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

RE: Bruhathkayosaurus matelyi?



I think you'll agree that to describe this as "pathetic" is being kind.

I think you've made your point, Mr. Taylor. I really wouldn't blame someone for mistaking this thing for a tree-trunk. Guess we'll just have to wait for some upcoming papers to find out wether it was really a dinosaur.


But I still think that this creature may have existed, and was definitely quite possibly in the size range of Mickey's estimates, althoguh we can't be really definite until more evidence is gathered (although I'm sure it was in the size range of Amphicoelias fragillmus). But that's besides the point.

By the way, Chatterjee himself supposedly confirmed that B. matelyi was a sauropod.

http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Mar/msg00516.html

It's on the last line of the article.

Till next time,
Rahul

_________________________________________________________________
Tried the new MSN Messenger? It?s cool! Download now. http://messenger.msn.com/Download/Default.aspx?mkt=en-in