Re: How small is small?

[JCMcL <darwincr@laplaza.taos.nm.us>]

 On Sun, 21 Jan 1996, Nicholas R. Longrich wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 1996 tuckr@digital.net wrote:
> > 
> > > > Are there generally understood limits for the size terms small, medium, 
> > > > large, moderately large, etc., as applied to dinosaurs?
> > > 
> > >     This cogent question requires a comprehensive response. Would someone 
> > > care to quantify?
> > > 
> > > ----
> > > -= Tuck =-
> > > tuckr@digital.net
> > 
> > A scientific explanation follows:
> > 
> > Small dinosaurs are generally considered to be of lesser size than large 
> > ones.  Large ones, often, are bigger and more massive than small ones.  
> > Medium dinosaurs are primarily those intermediate in size between the 
> > small and the large.
> > 
> > This is McLoughlin's Law of Size, and applies also to mammals, birds, and 
> > potatoes.  
> 
>       A new theropod from Mongolia, which is neither large, small, nor 
> medium in size, may provide a stunning counterexample to McLoughlin's Law 
> of size. The paper is still in the works, but the discoverer has 
> commented that "It's not big. It's not small. It's not tiny, enormous, 
> large, dwarf, or even gigantic. We don't have any idea what it is, 
> really- it's from a size range new to science. The field of sizemology 
> could be completely revolutionized by this find." Researchers from the 
> McLoughlinist school disagree. "It's so fragmentary, it's really 
> hard to tell," says one. " I mean, it could just be a poorly preserved 
> medium theropod, even a modestly large one. More material and a 
> closer examination of what we have is necessary before we go making any 
> claims."
> 
Further McLoughlinist examination of the fossil reveals that it fits very 
well into known sizmological parameters, being classed as a very large 
small theropod in the medium range.

JCMcL