Comment on T. rex
breadsmasher@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Does this mean that due to undersampling, we can only assume we have found the biggest fossils/skeletons/remains, and cannot know how big they could really get?
Comment on T. rex
breadsmasher@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Does this mean that due to undersampling, we can only assume we have found the biggest fossils/skeletons/remains, and cannot know how big they could really get?
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 years ago
I think it’s the opposite. They’re saying that physical limitations on size exist (bone strength, lung capacity) even if you only found one skeleton. So significantly bigger TRexs aren’t possible.
DaTingGoBrrr@lemmy.ml 2 years ago
Not according to this post lemmy.ml/comment/12594857
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 years ago
That’s not a link to the actual paper. The King of the Hill meme above claims that the actual paper says that physical limits apply to maximum size. This implies the article misrepresents the research paper.
DaTingGoBrrr@lemmy.ml 2 years ago
Ah, I get it now. Thanks!
scratchee@feddit.uk 2 years ago
I don’t think that’s what the meme is claiming.
I think instead it’s just claiming that all fossils have the same implied increase in maximum size implied by the paper, not just T rex.
I’m guessing the illiterate paleo fans were excited that maybe T rex was king of the dinosaurs again, but the logic fails if all the dinosaurs get bigger max sizes…