![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/puertasaurus.jpeg?ssl=1\")
<\/a>Puertasaurus<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n \u201cI don\u2019t think the scaling equations are wrong,\u201d says Wedel. \u201cI think they\u2019re imprecise.\u201d The main problem is the margin of error, which can be 30 tonnes or more for a gigantic sauropod. Despite its imprecision, the method is popular among dinosaur palaeontologists because it is easy to use, even without a good understanding of sauropod anatomy. They aren\u2019t necessarily concerned by its shortcomings. Biologically and behaviourally speaking, a 30-tonne sauropod was probably similar to a 60-tonne one, says Campione, and pinning down body mass more precisely arguably has limited scientific value.\u00a0[“The biggest dinosaur ever may have been twice the size we thought<\/a>,” Colin Barras, <\/em>NewScientist<\/strong> (13 June 2020, paywall)] So, off by 30 tonnes for a 30 ton sauropod? Perhaps \u00b115 tonnes for an estimate of 45 tonnes, just so we don’t end up including an infamously weightless dinosaur when we’re doing the math?<\/p>\n ooof.<\/p>\n And that Puertasaurus<\/strong><\/em> above? Deduced from …<\/p>\n [The only specimen] consists of four well-preserved vertebrae, including one cervical, one dorsal, and two caudal vertebrae.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Visually, again from Wikipedia<\/strong><\/em> …<\/p>\n I have no problem with deduction, but working from all of four – monstrous – vertebra seems amazing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Science folks often try to be precise by admitting to a certain imprecision, generally expressed as “plus \/ minus”, or \u00b1. You see it in polling, in measurements of physical quantities, just about anything. This, however, seems a trifle excessive when it comes to biology: \u201cI don\u2019t think the scaling \u2026 Continue reading
\n<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/a><\/p>\n