[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Claw function in Deinonychus
This is not to criticise any of the allometry done on
this thread, as it has been informative and
entertaining. However, were I a gazillionaire paying
y'all to do this, I might want to see mass estimates
obtained from femoral length and width... then compare
those to available claw material. Sigh. I'll get back
with you when I get the money.
--- Michael Mortimer <email@example.com>
> Jaime A. Headden wrote-
> ><As total length is uncertain for all except a few
> complete dromaeosaur
> >specimens, perhaps a comparison of ungual length to
> another element's
> >would be less prone to error.>
> > While this is certainly true, as noted in the
> last posts by Mike Habib
> >myself, there is a signal albeit a weak one, based
> on the specimens
> >in. The reason I used body length is that it may
> more accurately capture
> >estimation and thus applicable to the hypothesis of
> weight-bearing pursued
> >the thread. The use of other elements must bear
> directly on this issue for
> >utility, or apply in a way to demonstrate
> functional applications.
> I figure total length estimates can be very biased
> by varying tail length
> (which wouldn't affect mass much). For instance,
> Deinonychus and
> Microraptor both have tails about five times their
> femoral length, while
> NGMC 91 has one ~3.6 times its femoral length.
> Mass estimates cube any linear errors made when
> calculating them, so are
> even more fickle.
> > holotype- ungual 35, phalanx 15, femur 148>
> > Which ungual was this again? As in my previous
> posts, one projects
> >inconsistencies when measuring incomplete elements.
> The holotype pedal ungual II. As detailed in Xu and
> Wang (2000), although
> the ungual's distal tip is missing, it can be seen
> via CAT scan, and thus
> its size is precisely known.
> Mickey Mortimer