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

Re: Meglania weighed only 1 tonne (long)

> New material discovered since Hecht (1975) indicates a size of
> approximately 1.5 times the largest specimens Hecht got to look at. As a
> linear extrapolation, that puts us in the 1.5 tonne region.

> Rich and Hall (1984) in Vertebrate Zoogeography and Evolution in
> Australasia detail how the reconstruction of Megalania was produced. This
> is the reconstruction tha Greg keeps refering to and it is 5.5 metres long,
> not 7 metres. Of interest, they note that many dimensions are not linear,
> but indicate that at a certain length, growth slowed and bulk took off. A
> similar situation as occurs in really big crocs. An 18 foot croc usually
> weighs half as much again as a 15 foot croc. Now, if the 5.5 metre
> Megalania (based on Hecht's material) clocks in at 1 tonne, it is quite
> concievable that elements that are 1.5 times that size come from an
> individual of considerably greater mass, not a linear 1.5 tonnes, but
> something approaching 2 tonnes or more. Again, the material is fragmentary
> and the extrapolations are tentative, but the ball park figure is way in
> excess of 1 tonne as the upper limit for Megalania mass.
> pwillis@ozemail.com.au
        Mass varies with the volume of an animal, not the length.
Length is a single dimension. Volume has length, width and 
depth. So a one ton Megalania scaled up 1.5 times is not 1x1.5 but 1 ton x 
1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 which comes out to roughly 3.4 times as big, assuming, of 
course, that it stays perfectly proportioned (which, of course, it won't).