Re: Precision

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:55:02 -0500 (EST)
Von: GSP1954@aol.com

> The way to determine what mass estimates are correct for a given
> specimen is easy enought. Simply treat my mass estimates as though
> they are those of God.

That's certainly a reasonable position. I'd just like to caution that (ignoring 
body fat, stomach fillings, gastroliths etc.) there's a chance your estimates 
are systematically to high (of all things). For highly pneumatic sauropods, you 
didn't use Wedel's extremely low density estimates (which of course weren't 
available yet), and at least your older skeletal restorations (I haven't 
checked what has changed lately) have that "cartilaginous episternum", a 
neomorph for the existence of which I have yet to see evidence, instead of 
having the coracoids touch in the midline which would make the thorax much less 
broad and voluminous.

Note that the latter point doesn't automatically make it impossible that the 
shoulder girdles were capable of separate movement. The coracoids might have 
moved past one another instead of past the "cartilaginous episternum".

Incidentally, the bone sometimes called "episternum", the interclavicle, is a 
dermal bone, so it ought to be incapable of being cartilaginous; but then you 
AFAIK never said your "cartilaginous episternum" was supposed to be homologous 
to the interclavicle.
-- 
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! 
Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer