Re: Dinosaur weights; overestimated?

[ljmac@magna.com.au (Lee J. McLean)]

> You know one thing that REALLY peeves me in the field of dinosaur
>research is the overestimation of a dinosaur's weight. The formula used
>to estimate weights in animals basically works for dead weight animals (
>mammals for example.) Dinosaurs were probably like birds in that they
>had extensive air-sacs through their bodies; mammals lack that feature
>and are mostly liquid, muscle, and bone. So a mammal and a bird that are
>the same size and have the same measurements will differ in weight since
>birds are mostly air. The same is true for all dinosaurs. They all have
>hollow bones and air-sacs like birds so they were light like birds. This
>information is never given or really considered in weight estimations.
>This is why the weight of Tyrannosaurus has been overestimated
>frequently. It should weigh about 3-5 tons and possibly less. Sauropod
>weights have been overestimated since the presense of big air filled
>necks is never taken into consideration.
> I wish feedback: do any of you concur?
> WMattTroutman

Yes, yes and yes! It's always astonished me that the weights of the giant
sauropods are estimated to be in excess of those of the great whales, when
the former are mostly neck and tail, and the latter are built to be
_heavy_, so as to facillitate diving. As you point out, this is the
diametric opposite of the sauropods, who are in some respects even more
lightly-built than birds!

One of the arguments the flat-earthers often use to support their
contention that dinos were cold-blooded is that the great sauropods could
not have eaten enough to support their weight. Well, fact is they weren't
really that heavy!

Lee