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

Re: taxonomy is not stratigraphy (was Re: JVP 25(2): New Dinos, Birds, Discoveries)

> >  Maybe. But, as Starkov noted, there is a
> correlation between the rise of 
> >the largest sauropods and largest theropods,
> suggesting the latter became 
> >bigger to overcome more massive prey.
> I haven't read any of Starkov's stuff, but I'm
> inferring from your statement 
> that he is claiming that the largest sauropods
> co-existed with the largest 
> theropods.  Although it's an intuitively attractive
> idea, I don't believe we 
> have the data to back it up.  For example,
> _Tyrannosaurus_ was a very large 
> theropod, but _Alamosaurus_ was not that impressive
> by sauropod standards.  

Well now, that's not very nice. As it happens,
'Alamosaurus' was very large indeed, even for a
sauropod. I would go so far as to say 'Alamosaurus'
may have been the biggest North American sauropod ever
(my claim from SVP2004), certainly it gave all the
morrison sauropods a run for their money.

> Similarly, the Nemegt sauropods were not
> spectacularly large, and these were 
> the guys who rubbed shoulders with _Tarbosaurus_. 
> All post-Triassic 
> terrestrial Mesozoic habitats were probably home to
> theropods and 
> dinosaurian herbivores of different shapes and
> sizes; but I don't think we 
> can pair up the carnivores and herbivores based on
> size alone.
> Cheers
> (The other) Tim

Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail