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

RE:



Rahul Daryanani wrote-

Actually, Mickey Mortimer did these.

http://dml.cmnh.org/2001Sep/msg00402.html
http://dml.cmnh.org/2001Jun/msg00665.html.

The _only_ published work on this think remains the original atrocious description.

I?ve heard rumors that the original description and illustrations were bad, but I didn?t realize it was that pathetic. If it was really that bad, how did Mortimer get such precise estimates.

28-34 meters is precise? Basically, we have a reported tibial length for Bruhathkayosaurus, no matter how terribly photographed, illustrated or described it is. So assuming the identifications and measurements in its description are correct, we can estimate a range of lengths based on how long more complete titanosaurs are compared to their tibiae.


Incidentally, the idea Bruhathkayosaurus is a fossilized tree trunk is based purely on its size. And is questionable given the non-cylindrical bones preserved such as the ilium. Additionally, Chatterjee has personally examined the fossils, and while he has a bad record of misindentifying taxa, I give him enough credit to not confuse a tree for a limb bone.

Mickey Mortimer