RE: PENTACERATOPS CORRECTIONS

["Stewart, Dwight" <Dwight.Stewart@VLSI.com>]

Speaking of Ceratopsians; a friend of mine recently described some
Triceratops as being "rhino
Sized".  Weren't some of them more elephant sized.

Also, does anyone have any updated information regarding Ultrasauros?  (it
is "OS" isn't it?).
I know their were some thoughts that perhaps this was simply a large
Brachiosaur.

Thanks;
Dwight

        -----Original Message-----
        From:   Tetanurae@aol.com [SMTP:Tetanurae@aol.com]
        Sent:   Wednesday, September 23, 1998 11:19 PM
        To:     vonrex@gte.net; dinosaur@usc.edu
        Subject:        PENTACERATOPS CORRECTIONS

        Pete Von Sholly wrote:
        << Is this right?  The skull is more that 3 meters long, yet the
whole animal
         was only more than 5 meters long? Or was the skeleton (postcranial,
that
         is) alone 5 meters? >>

        In a word, no.  If I actually would have read the paper, Lehman
states that
        the whole skeleton is almost 6.5 metres long.  I was using the scale
bar in
        the diagram and just measuring how large the animal.  In Lehman's
drawing, the
        tail goes straight to the ground, instead of pointing backwards, and
the skull
        is in a pose where the snout points straight down, which should
account for
        the foreshortened measurements.

        Pentaceratops got to be huge apparently, as large or larger than
Triceratops.
        The estimated size of the skull (3 + metres) blows the previous
winner,
        Torosaurus, out of the water (2.5 + metres).

        Peter Buchholz
        Tetanurae@aol.com

        You have a very strange name: Fish
        Sticks and stones....  Ling.