[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: possible FAQs

From: tholtz@geochange.er.usgs.gov
 > >That is, about 3.5 ft.
 > Current U.S.G.S. policy is to use metric.  :-)


But seriously, the main reason I noted the conversions is
that the FAQ is to be aimed at beginners, who, in the USA,
are not likely to be very familiar with metric.
 > > > Actually, more like 20 to 25 feet long.  Dilophosaurus and its relatives
 > > > were the first large theropods.
 > >
 > >Hmm, perhaps I misjudged size of the the specimen (?plaster cast?)
 > >at UCLA.  I could have sworn it was only about 10-12 feet long!
 > If I remember correctly, the type specimen (the mount) is the smaller of
 > the original two individuals.  Also, as in most theropods, about half of
 > the length is in the tail, so they tend to be much longer for a given trunk
 > size than any mammal.

I suppose that that probably was the type specimen.  Still, a
50% smaller size is a bit much.  I suppose I could be off by a
few percent, enough to put the specimen at 15 or so feet.  It
is still a good deal smaller than 20-25.  That means it is either
a juvenile, or Dilophosaurus was big time sexually dimorphic.

[I think it is currently (also) displayed at the Los Angeles
County Museum of Natural History].

swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com         sarima@netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.