this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
208 points (96.8% liked)

Science Memes

10348 readers
2006 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
208
T. rex (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 82 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I'm going to need context here

[–] [email protected] 60 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I came to the comments looking for context, but since nobody has provided it yet, did some googling. I believe this is the reference: https://news.sky.com/story/tyrannosaurus-rex-could-have-been-even-bigger-than-previously-thought-study-suggests-13184470

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago

may have weighed roughly 15 tonnes instead of 8.8, and measured 15 metres instead of 12.

I find that very hard to believe for a bipedal land animal. Hit age 3 and your knees and hips are just done.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

Glad to see I wasn't the only one who couldn't understand this. Was worried I had a stroke.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

Maybe they're saying we don't really know how big or small they got.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Not according to this post https://lemmy.ml/comment/12594857

Edit: here's a direct link to the article if the link above is broken for some reason

https://news.sky.com/story/tyrannosaurus-rex-could-have-been-even-bigger-than-previously-thought-study-suggests-13184470

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Ah, I get it now. Thanks!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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…

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month 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.