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

Re: Magyarosaurus and Seismosaurus questions



Martin Barnett wrote-

>Oo-er, don't quite know where I got that Seismosaurus was a titanosaur -
>will have to refresh my notepad.  Thanks!  Thanks for other comments too.
>Just to clarify though:  There is no correlation between large sauropod
size
>and a long tail. A long tail would be expected from a Diplodocid.
Therefore
>if we found only the proximal end of a very large titanosaur we would
expect
>it to have a comparatively shorter tail than if it were a Diplodocid?


Actually, after checking the description (Gillette, 1991), I discovered that
Seismosaurus probably did have a comparatively long tail- even for a
diplodocid.  Gillette states the "mid-caudal vertebrae were
disproportionately well developed with respect to neural spines . . .
compared to other diplodocids, indicating in turn that the tail was
protracted and considerably longer in proportion to the middle region of the
body."  Perhaps I was a bit to quick to dismiss your idea.  The difference
in tail length between brachiosaurs and diplodocids is based on
relationships, but smaller differences (such as between Diplodocus and
Seismosaurus) may be based on size.  That's not the only possible
explanation, but I can't think of a reason it couldn't be true.  But to
answer your question, yes, a large titanosaur would be expected to have a
shorter tail than a large diplodocid.

Mickey Mortimer