From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden numbers for humans, elephants, saurs
Summary: corrections to Ted's misinterpretation of previous post, query for further reference info for breviparopus
Date: 09 Nov 92 01:49:58 GMT

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
: Message-ID: <104@fedfil.UUCP>
: I cannot imagine an entire species surviving if no adult could ever get
: off its feet. 

How about an entire air-breathing species surviving, yet never being
able to get out of the water to sleep? (And being dense enough to sink
if inactive...) (Just wondering...  Ted's limited imagination is not
relevant to the main points, I suppose.)

: You need around 70 or so for the ultrasaur just to stand, 80 or more
: for anything remotely like the seizemosaur or larger creatures.

Here we go again.  First, I've shown how, starting from actual
measurements, quadruped/biped differences plus leverage and cross
section differences based on these measurements, would yield HNs of 85
or so.  This includes well beyond any credible sauropod mass ever
claimed in the literature, let alone claimed in *recent* work. 
The mass limit that this corresponds to is 600,000 lbs.

Second, Ted's mass figures for seismosaur and breviparopus are his
own estimates, based on his own incorrect use of brachiosaurus as
the basis for scaling.  (More on this below.)

: No difference in leverage would begin to compensate for the differential 
: in musculature, and in the percentage of weight devoted to muscle mass
: used for lifting.

Now we have Ted claiming that muscle mass is relevant to the issue.
It clearly is not.  Here is a reference to what the limiting factor
actually is for force exerted by a muscle:

+ From Knut Nielson, "Scaling, Why is Animal size So Important",
+ Cambridge Univ Press, 1984, page 163
+ It appears that the maximum force or stress that can be exerted by any
+ muscle is inherent in the structure of the muscle filaments.  The
+ maximum force is roughly 4 to 4 kgf/cm^2 cross section of muscle
+ (300/400 kN/m^2).  This force is body-size independant and is the same
+ for mouse and elephant muscle.

The relevant factor is cross section.  Muscle mass has nothing
to do with it.  It is irrelevant how much more massive in terms
of percentage of body weight the musculature was.

:: It turns out there IS no 100' ultrasaur.  McGowan's weight figure for
:: the ultrasaur was predicated on a length of 100 ft.  But he made this
:: prediction before the handful of bones that indicate the sauropod were
:: fully examined.  It turns out that the ultrasaur was only 82 ft long.
: The idea that anybody could have 
: mismeasured something like that by 18' is ludicrous.  

Look again, Ted.  THERE WAS NOTHING TO MEASURE!  All they had was
a few vertebrae.  That's STILL all they have for ultrasaur.  The
100 ft wasn't a measurement, it was a GUESS.  A guess which turned
out to be wrong, because they had the vertebrae assigned to the
WRONG SPECIES.

The reestimate of length was NOT done to conform to "uniformitarian
assumptions" of some size limit.  It was done because the features of
the vertebrae put it into a different species than first thought. 

: A more recent 
: interpretation of partial skeletal fragments would be just that:  an
: interpretation.  There are numerous interpretations of sauropod sizes, 
: including the ones in Guiness, which have the largest sauropods at
: around 50 tons or so.  That isn't the standard view.

If Ted is claiming that "the standard view" is that there are
sauropods larger than 200,000 lbs, he is wrong.  GBR expresses a
view very close to that in the current literature I can find,
which is that the largest sauropods are between 50 and 100 tons.

: Full skeletons exist for the seismosaur...  140', no guesswork.

Yep.  No guesswork.  Gillette places it at 50+ tons after examining
the skeleton in detail.

: Estimates for the breviparopus run to 160', and the creature is assumed to
: have been a brachiosaurid from the tracks.  That means 500000+ lbs by
: any reasonable standard.

Nonsense.  TED assumes it was a brachiosaurid, and he's never seen the
tracks (nor have I).  I'd just LOVE to see the original paper, and some
tracks, but my local university library research department claim they
can't find any references to the sucker.  (My guess is that I don't know
how to ask properly, and it really does exist.  If anybody can point me
to a specific reference with images of the prints, I'd be very, very
happy to see them.  It is *easy* to tell brachiosaurid prints from
others (if you have enough clear enough prints).)

Further, note that Ted is stubbornly relying on his "breviparopus was a
brachiosaurid" because it is mentioned in the same paragraph as a
brachiosaurid find in the Guiness Book of Records, while equally
stubbornly saying that the GBR's mass estimate must be off by 5 times. 
If GBR is so inaccurate, why is Ted so convinced that breviparopus isn't
just another diplodocid in the 50-100 ton range?  How does anybody tell
when GBR has a fact right, and when one needs to "correct" it, as Ted is
doing here?

: [much blather based entirely on Guiness omitted]
:: I'll agree as how I wouldn't trust the GBR too far on matters too
:: technical...  
: Then why the preceeding blather?

In the original posting, in the sentence just after the elipsis where
Ted cuts me off above, I stated exactly why I felt the preceeding
"blather" established my case with regard to seismosaurus: because GBR
was directly quoting Gillette, and there's not really any way they could
have inserted any inaccuracy into that. 

Further, if refering to GBR as a source is "blather", why does Ted
still insist that breviparopus was a brachiosaurid?

: Why not just do what Joe Frazier and Hirohito did and admit when
: you've been whupped?

If I'm ever "whupped", I'll take it into consideration.

( Again, the interesting dependence on dominance and conflict based
  metaphor in Ted's postings.  Things that make you go "hmmmmmm". )
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins