[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 <email@example.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" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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 | <email@example.com> | 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
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp