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

Re: SJMercuryNews:biggest and smallest fossil mammals

    Sounds more like a slip of the tongue or a typo wherein millimeters replaced centimeters accidentally?
    My guess, pending commentary from someone who knows.
    Ray Stanford
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Srnka <theclaw@sprintmail.com>
To: Dinogeorge@aol.com <Dinogeorge@aol.com>
Cc: bettyc@flyinggoat.com <bettyc@flyinggoat.com>; vrtpaleo@usc.edu <vrtpaleo@usc.edu>; dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Monday, May 10, 1999 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: SJMercuryNews:biggest and smallest fossil mammals


Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 5/10/99 12:54:18 PM EST, bettyc@flyinggoat.com writes:

<< Welcomme said his colleague Laurant Marivaux from the University of
 Montpellier discovered what they think is the smallest fossil remains of
 a mammal in the same area.

 ``It's a new species. We want to study the details,'' he said. ``It's
 only one or two millimetres long.'' >>

Everyone is yakking about the big baluchithere. How about this absurdly small
size for a mammal?

One or two millimeters long?!? We are talking about the fossil specimen, not the entire animal, right? PLEASE tell me it's some kind of joke if it IS supposed to be the whole animal...-Chris Srnka