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

Re: Incredibly preliminary size estimate for new T. rex

Jeffrey Martz wrote:
>  All of which just goes to support the notion that given the miserable
>sample size for the Big Three (Tyrannosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and
>Charcharodontosaurus), all we can really say for certain is that:
>1) they are all ABOUT the same size, and: 
>2) this size may represent the upper limit for theropods.
        Or may represent a useful size for "generalist" large Cretaceous
theropods (see Bakker's "megalosaur" abstract in JVP-SVP issue. btw Bakker
uses the term "megalosaur" loosely indeed!). I am very wary of statements
like #2 above, both because of limited data (we only have so many very large
theropods from the K to compare), and because of unsubstantiated assumptions
(e.g. there is an "upper size limit" [logical, but can we assume it?], and
some animals will reach that limit). Now, I understand why workers may feel
compelled to invoke such arguments in the case of sauropods. However, it
should be noted that every time we think we've pegged the "limit", a new,
bigger specimen comes around.
        Ain't science cool?

    Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
        "Here lies David St. Hubbins... and why not?"  -- Spinal Tap