[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaurs lighter than thought: Giraffatitan 23 (not 80) tons
I am very doubtful of the 23 t figure, because the method used may not
be applicable to non-mammals using the currently available database.
Heavily pneumatized heavy-tailed animals simply weren't used to create
That aside, for mammals this is a excellent and brilliant way of
calculating mass :)
Dr. Heinrich Mallison
Museum für Naturkunde - Leibniz-Institut
für Evolutions- und Biodiversitätsforschung
an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Office phone: +49 (0)30 2093 8764
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Gaius Julius Caesar
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 6 June 2012 04:29, Jura <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Between this and the Huchinson et al. paper from earlier this year, all the
>> data seem to suggest what I think has been suspected for a long time. Namely
>> that our confidence intervals for dinosaur size are shit.
> There is no question whatsoever that this is true. My 2010 review of
> the history of sauropod research
> contains a handy table on p376 showing how mass estimates for the
> single individual HMN SII (the same Giraffatitan that Sellers et al.
> use in this study) have varied by a factor of 5.75 -- from Colbert's
> (1962) 78258 kg down to Russell et al.'s (1980) 13618 kg.
> -- Mike.
>> From: Ben Creisler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> To: email@example.com
>>>Sent: Tuesday, 5 June 2012 7:18 PM
>>>Subject: Dinosaurs lighter than thought: Giraffatitan 23 (not 80) tons
>>>From: Ben Creisler
>>>A new press release with links to photos. The paper is not yet posted
>>>on the Biology Letters site.