[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaur Questions, Relating Vaguely to Dinosaur Park Formation
At 06:35 PM 6/15/99 -0400, Grant Harding wrote:
>Thomas R. Holtz, Jr., wrote:
>>Ornithomimosaurs and caenagnathids are more problematic: omnivore might
>>represent the best concensus.
>If meat was in fact part of their diet, what would be the size range for
Hard to say: presumably relatively smaller for the (more delicately skulled)
ornithomimosaurs than for the caenagnathids. Still, I would be surprised if
either group tackled prey bigger than a juvenile hadrosaurid.
>>Not really applicable in this case: the cf. _Erlikosaurus_ material simply
>>looks like it: it has yet to be demonstrated it's even therizinosauroid.
>>The specimen in question (a frontal) is about the size of the same bone in
>>big Dinosaur Park Fm. _Troodon_ specimens, so IF you want it to be a
>>therizinosauroid, then you could take your _Troodon_ mass estimate and
>>multiply by 1.5 to 2 (therizinosauroids are fat relative to troodontids).
>>Or, you could recognize that estimating masses from isolated frontals might
>>not be that good an idea... :-)
>Okay. Thanks. But what about the actual, known, Mongolian _E. andrewsi_?
>Know of a suggested mass for that guy?
Hmmm... Russell & Dong estimate it at 160 kg.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
Dept. of Geology Email:firstname.lastname@example.org
University of Maryland Phone:301-405-4084
College Park, MD 20742 Fax: 301-314-9661