• breadsmasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    3 months ago

    Does this mean that due to undersampling, we can only assume we have found the biggest fossils/skeletons/remains, and cannot know how big they could really get?

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think it’s the opposite. They’re saying that physical limitations on size exist (bone strength, lung capacity) even if you only found one skeleton. So significantly bigger TRexs aren’t possible.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s not a link to the actual paper. The King of the Hill meme above claims that the actual paper says that physical limits apply to maximum size. This implies the article misrepresents the research paper.

          • scratchee@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            I don’t think that’s what the meme is claiming.

            I think instead it’s just claiming that all fossils have the same implied increase in maximum size implied by the paper, not just T rex.

            I’m guessing the illiterate paleo fans were excited that maybe T rex was king of the dinosaurs again, but the logic fails if all the dinosaurs get bigger max sizes…

            • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              If that were the case then the first sentence wouldn’t claim that there are physical limits.

              I dug up the paper.

              “Biomechanical and ecological limitations notwithstanding, we estimate that the absolute largest T. rex may have been 70% more massive than the currently largest known specimen (~15,000 vs. ~8800 kg).”

              https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.11658

              That is the paper says, if we ignore biomechanical limits, statistically there could be a T-Rex that’s 70% bigger than what we have already found.

              • scratchee@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                That does make sense, though I read it as:

                [the new, expanded] upper body size limits…

                Is how I read it, but your interpretation works well too, so I don’t really know now.