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

Re: Bruhathkayaosaurus



> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:01:55 -0500
> From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@geol.umd.edu>
> 
> > Is the size or validity of this dinosaur still highly conjectural
> > or has the specimens found been determined to be definitely
> > animillian and from a titanosaur.  If it is considered credible,
> > why isn;t the Bruhathkayaosaurus, recognized as the largest
> > dinosaur?
>
> It is still far from certain it is an animal and not a tree.

For what it's worth, Sankar Chatterjee (personal communication, 2001)
asserts pretty unambigously not only that it is a an animal but
specifically a titanosaurid.  Even admitting that it has not been
meaningfully published, nevertheless I think there's enough material
to make a strong case for it as the biggest known sauropod.  Yadagiri
and Ayyasama 1989 measured the tibia as 2m long, which is pretty
darned absurd.

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Long past the midnight curfew, we sat starry-eyed ...  We were
         satisfied." -- Paul Simon, "Peace like a River"

--
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/