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

Re: "Super rex"

no go wrote:

> I wouldn't gloss too much over absolute sizes, our sampling of Tyrannosaurs
> is just to small to make any absolute remark on what maximum adult size it
> might had reached. As we can see from other species, there is usually quite
> a large range in size differences even in adults, so any absolute size
> measurements are pretty meaningless, if not attract an inordinate amount of
> attention from people. Unless T.rex fossils were as common as Protoceratops,
> it would be impossible to tell. After all, even Homo sapiens sapiens exibit
> an typical adult size range of 1.5-1.8 meters, and that's leaving out people
> who are below and above the range, which we do know exist. That said, "Sue"
> could simply be just the Tyrannosaur version of a 1.6 meter human, or more
> or less. We just don't have enough data to figure it out.

That's all true, but one can of course do a statistical analysis in
order to make an educated guess on what the size range *might* have
been, taking into account the fact that the chance of finding a fossil
from an animal at the extremes of the range is vanishingly small. If,
say, the UCMP maxilla was from the T. rex equivalent of a 1,9-m human,
then it is truly a miracle of luck that such a bone was ever preserved,
let alone found by us 65 million years later.

Anyone know of any studies applying statistical methods to the specimens
we have of tyrannosaurids, in order to make estimates on statistical
ranges in life?