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

*To*: zach.armstrong64@yahoo.com*Subject*: Re: Allometric equations for predicting body mass in dinosaurs*From*: Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>*Date*: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:48:28 +0100*Authentication-results*: msg-ironport0.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none*Cc*: dinosaur@usc.edu*In-reply-to*: <563712.82401.qm@web46005.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>*References*: <411371.88458.qm@web111610.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <563712.82401.qm@web46005.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>*Reply-to*: mike@indexdata.com*Sender*: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

2009/8/20 Zach Armstrong <zach.armstrong64@yahoo.com>: > I have a question about this paper: Allometric equations for predicting body > mass of dinosaurs. Journal of Zoology, June 21, 2009 DOI: > 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00594.x. > > I do not have the paper, but was wondering if an estimate of 18 tonnes for > Brachiosaurus is reasonable (estimate reported here: > http://www.livescience.com/animals/090621-dinosaur-size.html)? That seems way > too light for a 70 ft long animal. Yes, it's too light -- quite a bit too light (though not as much too light as you might think). The Packard et al. paper is about getting better regression equations for estimating mass from limb-bone measurements, but that method is always going to give misleading results for brachiosaurs, however good the equations, because they have crazy-weird super-gracile humeri (and their femora are surprisingly narrow anteroposteriorly, though they are transversely broad). > The reason I bring this up was because I was trying to come up with a better > estimate of the weight of Puertasaurus (here: > http://ztwarmstrong.deviantart.com/). In the end, I get an estimate of 58 > tonnes for Puertasaurus using Argentinosaurus as a model, and using the > drastically reduced weight estimates of the above paper. Any thoughts would > be appreciated. (Nothing to say on this, sorry -- I've not really looked at Puertasaurus. Execept of course to say that any mass estimate based on one cervical and one dorsal is going to be, shall we say, subject to uncertainty.) > Do these equations affect how those, like Greg Paul, get there weight > estimates? No. Greg Paul -- like Don Henderson, Alexander McNeill and (going further back) Colbert and Gregory -- got his estimate by measuring a model, scaling up the volume and multiplying by density. There are potential sources of error in this approach, for sure, but there's no allometric equation involved, and each estimate is based on its own specimen. By the way, reputable published estimates of the mass of A SINGLE SPECIMEN (the "Brachiosaurus" brancai lectotype HMN SII) have varied by a factor of 5.75 (yes!) as shown by the following table from an in-press book chapter: Table 2. Changing mass estimates for Brachiosaurus brancai. Author and date Method Volume Density Mass (l) (kg/l) (kg) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Janensch 1938 Not specified -- -- "40 t" Colbert 1962 displacement of sand 86953 0.9 78258 Russell et al. 1980 limb-bone allometry -- -- 13618(1) Anderson et al. 1985 limb-bone allometry -- -- 29000 Paul 1988a displacement of water 36585 0.861(2) 31500 Alexander 1989(3) weighing in air and water 46600 1.0 46600 Gunga et al. 1995 computer model 74420 1.0 74420 Christiansen 1997 weighing in air and water 41556 0.9 37400 Henderson 2004 computer model 32398 0.796 25789 Henderson 2006 computer model -- -- 25922 Gunga et al. 2008 computer model 47600 0.8 38000 Taylor in press graphic double integration 29171 0.8 23337 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES 1. Russell et al. give the mass as "14.9t", which has usually been interpreted as representing metric tonnes, e.g. 14900 kg. However, they cite "the generally accepted figure of 85 tons" (p. 170), which can only be a reference to Colbert (1962). Colbert stated a mass of 85.63 U.S. tons as well as the metric version, so we must assume that Russell et al. were using U.S. tons throughout. 2. Paul used a density of 0.9 kg/l for most of the model, and 0.6 kg/l for the neck, which was measured separately and found to constitute 13% of the total volume, yielding an aggregate density of (0.9 × 87%) + (0.6 × 13%) = 0.861 kg/l. 3. Alexander did not state which Brachiosaurus species his estimate was for, only that it was based on the BMNH model. This model is simply stamped "Brachiosaurus". > BTW, if anyone has a pdf of the paper I would be much obliged to receive a > copy... I'll send it offlist. > P.S.: How many cervicals and dorsals do titanosaurs have respectively? It's impossible to say -- these numbers vary wildly throughout other major sauropod clades and will likely do the same in Titanosauria (which after all includes more than a third of a sauropod genera). We have very, very few complete titanosaurs to model on. Rapetosaurus has 16 cervicals and 11 dorsals (Curry Rogers and Forster 2001), Malawisaurus may have 13 cervicals but even that is an estimate based on others' estimates (Gomani 2005). > How would you estimate the length of the cervical series and the dorsal > series (and caudal series) respectively? You basically can't do it based on published measurements. Hopefully that will start to change with the long-awaited monographic description of Rapetosaurus, which is either in review or in press at JVP.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Allometric equations for predicting body mass in dinosaurs***From:*Zach Armstrong <zach.armstrong64@yahoo.com>

**References**:**Re: Tianyuraptor ostromi: yet another Liaoning dromaeosaurid***From:*B tH <soylentgreenistrex@yahoo.com>

**Re: Allometric equations for predicting body mass in dinosaurs***From:*Zach Armstrong <zach.armstrong64@yahoo.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Pterosaur landing track** - Next by Date:
**More dino-related humor** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Allometric equations for predicting body mass in dinosaurs** - Next by thread:
**Re: Allometric equations for predicting body mass in dinosaurs** - Indexes: