Re:Precision

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Rahul Daryanani wrote:

> I think this book would be written in the early 90's, but even by then most 
> of the more accurate estimates had been done. Seriously, take Gillete and 
> the dsicoverers of Bruhathkayosaurus (forget their names, too tough too 
> spell, lol), then you realize that the actual professionals aren't too 
> professional. One of them gave estimates 55% to large, and the other 
> actually didn't know what kind of creature they were looking at. Go's to 
> show that you REALLY can't trust anyone. But then again, Mike was pretty 
> clear on that.

I'm not sure if that's precisely what Mike said.  I interpreted his posts as 
saying that some estimates are better than others, and so probably can be 
trusted.  Certain estimates are less trustworthy - like Colbert's 78-tonne 
uber-brachiosaur, for example.  It all depends upon the method(s) used to 
estimate body mass, including the accuracy of the 3-D ("flesh-and-blood") 
reconstructions.

As for the discoverers of _Bruhathkayosaurus_ (Yadagiri and Ayyasami), they 
probably should not be criticized too much for mistaking a sauropod for a 
theropod, given the quality of the material.  Mistaking a tree for a 
dinosaur... well even that's not a hanging offense, if the material is that 
badly preserved.  But it should be said that our good friend 
_Bruhathkayosaurus_ may turn out to be a dinosaur after all - a very large 
sauropod.

The Kallamedu Formation in southern India has yielded more material besides 
_Bruhathkayosaurus_.  Matley poked around there at the beginning of the 20th 
century; and much more recently a turtle came to light (_Kurmademys 
kallamedensis_), including a beautifully preserved skull.  So not all 
Kallamedu specimens are diabolically bad.

BTW, _Dystylosaurus_ (cursed with an un-sexy name, as stated by Gillette) is 
quite possibly the same as _Supersaurus_, just like 
_Ultrasaurus_/_Ultrasauros_.  Contra Gillette, none of the three Dry Mesa 
giants (_Dystylosaurus_, _Ultrasaurus_, _Supersaurus_) should be "designated 
nomen dubium".  If there is some doubt that _Supersaurus vivianae_ can be 
distinguished from _Diplodocus_, this merely makes _Supersaurus_ a junior 
subjective synonym of _Diplodocus_, not a nomen dubium.

Cheers

Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Visit MSN Holiday Challenge for your chance to win up to $50,000 in Holiday 
cash! 
http://www.msnholidaychallenge.com/default.aspx?ocid=tagline&locale=en-us