[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
----- Original Message -----
From: Darryl Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 7:14 PM
>>I am confused by something on their site:
>"Tinker" is the near-complete skeleton of a rex youngster, an individual
>two-thirds adult size, but only one-fourth adult weight.
That would put it at about 8 metres (about 27 feet), assuming a full grown
T. rex is about 12 metres. Having said that:
>Now, Tinker was a kid but he wasn't a baby.he probably weighed as
>much as a bull and was in the neighborhood of 17' long.
Is it me, or is the math wonky? Any comparison between it and Nanotyrannus
(tooth comparisons) is not necessarily fair. CMNH 7541
(Nanotyrannus/juvenile Tyrannosaurus) is about 40% grown, much smaller than
"Tinker". In over 25% growth, many changes are bound to happen. Or is
this all just me?<<
Well the Paleonews article said 23' - that's nearer to your estimate so I'd
say the math was wrong or they're being conservative about the size, but yes
I agree whole-heartedly on your second point.
- From: Darryl Jones <email@example.com>