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


Pieter Depuydt wrote..

> The shoulder and hip height of Indricotherium matches these of medium 
> sized sauropods; in other words, the Indricotherium body size is in 
> the range of sauropods (minus long neck and tail).
> (See Alexander: Dynamics of Dinosaurs and other Extinct giants).

Hmm, something tells me we've been here before. Anyway, don't take too much
notice of Alexander's mass estimates for _Indricotherium_. When estimating how
much this animal would weigh, he used a bison for comparative purposes and hence
came up with an estimated weight of 38 tons! I have the utmost respect for Prof.
R. McNeil Alexander, but I do not think this was a sensible comparison.
Indricotheres are slim-limbed, tall animals built rather like giant draught
horses (yes yes, a GSP-inspired sound bite). Compare their reconstructed
skeletons with those of other big mammals and sauropods, and you'll see that 38
tons is **way** too high: recent estimates from two different teams (one of
which is GSP) put _Indricotherium_ at 16-20 tons or so.

Note that I am not contradicting Pieter, as this size is still within the
sauropod range. It's just that indricotheres were not the super-heavy monsters
they're often purported to be.

BTW, does everyone know that there is an indricothere fossil preserved in a
standing position? Described by Osborn, I think, this poor animal seems to have
become bogged in deep mud. I wonder if indricotheres could gallop.

"I'd like to keep this handy - for close encounters"