[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: New paper on pre-Archaeopteryx coelurosaurian dinosaurs
Do understand that basic limb segment lengths are not the way to measure hip
height, nor the method described in Senter and Robins, but under the basis of
limb length at set angles, assuming cartilage; some segements (the femur
especially) are more effective portions of limb length to hip height than
others because they are closer to the verticle throughout their excursion,
unlike the tibia or the metatarsals, although the later are second. In taxa
with long femora and long metatarsals, the hip height is greater based on the
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:42:13 +0100
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: New paper on pre-Archaeopteryx coelurosaurian dinosaurs
> On 27 October 2010 05:05, Tim Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:59 PM, wrote:
> >> I thought Gigantoraptor was ~2 tonnes, much smaller than e.g.
> >> Tyrannosaurus or Spinosaurus. Has its size been revised upwards?
> > I was going by Senter and Robins (2010), who looked at the heights of
> > theropods based on hindlimb length. _Gigantoraptor_ has a hip height
> > of 3.5m, which would have made it among the tallest of theropods.
> > Though not as tall as the largest _T. rex_, such as "Sue", which has a
> > hip height of around 4m.
> Really? From Brochu (2003:138) I have:
> left femur length: 130.8
> left tibia length, including tarsus: 124.5
> right MT III (the longest): 67.1
> All measurements in cm.
> That sums to 322.4 cm (assuming totally erect hindlimb posture, which
> of course is wrong). I can see where you'd add on a few extra cm for
> the cartilaginous joints, but a whole 80 cm?