Jump to content
Accelerated Evolution

Dinosaurs May Have Been Smaller Than Previously Thought


Recommended Posts


ScienceDaily (June 22, 2009) — The largest animals ever to have walked the face of the earth may not have been as big as previously thought, reveals a paper published June 21 in the Zoological Society of London’s Journal of Zoology.

Scientists have discovered that the original statistical model used to calculate dinosaur mass is flawed, suggesting dinosaurs have been oversized.

Widely cited estimates for the mass of Apatosaurus louisae, one of the largest of the dinosaurs, may be double that of its actual mass (38 tonnes vs. 18 tonnes).

"Paleontologists have for 25 years used a published statistical model to estimate body weight of giant dinosaurs and other extraordinarily large animals in extinct lineages. 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" says Gary Packard from Colorado State University.

The new predictions have implications for numerous theories about the biology of dinosaurs, ranging from their energy metabolism to their food requirements and to their modes of locomotion.

Well, doesn't that ruin every film that revolves around or contains dinosaurs.

Link to comment

Not really. They're still the same basic size, they're just less dense.

I know, I am just arsed to change the misleading title. But still, I'd imagine being these huge behemoths that roamed the Earth so many years ago. (In both height and weight.)

Link to comment

Truly all this means is that my Human VS Dinosaur wrestling league is just one step closer to fruition.

If humans had mobile suits?

They often don't need much help in that matter.


but i has seen fossils!!!!!!

Me too! But they are talking about weight, not height. Either way, they seem rather heavy.

Link to comment

They're actually talking about mass, not weight or height. Although common English equates mass and weight for some bizarre reason, scientifically they are different commodities. Weight is a force and a function of related forces.

Edit: Correction, the article references mass when none of the quotes do. So yes, this is about weight. Stupid reporter.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...