Re: Bruhathkayosaurus

["Steve Brusatte" <dinoland@lycos.com>]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 20:41:32  
 Ken Kinman wrote:
>
>Dear All,
>     The name Bruhathkayosaurus didn't ring a bell, so had to look it up.  
>If it was a dinosaur, it was apparently a sauropod, not a huge theropod as 
>originally thought.
>      However, Mike's dinosauricon has a rather odd remark about it, IIRC: 
>"if it is, indeed, animalian".  I assume there is some rather peculiar story 
>surrounding this fossil or perhaps rumours about what it really is.
>      If it isn't "animalian", what could it possibly be?  Perhaps pieces of 
>petrified wood that just happen to look just like dinosaurian limb elements? 
>  Or perhaps a hoax, like the supposed marine onychophoran worms from the 
>Bay of Bengal?  I wonder if there is a dinosaurological Paul Harvey who 
>could tell us "the rest of the story"?  :-)

We would need Art Bell to tell us the story of Bruhathkayosaurus!  I do believe 
that it has been suggested the bones were petrified tree trunks.  This actually 
isn't uncommon.  I believe that it was first thought by its discoverers that 
Sauroposeidon's leg bones (femur, probably) were tree trunks.  I wouldn't doubt 
myself making the same mistake, as it is much easier to think that a huge bone 
is actually a tree in the field.  

Steve

---
***************************************************************
Steve Brusatte-DINO LAND PALEONTOLOGY
SITE: http://www.geocities.com/stegob
ONLINE CLUB: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/thedinolanddinosaurdigsite
WEBRING: http://home.wanadoo.nl/dinodata.net/
INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE SITE: http://www.geocities.com/stegob/international.html
****************************************************************


Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/