[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Pterosaur size (Was: Great in the air, not so good underwater)
On 12/15/06, Tim Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Mike Taylor wrote:
>Don't forget _Puertasaurus reuili_, a truly absurd titanosaur from the
>Maastrichtian of Patagonia:
> Novas, Fernando E., Leonardo Salgado, Jorge Calvo and Federico
> Agnolin. 2005. Giant titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from
> the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia. Rev. Mus. Argentino
> Cienc. Nat., n.s. 7(1): 37-41.
Yep, it was a whopper all right. But, based on known specimens, there were
fewer enormous sauropods at the end of the Cretaceous than at the end of the
Jurassic. _Puertasaurus_ was atypically large for a Maastrichtian sauropod.
It represented the opposite end of the spectrum to the relatively runty
Well, the point presumably is that mega-sauropods weren't
physiologically impossible in the late Cretaceous, which contradicts
the idea that maximum possible size for land critters has been falling
since the Late Jurassic. If even one Maastrichtian critter rivalled
the size of the Jurassic giants, clearly the maximum size hadn't
fallen below their level by then.
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?