Science Memes

11047 readers

3453 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

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

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

Research Committee

[email protected]

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]

208

T. rex (mander.xyz)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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 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.

[–] [email protected] 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…

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Ah, I get it now. Thanks!