RE: Bruhathkayosaurus matelyi?

[Rahul Daryanani <rahul721@hotmail.com>]

> I think you'll agree that to describe this as "pathetic" is being kind.

I think you've made your point, Mr. Taylor. I really wouldn't blame someone 
for mistaking this thing for a tree-trunk. Guess we'll just have to wait for 
some upcoming papers to find out wether it was really a dinosaur.

But I still think that this creature may have existed, and was definitely 
quite possibly in the size range of Mickey's estimates, althoguh we can't be 
really definite until more evidence is gathered (although I'm sure it was in 
the size range of Amphicoelias fragillmus). But that's besides the point.

By the way, Chatterjee himself supposedly confirmed that B. matelyi was a 
sauropod.

http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Mar/msg00516.html

It's on the last line of the article.

Till next time,
Rahul

_________________________________________________________________
Tried the new MSN Messenger? It?s cool! Download now. 
http://messenger.msn.com/Download/Default.aspx?mkt=en-in