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

"Largest" dinosaurs...



OK, I'm bored at work, so here's a random thought--

     I went ahead and looked up some info on the recent supposed "largest" 
dinosaurs: Giganotosaurs, carcaradontasaurs, Argintiniosaurus, etc...(I know I 
misspelled them).

I am a bit frustrated about these claims.  It seems that they are based on WAY 
to fragmentary remains for such claims.  Even Spinosaurus, which remains SEEMED 
to be suggestive of a huge animal, were not really, ahhh...complete.

I just find it difficult to put any credibility in these claims.  With T-rex, 
we have sufficient remains to know--definitavly--how big any of the individuals 
was, at least in length, height, etc.  Recent therapods claiming the BIGGER 
THAN T-REX!!!! status are doing so with only one or two fragmentary remains.  
I cannot see how any such claim can be taken seriously given the inability to 
accuratly extrapolate lengths from the complete remains of OTHER species using 
the FRAGMENTARY remains of "new" ones and scaling the up.--pardon the run-on.

I saw the skeletal reconstructions of argintiniosaurus( I think it was 
argintiniosaurs...) and Giganotosaurs mounted in a museam.  I Assumed that to 
do such an extensive reconstruction, much of the fossils were known.  I was 
wrong.  

I can't see how they justify the claim of a 100+ ton animal from a few bones.  
The fossil record is too long and too varied to allow such scaling up any 
accuracy.  

I want to see more evidence, more bones, and a mostly complete skeleton before 
I'm willing to let T-rex step down.