members would like to put forward their own views on the maximum size (length and body weight) of Styracosaurus albertensis then we would be happy to take a consensus view and amend our new for 2017 data sheet accordingly.

What size do you think Styracosaurus albertensis was?

[Tyto_Theropod]

To my knowledge, 5.5 metres is about right, possibly slightly larger but not by a lot. A cursory Google search backed this up, but the academic resources might say otherwise.

[MLMjp]

The answer is easy: Collecta messed it up
It seems that only the theropods in their deluxe range are approximately 1:40, because others like the ankylosaurus and the triceratops are too big to be in 1:40.
Thus I do not understand why Collecta claims that his deluxe range is in 1:40 when clearly doesn´t. They should fix this.
Your size estimates are right, it just that Collecta did a mistake.

[Flaffy]

That's one of the reasons why I always hold off on the deluxe line.

[stargatedalek]

I actually prefer when they goof up the scale, every brand has 1:40th scale Tyrannosaurs and ceratopsians, who else but CollectA would ever give us a 1:20th Kelenken?

[Everything_Dinosaur]

Thank you to everyone for their input so far, any comments about the body mass of Styracosaurus albertensis?

[Dinoguy2]

I actually measured the skull of the Battat Styracosaurus to check its scale a while ago, singe length estimates can be unreliable (they often measure along the spine as if it were straight in life). The Battat model, which as we know is pretty darn small (about 14cm), is actually 1:38. A true 1:40 model would be slightly smaller than the Battat figure. If the Collecta one is truly 25cm long, it's almost double the size it should be.

As for body mass, this recent study estimated it at around 4,000kg.

https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-10-60

[Everything_Dinosaur]

Thank you for your comprehensive input, I do appreciate you citing the reference to the work of David Evans et al, although I do find it difficult to reconcile the huge variation in body mass projections in the taxa studied.  Scaling models remains very much an art form as much as a science in my own humble opinion.  At 4,000 kgs Styracosaurus albertensis is considerably heavier than our own estimates, the consensus we reached was 2,750 kgs or thereabouts.  Other authors suggest that this Cerotopsian was considerably lighter perhaps no more than 1,700 kgs.  It is a conundrum, in all the research we have done into non-avian dinosaurs assessment of body mass has proved to be the most problematical and indeed remains a highly controversial area.  Perhaps we ought to change the wording on the Everything Dinosaur fact sheet to reflect that this dinosaur may have been heavier than we estimate ourselves.

Thanks again for your input, much appreciated.

[Dinoguy2]

Thank you for your comprehensive input, I do appreciate you citing the reference to the work of David Evans et al, although I do find it difficult to reconcile the huge variation in body mass projections in the taxa studied.  Scaling models remains very much an art form as much as a science in my own humble opinion.  At 4,000 kgs Styracosaurus albertensis is considerably heavier than our own estimates, the consensus we reached was 2,750 kgs or thereabouts.  Other authors suggest that this Cerotopsian was considerably lighter perhaps no more than 1,700 kgs.  It is a conundrum, in all the research we have done into non-avian dinosaurs assessment of body mass has proved to be the most problematical and indeed remains a highly controversial area.  Perhaps we ought to change the wording on the Everything Dinosaur fact sheet to reflect that this dinosaur may have been heavier than we estimate ourselves.

Thanks again for your input, much appreciated.

The bottom line is when it comes to mass estimates, they're pretty much a crapshoot. Too many unknowable variables leading to huge margins of error. This goes for all dinosaurs, by the way. Length estimates are obviously much more reliable.

I would change the fact sheets to simply make clear the uncertainty inherent in these estimates. Something like "Somewhere between 1.5k and 4k kg." Or just use a rough analogue like Holtz did in his book "rhino size", "horse size", etc. Or just don't even include weight.