Re: Bruhathkayosauru"Asteroid did not extinct Dinosaurs - Indian Cosmo Theorist"

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Mike Taylor wrote:

> For what it's worth, Sankar Chatterjee (personal communication, 2001)
> asserts pretty unambigously not only that it is a an animal but
> specifically a titanosaurid.  Even admitting that it has not been
> meaningfully published, nevertheless I think there's enough material
> to make a strong case for it as the biggest known sauropod.  Yadagiri
> and Ayyasama 1989 measured the tibia as 2m long, which is pretty
> darned absurd.

If _Bruhathkayosaurus_ is indeed of animal rather than vegetable origin, it 
would have been a truly colossal sauropod.  The fibula of _Argentinosaurus 
huinculensis_ (which was originally identified as a tibia) measures around 
155cm long.  Based on this, Mazzetta et al. (2004) estimate a body mass of 
69 tonnes for _Argentinosaurus_.  _Bruhathkayosaurus_ could have weighed in 
at 150 tonnes.  It was probably even larger than the enormous Maghreb 
sauropod (femur 236cm long) mentioned by Charroud and Fedan (1992).  
Assuming, of course, that the thing was really a sauropod, rather than 
something a sauropod might have eaten.

Even more unbelievably, _Bruhathkayosaurus_ was originally regarded as a 
THEROPOD!

David Marjanovic wrote:

> > This 'Doctor' (apparently of Literature) has decided that his ideas can
> > explain the universe and all other things
>
> 42.

Ah, so Swami Raj Baldev knows the ANSWER to the Universe!  But does he know 
the right QUESTION to ask!?

:-)


Tim