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

RE: the biggest predators

>     Well, they aren't really that educated, which was Josh's point.
> Trying
> to establish which species was largest on average, much less produced the
> absolute largest individual (something we will NEVER know) with such a
> small
> sample size is a bit silly.  The fact that the largest theropods were all
> about the same size is more interesting, as it might something imply
> something about the size limit of the theropod design.
The maximum size limit sounds interesting to me.
Is there any paper about the maximum size a predator can reach ? 
About what would be his constraint in getting larger. What would prevent
him from growing ? 

I do also believe that we definitively do not have enough material to figure
what can be the average size of theropods. Especially in the case of species
know by only a couple of specimens. 

Let's just imagine that in a few millions years, some ET-paleontologist dig
up people from
our century. And let's just imagine they dig up Shaquille O'Neal and Tom
What would they believe about the average size of people in the 20th human
century ? 
Wouldn't they even might think they've found two different species ? 

This may sound funny, but i shows with a very simple example how it's hard 
(and dangerous) to try to build any statistics from a tiny set of data.

BTW, it leads me to another question (since i'm a beginner here), i would
if someone could explain me how we can be (almost) sure that two specimens 
with (almost) identical skeletons (sometimes with missing parts), 
but  with major differences of size are from the same specie ?

William Bonnet