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

Re: Dinosaur mass table online



GSP1954@aol.com <GSP1954@aol.com> wrote:


> I am getting tired of this waste of time. I restored the complete 
> skeleton of the super mamenchisaur and it is huge, bigger than any
> titanosaur. If anyone restores the skeletons and finds otherwise then
> fine. If not then please don't go on and on commenting publicly about
> something one does not know enough about just because one has access to
> the internet. 


Not the internet in this case.  The scientific literature. 


Mamenchisaurs have been described as being slender, with masses comparable to 
diplodocids of similar body length.  As you said, your new super-mamenchisaur 
"Looks pretty much like other mamenchisaurs".  However, the idea of a 
super-heavy mamenchisaur contradicts everything that's been said before about 
mamenchisaurs.  I think I can be forgiven for querying how a mamenchisaur could 
weigh 75 tonnes (nearly 1.4 times more than _Argentinosaurus_).  My skepticism 
was not unwarranted; one might even consider it healthy.  I do, and I make no 
apologies for it.  As I'm forever telling my students: "Show your working".  


And yes Jaime, I'm aware that GSP's measurement is based on a single apparent 
specimen of _M. sinocanadorum_.  However, the only way to arrive at a mass of 
75 tonnes is for this specimen to have proportions that depart radically from 
the slender, diplodocid-like proportions described for other mamenchisaurs (see 
above).


Anyway, there's been enough chest-beating in this thread, so I'll leave it 
there.  


Cheers

Tim