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

Re: Giant sauropod skulls

I guess I should clarify my statement, having just reread it this morning. The 4 foot approximation was meant to be an upper end estimate for 100-foot sauropods. I'm not sure what the lower end range would be in the smaller headed families.
From: Mike Taylor <mike@tecc.co.uk>
To: kinman@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Giant sauropod skulls
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 10:49:06 +0100

> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 02:59:57
> From: "Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>
>      Good question.  I'd like to know myself what the range of skull
> length would be.  It would depend somewhat on which family of
> sauropod, but about 4 feet might be a good approximation (perhaps
> one of the sauropod experts could give a range of skull lengths for
> the bigger forms).

Wow.  That's big.  That's _really_ big.  The _Diplodocus_ at the NHM
here in London has a skull not much more than a foot long.  Even given
that you can't scale isometrically and brachiosaurid heads are
proportionally larger than diplodocid heads, a factor of three or four
seems to be stretching it.

>       Giraffatitan probably got up to 100 feet long, and there are
> some skulls of it known.  But even if one doesn't have a skull, one
> could roughly estimate skull size from other bones.

For what its worth, Matt "Sauroposeidon" Wedel and I think others have
no truck with the _Giraffatitan_ stuff, placing _brancai_ firmly in

 _/|_  _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor | <mike@miketaylor.org.uk> | www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "This machine is a piece of GAGH! I need dual 600MHz Pentium
       processors if I am to do battle with this code!" -- Klingon
       Programming Mantra

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp