Skulls As Shown

©Conty; Size comparison between different ceratopsoid dinosaurs and a human. 1. Chasmosaurus, 2. Centrosaurus, 3. Pentaceratops, 4. Einiosaurus, 5. Styracosaurus, 6. ?Avaceratops, 7. Triceratops, 8. Eotriceratops, 9. Zuniceratops, 10. Pachyrhinosaurus.

Yesterday I posted an image of the skull of Albertaceratops that looked fairly puny, considering it was being held by human hands (belonging to Michael J. Ryan) and not a forklift; perspective is everything remember. That, in conjunction with images from the other day of a size relationship with a human being, seemed to bring into question the validity of the size relationship of Albertaceratops to things that we can picture, such as ourselves. That sort of size relationship, ceratopsids being rather larger than human beings, is actually fairly typical within the overall clade. Albertaceratops is not in the image above, but they would have been somewhere in the mix with Pentaceratops and the other four up front. Overall, that is a fairly large animal; they cannot all be as cow-sized as Zuniceratops after all. Centrosaurs are on the smaller end of the clade though, so skepticism of its size makes sense. Being a basal centrosaur, closer on the family tree to Zuniceratops than Pachyrhinosaurus, also makes a skeptical view make sense. However, all said and done Albertaceratops is considered to be a fairly "average" sized centrosaur meaning that it would about the height of a tall horse, maybe a little taller, at the shoulder (Friesian horses measured at the whithers, between the shoulders, are on average 63 in.). I think the posture of the size comparison in question may have been a little weird and/or may have use a slightly smaller human figure that it should have been, in retrospect.