|
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of JAMES ARONIS >Argentinosaurus isn't even the largest
found to date. There is as yet, an unamed sauropod found in Argentina about 2
years
>ago that estimates put at over 160ft. in
length.
Length
estimates are horrendously unuseful for dealing with questions of biological
meaningful size (aka mass), particularly for taxa such as sauropods which
exhibit a lot of variation of tail length (and, to a lesser degree, neck
length). As for the Argentine sauropod, which actual bones are known, and
what are their measurements, so that they can be compared to
Argentinosaurus, Argyrosaurus, Paralititan, and
the like.
>As far as individuals in the over 25% size
larger are concerned, it is highly
>unlikely. Argentinosaurus is already
in blue whale territiory when it comes to its estimated weight, finding a
specimen much
>over 100 tons would be a miracle of
biological engineering.
Not
necessarily. Bone and muscle are pretty darn tough, and we honestly
don't know yet if it is mechanical stresses which would generate the size
"cealing" for land-living animals. Other ecological factors (including but
not restricted to nutrient intake, home range size, thermal regulation,
growth, reproductive factors) may produce a limit at a smaller size than
mechanical ones. Carrano and Janis have already suggested something along
these lines for the limiting factor in sizes of terrestrial
placental mammals (in that case, gestation period). Jim Farlow has
done some theroetical work suggesting that feeding range (and its inverse,
population density) might be a major limiting factor in theropod body
size.
Thomas R. Holtz,
Jr.
|