[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
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
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
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
I want to see more evidence, more bones, and a mostly complete skeleton before
I'm willing to let T-rex step down.