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


Rahul Daryanani wrote:

I think this book would be written in the early 90's, but even by then most of the more accurate estimates had been done. Seriously, take Gillete and the dsicoverers of Bruhathkayosaurus (forget their names, too tough too spell, lol), then you realize that the actual professionals aren't too professional. One of them gave estimates 55% to large, and the other actually didn't know what kind of creature they were looking at. Go's to show that you REALLY can't trust anyone. But then again, Mike was pretty clear on that.

I'm not sure if that's precisely what Mike said. I interpreted his posts as saying that some estimates are better than others, and so probably can be trusted. Certain estimates are less trustworthy - like Colbert's 78-tonne uber-brachiosaur, for example. It all depends upon the method(s) used to estimate body mass, including the accuracy of the 3-D ("flesh-and-blood") reconstructions.

As for the discoverers of _Bruhathkayosaurus_ (Yadagiri and Ayyasami), they probably should not be criticized too much for mistaking a sauropod for a theropod, given the quality of the material. Mistaking a tree for a dinosaur... well even that's not a hanging offense, if the material is that badly preserved. But it should be said that our good friend _Bruhathkayosaurus_ may turn out to be a dinosaur after all - a very large sauropod.

The Kallamedu Formation in southern India has yielded more material besides _Bruhathkayosaurus_. Matley poked around there at the beginning of the 20th century; and much more recently a turtle came to light (_Kurmademys kallamedensis_), including a beautifully preserved skull. So not all Kallamedu specimens are diabolically bad.

BTW, _Dystylosaurus_ (cursed with an un-sexy name, as stated by Gillette) is quite possibly the same as _Supersaurus_, just like _Ultrasaurus_/_Ultrasauros_. Contra Gillette, none of the three Dry Mesa giants (_Dystylosaurus_, _Ultrasaurus_, _Supersaurus_) should be "designated nomen dubium". If there is some doubt that _Supersaurus vivianae_ can be distinguished from _Diplodocus_, this merely makes _Supersaurus_ a junior subjective synonym of _Diplodocus_, not a nomen dubium.



Visit MSN Holiday Challenge for your chance to win up to $50,000 in Holiday cash! http://www.msnholidaychallenge.com/default.aspx?ocid=tagline&locale=en-us