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

Re: theropod volumes

> A biology prof came into my office today looking for references on
> theropod thoracic volume vs. body size/weight.  Would you all be kind
> enough to send me some citations that I can pass along to her?

You're completely out of luck. Hardly anybody seems to care about theropod 
thoracic volume. The main reason is that it's difficult to estimate because 
we don't know some basic facts.

Did the coracoids touch (like reconstructed in the 1998 paper on the first 
recognized tyrannosaurid wishbones)? Did the furcula instead hang between 
the widely separated coracoids (as reconstructed in the Sue mount)? Did the 
coracoids _almost_ touch? Did this differ between clades? Did GSP's 
"cartilaginous episternum" exist, and if so, in which clades? How oblique 
were the scapulae (this correlates with the position of the ribs)? How did 
_this_ differ between clades?

Then there's often the question about the basic shape of the ribs -- most 
fossils have been flattened, to various degrees, by millions of years of 
pressure from the overburden.

As for body weight... it has often been estimated from estimates of body 
volume. See above for why this introduces humongous margins of error.

NEU: Telefon-Flatrate fürs dt. Festnetz! GMX Phone_Flat: 9,99 Euro/Mon.*
Für DSL-Nutzer. Ohne Providerwechsel! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie