[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Tyrannosaurus tail torque
There will be more on this subject in the primary literature in not too
long, but it might be salutary to [at least] read these two papers and
consider their relationship to the paper being discussed, which did not
consider them. Both discussed tail shape/caudofemoral mass and their
implications for locomotion, turning etc. That's all I'll say about it here.
Allen, V., Paxton, H., Hutchinson, J.R. 2009. Variation in center of mass
estimates for extant sauropsids, and its importance for reconstructing
inertial properties of extinct archosaurs. Anatomical Record 292:1442-1461.
Hutchinson, J.R., Ng-Thow-Hing, V., Anderson, F.C. 2007. A 3D interactive
method for estimating body segmental parameters in animals: application to
the turning and running performance of Tyrannosaurus rex. Journal of
Theoretical Biology 246:660-680.
Dr. John R. Hutchinson
Reader in Evolutionary Biomechanics
Structure & Motion Laboratory
Royal Veterinary College, Univ. London
Hawkshead Lane, Herts AL9 7TA, UK
phone (+44) (0)1707-666-313
fax (+44) (0)1707-666-371
mobile (+44) (0)7843-629-162
web http://www.rvc.ac.uk/sml and
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sim Koning [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: 18 November 2010 23:21
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Tyrannosaurus tail torque
> >Unlike extant birds and mammals, most non-avian theropods
> >had large muscular tails, with muscle arrangements
> >similar to those of modern reptiles. Examination of
> >ornithomimid and tyrannosaurid tails revealed sequential
> >diagonal scarring on the lateral faces of four or more
> >hemal spines that consistently correlates with the zone
> >of the tail just anterior to the disappearance of the
> >vertebral transverse processes.
> I know the paper said that muscle mass estimates for past computer
> simulations may have been 45% lower than they should have been, but are
> there any revised estimates for top speed yet? If I remember correctly,
> past estimates ranged from 15 to 25 mph. So does this new information
> mean speeds in excess of 30 mph are much more likely?