Big and small.... again

[Stang1996@aol.com]

<<Commenting on recent discussions about dinosaut sizes: I think terms like 
small, medium, large should only be used with respect to some identifying 
noun: A 20cm spider is surely a large spider, but at most a medium-sized 
animal. The same should hold for dinosaurs: A small sauropod may 
nevertheless be considered a large dinosaur. So, if you want to use size 
as a criterion to identify something, take into account what you already 
know about it: If you only know it's a dinosaur and it's pretty large 
(for a dinosaur), it probably is a sauropod - even if it's small for this 
group. Whew - this sounds pretty complicated, although I thought it's 
quite simple - did anybody guess by now that I am doing theoretical
physics?>>

I've got an idea.  Why don't you use Large Sized, Regular Sized, and Small
Sized with respect to a specific group.  I support regular size because it is
more accurate than medium sized.  Take Pachycephalosaurs for example.  If you
use Small, Medium and Large, _Pachycephalosaurus_ is large while all other
Pachycephalosaurs are small.  If you used regular sized instead,
_Pachycephalosaurs_ would be large, _Homolacephalus_ and Stegoceras_ etc.
would be regular sized, and the smaller Pachycephalosaurs like _Yaverlandia_
would be called small; thus seperating the regular sized ones from the small
ones because there is a difference.

Peter Buchholz
Stang1996@aol.com