RE: Amphicoelias fragillimus (gigantic sauropod) size overestimated? (free pdf)

[Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au>]

On Tue, Dec 16th, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Mickey Mortimer 
<mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:

> The irony here is too delicious to not comment on.  Woodruff and Foster 
> propose Amphicoelias
> fragillimus wasn't so huge, and that the reported neural arch height of 1500 
> mm in Cope's
> measurement table was a typo for 1050 mm.  Yet their own measurement table 
> comparing 
proportions
> using both sizes has a typo itself!  "Cop?s arch reconstruction"  Good ol' 
> Edward Drinker Cop. 
> Hilarious.  Not a bad theory though.

Muphry's Law at work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law 

-- 
_____________________________________________________________

Dann Pigdon
Spatial Data Analyst               Australian Dinosaurs
Melbourne, Australia               http://home.alphalink.com.au/~dannj
_____________________________________________________________