RE:

[Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

Rahul Daryanani wrote-

> Actually, Mickey Mortimer did these.
>
> http://dml.cmnh.org/2001Sep/msg00402.html
> http://dml.cmnh.org/2001Jun/msg00665.html.
>
> > The _only_ published work on this think remains the original atrocious 
> > description.
>
> I?ve heard rumors that the original description and illustrations were bad, 
> but I didn?t realize it was that pathetic. If it was really that bad, how 
> did Mortimer get such precise estimates.

28-34 meters is precise?  Basically, we have a reported tibial length for 
Bruhathkayosaurus, no matter how terribly photographed, illustrated or 
described it is.  So assuming the identifications and measurements in its 
description are correct, we can estimate a range of lengths based on how 
long more complete titanosaurs are compared to their tibiae.

Incidentally, the idea Bruhathkayosaurus is a fossilized tree trunk is based 
purely on its size.  And is questionable given the non-cylindrical bones 
preserved such as the ilium.  Additionally, Chatterjee has personally 
examined the fossils, and while he has a bad record of misindentifying taxa, 
I give him enough credit to not confuse a tree for a limb bone.

Mickey Mortimer