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?
T. rex
Submitted 4 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/960cfc6a-07b3-40d0-8ab1-59fc118eb490.jpeg
Comments
breadsmasher@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 4 months 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 4 months ago
Not according to this post lemmy.ml/comment/12594857
Contramuffin@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I’m going to need context here
randomsnark@lemmy.ml 4 months ago
I came to the comments looking for context, but since nobody has sold it yet, did some googling. I believe this is the reference: news.sky.com/…/tyrannosaurus-rex-could-have-been-…
saltesc@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I find that very hard to believe for a bipedal land animal. Hit age 3 and your knees and hips are just done.
Lommy241@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Glad to see I wasn’t the only one who couldn’t understand this. Was worried I had a stroke.
refalo@programming.dev 4 months ago
Maybe they’re saying we don’t really know how big or small they got.