[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:55:02 -0500 (EST)
> The way to determine what mass estimates are correct for a given
> specimen is easy enought. Simply treat my mass estimates as though
> they are those of God.
That's certainly a reasonable position. I'd just like to caution that (ignoring
body fat, stomach fillings, gastroliths etc.) there's a chance your estimates
are systematically to high (of all things). For highly pneumatic sauropods, you
didn't use Wedel's extremely low density estimates (which of course weren't
available yet), and at least your older skeletal restorations (I haven't
checked what has changed lately) have that "cartilaginous episternum", a
neomorph for the existence of which I have yet to see evidence, instead of
having the coracoids touch in the midline which would make the thorax much less
broad and voluminous.
Note that the latter point doesn't automatically make it impossible that the
shoulder girdles were capable of separate movement. The coracoids might have
moved past one another instead of past the "cartilaginous episternum".
Incidentally, the bone sometimes called "episternum", the interclavicle, is a
dermal bone, so it ought to be incapable of being cartilaginous; but then you
AFAIK never said your "cartilaginous episternum" was supposed to be homologous
to the interclavicle.
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer