Page 1 of 2
Dinosaurs not as massive as we thought?
Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:57 pm
by Lazar
From the Daily Mail:
'Palaeontologists have for 25 years used a published statistical model to estimate body weight of giant dinosaurs and other extraordinarily large animals in extinct lineages,' said lead researcher Dr Gary Packard from Colorado State University in the US.
'By re-examining data in the original reference sample, we show that the statistical model is seriously flawed and that the giant dinosaurs probably were only about half as heavy as is generally believed.'
Re: Dinosaurs not as massive as we thought?
Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 pm
by IanKennedy
Typical of the Daily Mail they've completely misunderstood the concept. They seem to think that they've got the size of the dinosaurs wrong. Given we have their bones that can't be the case. It's simply the mass that's potentially wrong. They are just as big, just not as heavy.
Re: Dinosaurs not as massive as we thought?
Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:17 pm
by Nickswitz
I actually understood what they meant. IDK if that's good or bad.
Re: Dinosaurs not as massive as we thought?
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:22 am
by Lazar
IanKennedy wrote:Typical of the Daily Mail they've completely misunderstood the concept. They seem to think that they've got the size of the dinosaurs wrong. Given we have their bones that can't be the case. It's simply the mass that's potentially wrong. They are just as big, just not as heavy.
Yeah, the way they've presented it does seem a bit off, as if the dinosaurs are now going to be shorter or something. I tried to get it from another newspaper, but the Daily Mail was all I could find.
Re: Dinosaurs not as massive as we thought?
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:24 am
by stitch626
So basically, they were not as fat? I can see that. Considering we don't have a living model.
Re: Dinosaurs not as massive as we thought?
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:29 am
by Lazar
Yes, it's a question of how much flesh was on the bones.
Re: Dinosaurs not as massive as we thought?
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:37 am
by Sionnach Glic
Makes sense when you think about it. A T-Rex would need to eat a fuckload of food to have any good amount of meat on its bones. It's quite likely the larger the dinosaurs got, the thinner they were.
Re: Dinosaurs not as massive as we thought?
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:46 pm
by McAvoy
So no pot belly T-Rex from Jurassic Park?
Well, wouldn't that mean with less mass they might be a bit faster as well?
Re: Dinosaurs not as massive as we thought?
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:01 am
by Nickswitz
Maybe, but there is still only a certain speed their bodies can carry them.
Re: Dinosaurs not as massive as we thought?
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:51 am
by Sionnach Glic
Aye, and we can aproximate their speed by studying their skeletons.
Re: Dinosaurs not as massive as we thought?
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:57 am
by Tsukiyumi
Rochey wrote:Aye, and we can aproximate their speed by studying their skeletons.
Wouldn't that estimate change a bit depending on how much mass they're lugging around? If they're all lean running machines, the speed estimates
have to go up a bit.
Re: Dinosaurs not as massive as we thought?
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:00 am
by Sionnach Glic
Aye, they will. I was saying we can still calc their speeds, just now it's a revised edition. Sorry if I wasn't too clear.
Re: Dinosaurs not as massive as we thought?
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:01 am
by Sionnach Glic
McAvoy wrote:So no pot belly T-Rex from Jurassic Park?
Actualy, that probably
was realistic, just unintentionaly so. That Tyrannosaur has been bred and kept in captivity, probably kept well fed, and with no reason to hunt (and thus exercise). Thus it's quite likely such a creature would get fattened up fairly quickly.
Re: Dinosaurs not as massive as we thought?
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:09 am
by Tsukiyumi
Rochey wrote:Aye, they will. I was saying we can still calc their speeds, just now it's a revised edition. Sorry if I wasn't too clear.
Ah, okay. The amount of stress the skeleton could withstand is the same, but with less mass, the top speed goes up. Gotcha.
Re: Dinosaurs not as massive as we thought?
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:34 am
by Teaos
I cant see how they could have gotten it so wrong, from what I understand it is rather easy to work out how much flesh is anchored to a skeleton by looking at the anchor points.