[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: New Paper
On 3/28/07, Rahul Daryanani <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Might seem strange to go back to a 90 day old topic, but whatever.....
>So the best we can do is compare the long figure of _A. fragillmus_ with
>the _A. altus_ remains, and that's exactly what Ken did in his paper. So
>what you've just read is the state of the art concerning _Amphicoelias_
I guess you're right. :-) Since A. fragillmus' bones are lost, we can only
compare Cope's old drawings with A. altus' remains. But Cope's drawings were
pretty detailed and good aren't they (unlike Bruhathkayosaurus' drawings,
LOL), so we could come to a more or less solid conclusion. Looks like Ken
did that, meaning that if, a big if here, his theory is correct, then A.
altus is the well 'normal' species of Amphicoelias. That means that the
giant 60 m one is an abnormal species. If that's true, Amphicoelias isn't in
the list of the largest dinosaurs. This is really your branch, Mike.
That's like saying that the tiger isn't in the list of largest
carnivorans because the leopard (the type of _Panthera_) is too small.
It doesn't make sense.
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?