[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Re: giganotosaurus...article from boston globe
>session at last year's SVP conference (I've haven't seen any photos of the
>new Giganotosaurus), then here's a couple of interesting things to relate:
> 1. According to a pretty respected P.h.D., this critter is actually
>SMALLER than the tyrannosaur formly known as "Sue", now represented by the
>symbol "$". I can't confirm or deny, as I don't have any measurements, but
>maybe someone out there does.....
That Ph.D. must be wrong, because almost every bone of Giganotosaurus is
LARGER than the equivalent in Sue. For example, the femur of Sue is 1.38 m,
that of Giganotosaurus 1.44 m.
> 2. The hypothesis of the poster's presenters was that the big
>critter was a HERBIVORE, since it was sooo damn big, and had a much longer
>femur than tibia (IE slow as molassas).
> So, is this the same critter?
This cannot be the same animal!! The teeth of Giganotosaurus are typical
theropod teeth. The tibia/femur ratio scales along the same curve as the
typical nonavian theropods: i.e., it follows the Allosauroid trend. Living
as it did in a sauropod-dominated environment, it wouldn't need the
elongated limbs of tyrannosaurids.
BTW, the tibia/femur ratio of typical neoceratosaurs, "megalosaur-grade" and
allosauroid theropods is greater than 1.0, so this feature does not exclude
"stumpy" legged theropods from predation.
Perhaps you are thinking of Argentinosaurus, the giant sauropod which was
found somewhat upsection in the same formation?
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Dept. of Geology
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742