[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Rahul Daryanani wrote-
Actually, Mickey Mortimer did these.
The _only_ published work on this think remains the original atrocious
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.
- From: Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org>