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

"Largest" dinosaurs...





Ok, now I think your being a bit rough!


<<The fact that anyone could give an estimation in mass(for argintiniosaurus) with a degree of error greater in size than any living animal EXCEPT for the sauropods, is in my book, enough evidence that they had no buisness making such an estimation in the first place. > >While I'm sure more remains of these will surface, and they will be justified in their rank, I think they should hold off till things are more >> Well if this were the case then we'd know next to nothing about Dinosaurs at all. There are very few complete skeletons out there and its only by taking a 'best guess' approach that we can try and discover something about these fascinating creatures. And I think your looking at it the wrong way. When estimating the size, its a % variant that they are trying to give Ie our studies show they were this size give or take 5% of their body weight. I don't hear you crowing about variations of say 10% in a small pterosaurs weight estimates, even th! ou! ! gh the variation on a % basis may be larger then when used with Sauropods. As you point out, it's because they are so heavy that the variation seems to large.

I guess what im trying to say is I'd rather have some information and a best guess then a little information...and thats it!

<<I mean, someone finds a big claw 10 times the size of a velociraptor, and creates a proportionally huge raptor , draws picturs of it, develops a theory on how it used it's massive claw to disembowel T-rex and his whole family....when the thing might turn out to be a defensive claw in a giant sloth dinosaur... >>
True, true, but how cool was it to talk about while we were thinking this way. Again I have no problem with this as it was the best guess at the time.. I mean this is the type of stuff that Paleontology is built on!

My personal problem is when people can't drop the old image for the new, more up to date one. As you say, people make thier conclusions on scant evidence sometimes, and then refuse to be budge when new finds are made. The perfect example of course is the dino-birds theroy...and lets throw in the K-Timpact extinction. I mean how much evidence do you need to see the validity of these theroies? With birds-dinos, there is so much evidence for them being related that I still choke when someone tries to shout it down, espicallty useing old, outdated or simply wrong material as their proof. Look at it this way, its a balancing act. when you have say 40 reasons why they are related and 20 reason why their not...and all the arguments are reasonably valid, you still have to come down on the majority side, I belive thats called an unbiased opnion. no matter what you personally feel, you have to go with the proof.

as for the kt impact, if the extinction of the dinos was not tied into this single moment, we'd never have this argument. Surely no one can doubt there was a (or several) impacts at this exact moment, and suraly no one can argue that with such a large occurance, every other reason for extinction brought forth by scientists would not occur. Flash fires, disease, carbon dioxide, volcanic eruptions, tidal waves, almost every single extinction theroy put forward will occur, especially during a massive imapct like the KT one (im hard put to think of one that would occur), yet becuase its linked to possible the most important ot at least popular extinction known, no one can agree becuase everyone wants to be the one to get it right...at least thats how it feels to me.

Ill take a breath now and get back to work

Phil Hore

National Dinosaur Museum

Canberra, Australia

ph (02) 62302655

A child was brought into this world. A child of light and innocence. A beutiful child of with talent, grace and integrity. A child to lead us into a glorious future....his name...John Wayne.

I've seen all his movies!

>From: Pluto77189@aol.com >Reply-To: Pluto77189@aol.com >To: tholtz@geol.umd.edu, dinosaur@usc.edu >Subject: Re: "Largest" dinosaurs... >Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:57:24 -0500 > >I knew that the corresponding parts of gig. were larger than T-rex, but I think that with Trex, we at least have "the whole picture", you know? Adds a bit of finality, makes it more concrete. It IS good to know that there were more remains than I had initially thought. > >clear.


Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Click here
------ NIHIL  OBSTAT from CMNH ------

email-body was scanned by InterScan VirusWall and no virus was found
---------------------------------------------------------