>
> I assumed that Ev is asking whether or not we actually know the
> microstructure of dinosaur bones.
>
I appreciate the kind words Dan.
Yup...in a manner of speaking I was. Several things prompted that line of
thought. What I mentioned regarding elephants (which I'm not positive is
true)...as well as an article I vaugely recall in popular science some time
back.
It seems that a computer model was run on good ole T-Rex. The results implied
that T-Rex was more of a walker than a runner....primarily because if he got
to moving too fast...and tripped...it would be fatal. Falling down would snap
his neck like a dry twig.
So it appears that T-Rex might have been more of a buzzard than anything
else...
And I was wondering if any other similar interesting info was known?
And sure enough Micheal Lowery comes thru.
>>>The reason why dinosaurs that we know
popularly (most were actually quite small) are so big is that they developed
at
a time when all or most of the continents were part of the Pangea super
continent. Studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between the
evolved sizes of animals and the size of the land mass which they inhabit.
<<<<<
So that explains it..."Range Size"...
Small countinents don't have enough grub for really BIG critters...
Thanx.
EvMick
and.
>>>>>>