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

Re: T.rex needs a diet!



> The disagreement between volumetric estimates of mass and estimates
> based on scaling of bone dimensions is interesting, though.

To me, it is not. Two reasons:
1) scaling is either done by using mostly mammal data. Dinosaurs are
fundamentally different in their body architecture from mammals. Their
locomotion, accordingly, must have been quite un-mammalian, with
forces differently created and distributed. Scaling on this basis = No
go!
2) or scaling is done based on monitors, birds and one or two other
values from crocs, then extrapolating to the fare thee well. Birds are
fundamentally different in body shape from non-Avialae, and crocs are
non-endotherm and non-cursorial. The other critters in the database
are between one and three orders of magnitude smaller than your
average large theropod or sauropod. This is not going to work either.

What we need to do is volumetric models, with the soft tissues modeled
according to extant animals (see, e.g., Allen et al 2009). Anything
else, well - apples and pears. Sadly, we are in very short supply of
very large, terrestrial, cursorial, tailed animals.

H
___________________________________
Dr. Heinrich Mallison
Abteilung Forschung
Museum für Naturkunde - Leibniz-Institut
für Evolutions- und Biodiversitätsforschung
an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Invalidenstrasse 43
10115 Berlin
Office phone: +49 (0)30 2093 8764
Email: heinrich.mallison@gmail.com
_____________________________________
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Gaius Julius Caeser




On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Vivian Allen
<mrvivianallen@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Oh well, that's what happens when these so-called "scientists" apply
> the so-called "scientific method" to "develop and test" such so-called
> "hypotheses"...
>
> The disagreement between volumetric estimates of mass and estimates
> based on scaling of bone dimensions is interesting, though. The most
> straightforward synthesis, assuming both datasets are accurate (and I
> have no reason to suspect otherwise), is that dinosaurs may have had
> lower safety factors than mammals of equivalent size.
>
> On 15 October 2011 17:40,  <MKIRKALDY@aol.com> wrote:
>> Only two years ago, dinosaurs were smaller than "scientists"  thought:
>>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090621195620.htm
>>
>> Mary
>> ----------
>>
>> In a message dated 10/13/2011 1:28:21 P.M. Eastern  Daylight Time,
>> birdbooker@zipcon.net writes:
>> HI  ALL:
>> FYI:
>>
>> http://www.livescience.com/16524-rex-dinosaur-weighed.html
>>
>> sincerely
>>
>> Ian  Paulsen
>> Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
>> Visit my BIRDBOOKER REPORT blog  here:
>> http://birdbookerreport.blogspot.com/
>> --
>>
>>
>