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

RE: Supersaurus lenght

The paper gives the measurements of the known elements of that specimen. That 
is what is actually known. Anything beyond the actual
bones--and thus, both the calculations in the paper AND the mount--represents 
extrapolations. Either might be right, or both might
be wrong. We don't know.

And consider that in diplodocids you can *EASILY* be off by a couple of meters 
plus or minus: that whip-like end of the tail is
essentially nothing in terms of body mass.

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email: tholtz@umd.edu         Phone: 301-405-4084
Senior Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Office: Geology 4106, 8000 Regents Dr., College Park MD 20742
Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
Phone: 301-405-6965
Fax: 301-314-9661              

Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
Office: Centreville 1216, 4243 Valley Dr., College Park MD 20742
Fax: 301-314-9843

Mailing Address:        Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
                        Department of Geology
                        Building 237, Room 1117
                        8000 Regents Drive
                        University of Maryland
                        College Park, MD 20742-4211 USA 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu] On Behalf Of 
> Poekilopleuron
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:10 AM
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu; dino@miketaylor.org.uk
> Subject: Supersaurus lenght
> Good day,
> I have a question regarding actual lenght of Wyoming "Jimbo" Supersaurus 
> specimen. According to the 2007 study, it was 33 - 34
> meters long, although the mounted cast measures "only" 106 feet (32,3 m). 
> What is wrong - replica or the estimations? Also, how
> robust this animal actually was? According to the 2007 study it had very wide 
> and massive torso, while it is generally accepted,
> Supersaurus was much more slender and less robust proportionally than 
> Apatosaurus was. Given its gargantuan proportions (talking
> about S. vivanae) the given mass estimate of 35 - 40 tons is also quite small 
> number IMHO. Thank you, Tom