[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: New Paper
On 4/2/07, David Marjanovic <email@example.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Taylor" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 2:43 PM
> The literature is peppered with various Fundamental Size Limits that
> people have proposed, based on all sorts of different criteria, and
> for all sorts of different critters. The one thing they have in
> common is that the moment they are published, someone finds a fossil
> bigger than the predicted limit :-)
Ah, no. You sent me the 1986 paper that proposes a limit of 140 t because
then the legs of a quadruped have to be so thick that they touch in the
middle. The new estimate for *A. fragillimus* is 120 t, and that may still
be too much...
Carpenter's estimate of 122 tons is based on scaling up an 11.5 ton
_Diplodocus carnegii_ to match the _A. fragilimus_ vertebra. Even if a
122t quadruped is possible, one of diplodocian proportions may not be,
casting doubt on the estimate in the first place.
If Carpenter had, as he suggests might be equally appropriate, used
_Apatosaurus_ as the benchmark instead, he'd ended up with a
significantly more gargantuan estimate ...
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?