[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re:Precision
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