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

*To*: dinosaur@usc.edu*Subject*: linear dimensions vs. body mass*From*: "Colette H. Adams" <cadams@hh.gpz.org>*Date*: Sat, 16 May 1998 08:54:10*Reply-to*: cadams@hh.gpz.org*Sender*: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

I assume the data given on non-avian dinosaurs are linear measurements. If we take a linear measurement, such as total length, and see how living crocodilians fall, we will get the following distribution: 0-0.5m: 0 0.5-1.0m: 0 1.0-1.5m: 4 1.5-2.0m: 5 2.0-2.5m: 1 2.5-3.0m: 5 3.0-3.5m: 4 3.5-4.0m: 4 This is roughly similar to the distribution given for non-avian dinosaurs. Similarly, the body mass distribution corresponding to the length distribution given for non-avian dinosaurs will approximate a negative exponential. This is because body mass varies as the cube of any linear dimension. Which brings up the point that people often use linear measurements as indicators of body size, usually because linear measurements are not as variable as body mass or volume. The problem is that an animal twice is long is not twice as large in most biologically meaningful ways. It is about 8 times as large. I will close my remarks about body size by saying that size distributions within taxa, including dinosaurs, do not match a negative exponential distribution exactly. They tend to cluster around their means, suggesting that there is indeed something at work to keep body size within a certain range within a given taxon. Best regards, Dave

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Paleoartist** - Next by Date:
**Miniterm title** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Don't say I never spoiled anything for you** - Next by thread:
**Miniterm title** - Indexes: