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

Science Memes

10940 readers
2090 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.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



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
 
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 82 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I'm going to need context here

[–] randomsnark@lemmy.ml 60 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months 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.

[–] Lommy241@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

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

[–] refalo@programming.dev 16 points 3 months ago

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

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 34 points 3 months 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?

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months 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.

[–] DaTingGoBrrr@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months 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.

[–] DaTingGoBrrr@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

Ah, I get it now. Thanks!

[–] scratchee 3 points 3 months 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…

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months 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.

[–] scratchee 2 points 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.