[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
[The first bit in what follows was written by Tom; the next part was
sent to him in response (I know not by whom). Tom wanted the answer
disseminated more widely -- don't be surprised that you didn't
previously see the question that you're now seeing answered. -- MR ]
>>Estimates of 80 to 100 metric tonnes (with Seismosaurus at 60-65 metric
>>tonnes) sound correct to me.
>Wait a minute--just how long would this thing be? Would it be a comparison
>to those Morroccan tracks that supposedly indicated an animal over 155'
Do I really have to point out the dangers of estimating length from
I'll see if Greg Paul ever estimated mass (which is essentially THE best
statistic for size in organismal biology, since so much of physiology is
proporitional to mass rather than length) for the Morroccan tracks.
Seismosaurus would seem to be longer than Argentinosaurus (based on the
limited data for comparison), since the former is a diplodocid, a family
characterized by very long necks and tails, and the latter is a
titanosaurian, which seem to have been less elongate.
Estimates for the length of Argentinosaurus are pretty vague, given out lack
of knowledge of exactly how long a typical titanosaur's neck and tail were,
but values near 30 m (100') sound good to me.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
Dept. of Geology Email:firstname.lastname@example.org
University of Maryland Phone:301-405-4084
College Park, MD 20742 Fax: 301-314-9661
"There are some who call me... Tim."