Re: How small is small?

["Nicholas R. Longrich" <longrich@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>]

On Sat, 20 Jan 1996, JCMcL wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 1996 tuckr@digital.net wrote:
> 
> > > Are there generally understood limits for the size terms small, medium, 
> > > large, moderately large, etc., as applied to dinosaurs?
> > 
> >     This cogent question requires a comprehensive response. Would someone 
> > care to quantify?
> > 
> > ----
> > -= Tuck =-
> > tuckr@digital.net
> 
> A scientific explanation follows:
> 
> Small dinosaurs are generally considered to be of lesser size than large 
> ones.  Large ones, often, are bigger and more massive than small ones.  
> Medium dinosaurs are primarily those intermediate in size between the 
> small and the large.
> 
> This is McLoughlin's Law of Size, and applies also to mammals, birds, and 
> potatoes.  

        A new theropod from Mongolia, which is neither large, small, nor 
medium in size, may provide a stunning counterexample to McLoughlin's Law 
of size. The paper is still in the works, but the discoverer has 
commented that "It's not big. It's not small. It's not tiny, enormous, 
large, dwarf, or even gigantic. We don't have any idea what it is, 
really- it's from a size range new to science. The field of sizemology 
could be completely revolutionized by this find." Researchers from the 
McLoughlinist school disagree. "It's so fragmentary, it's really 
hard to tell," says one. " I mean, it could just be a poorly preserved 
medium theropod, even a modestly large one. More material and a 
closer examination of what we have is necessary before we go making any 
claims."