Search

the scale of dinosaurs

the scale of dinosaurs is used in the quantification of one’s greatness in terms of dinosaurs. therefore, one who is great can be said to ‘have dinosaurs’ and conversely, one who is not great can be said to ‘not have dinosaurs’.

of course, it is not as simple as ‘dinosaurs, period’. there is a scale involved, hence, ‘the scale of dinosaurs’. first and foremost, more dinosaurs is always a good thing. this, of course, does not mean that he who has the most dinosaurs is the greatest. however, an increase of your rating on the dinosaur scale is always adventageous, regardless of the new addition’s species.

secondly, certain types of dinosaurs are worth more than others on the scale. this, also, does not imply that those species worth less are necessarily maladaptive, just not as great as those worth more. nor does the scale measure by size alone. a camarasaurus, for example, is worth more than a stenonychosaurus. but, while the former is larger than the latter, a styracosaur beats out a camarasaur in terms of ‘dino-merit’, if you will, despite an overall size handicap.

generally speaking, there are certain species at the top of every genus, family, and subfamily, and perhaps even at the head of the suborders, as well.
take, for example, the theropods. the tyranosaurus and the utah-raptor are both roughly the equivalent of each other in dino-merit, and both certainly are at the head of the theropods. each beats out their close relatives in the theropod subgroups hands down. the utah-raptor beats out the deinonychus, tyranosaurs beat out ceratosaurs, and so on and so forth.
now, on a larger scale you must compare the different groups of dinosaurs. just as a tyranosaurus and a utah-raptor are at the heads of their subgroups and are therefore roughly equal, so too will the heads of the larger groupings be roughly equivalent. to clarify, a diploducus (which is among the top sauropods) is equivalent to a tyranosaurus.

other examples can be found in the ornithischia. at the head of the ‘armored’ division would be the stegasaurus and the ankylosaurus. the ‘horned’ ceratopsian division is, of course, fronted by the triceratops and, arguably, styracosaurs as well. finally, the ornithopod subgroup is led by the likes of edmontosaurs and so on.

to further elaborate on the use of the scale of dinosaurs, we must implicate cross comparisons…
the aforementioned edmontosaurus, which is the best of ‘duckbills’, beats out the hypacrosaurus in its own group. but what about other groups? let us go back to the mighty diploducus. if one were to compare this sauropod to an under-ranking duckbilled hypacrosaur, you would, as expected, find the diploducus to be of greater dino-merit value. furthermore, utah-raptors beat protoceratops, brachiasaurs beat parksosaurs, and stegasaurus beats centrosaurs, etc. etc.

to sum all of this up, the ‘having of dinosaurs’ is rated on the ‘scale of dinosaurs’. the total value of one’s collective dinosaurs is measured in terms of ‘dino-merit’. a greater quant-ty of dinosaurs does not necesarily mean than it is of greater value. it would be more adventageous to have a small number of high value dinosaurs than to have a slightly greater number of low value dinosaurs. conversely though, it would be better to have a great many dinosaurs of middle or lower ranking than to have only one or two of high dino-merit.

one should always manage their dinosaurs wisely.
common usage of the scale of dinosaurs

general

1) positive – “wow! that guy is awesome! he has so many dinosaurs!”

2) negative – “josh is such a loser. he has no dinosaurs.”

specific

3) positive – “i just aced my mid-term! i have a diploducus!”

4) negative – “oh man, what a fool that man is. he doesn’t even have a protoceratops.”

mixed/conversational

5) positive –
“you seem to be having a good day today. have you gained a dinosaur?”
“yes, actually. i just earned another parasaurolophus.”

6) negative –
“you’ve been acting like a moron all day! you’re losing a dinosaur for this!”
“i don’t care. i still have two nodoaurs and an allosaurus.”

comparative

7) diploducus > centrosaurus

8) protoceratops < utah-raptor 9) tyranosaurus = diploducus mathematical 10) 3 x stegasaurus > coelophysis + deinonychus

11) diploducus > tyranosaurus – protoceratops

12) triceratops + utah raptor = 2 x tyranosaurus

the scale of dinosaurs, copyright © jeff johnson 2004

(that’s right, i copyrighted it.)