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

RE: Tyrannosaurus was not a fat boy or girl



Since Matt Wedel's work was referenced on this point earlier in the thread, one 
should check out many of Wedel's posts at SV-POW! in regards to estimating 
volume of pneumatic spaces and extrapolating to flat volumes. At the least, one 
can start here: 
http://svpow.wordpress.com/papers-by-sv-powsketeers/yates-wedel-and-bonnan-2011-on-prosauropod-pneumaticity/
 and the paper referenced at the top, which is based on work developing a 
better understanding on total pneumaticity in sauropodomorphan evolution.

Cheers,

  Jaime A. Headden
  The Bite Stuff (site v2)
  http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"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 
Backs)


----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:16:13 -0300
> From: augustoharo@gmail.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Tyrannosaurus was not a fat boy or girl
>
> How is the degree at which pneumaticism reduces the density of the
> body assessed in mass estimates? Although you can infer the proportion
> of the skeleton which is pneumatic, it looks impossible to tell what
> part of the non-skeletal volume is filled with air sacs. However, I
> think I once read (probably from Gregory Paul) the claim that body
> density is not much lower in birds than in other tetrapods because the
> pneumatism is countered by a more solid lung in birds, contrasting
> with the larger air cavity of the lung of other vertebrates.