[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: possible FAQs
> >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].
The peace of God be with you.