Co jeśli Bruhathkayosaurus... ?
: 3 maja 2020, o 23:12
Niedawno Malkani wspomniał, że jego zdaniem Bruhathkayosaurus może być spokrewniony z Pakisaurus. Pisał tam o tym, że piszczel była smukła itd. Pomijając fakt o tym (wiemy wszyscy jakie są te prace) szukałem nieco informacji o piszczelach zauropodów. A co jeśli Bruhathkayosaurus był spokrewniony z Huabeisaurus ? Proporcje wydają się zbliżone, ogólnie Huabeisaurus także ma smukłe piszczele proporcjonalnie bardzo długie w stostunku do kości udowych. W dodatku jest wzmianka o tym jakoby były bardzo "twisted" o czym pisano również w artykule oryginalnym w 1987 odnośnie Bruhathkayosaurus.
"Both tibiae were recovered adjacent to their respective fibulae. The majority of their cnemial crests and the distal end of the left element are not preserved. Both tibiae have been reconstructed with an unnatural twist between their proximal and distal ends, as evident from comparing pre-restoration photographs with the tibiae on display in the exhibit (Fig. 22). The ratio of the length of the tibia to that of the femur is approximately 0.75, as noted in the original description [14]. This value is higher than in other sauropods, which typically have tibia: femur length ratios between 0.56–0.68 (see The autapomorphic tibia: femur ratio of Huabeisaurus in the Discussion). The tibiae are gracile elements, with a midshaft width to length ratio of 0.11 (Table 9). In dorsal view, the proximal end has a subrectangular outline, with a concave posterior margin"
Oczywiście nie wiele można wywnioskować z rysunków z pracy z 1987 ale wzmiankowane pomiary tej piszczeli dają pewne wyobrażenie.
"Both tibiae were recovered adjacent to their respective fibulae. The majority of their cnemial crests and the distal end of the left element are not preserved. Both tibiae have been reconstructed with an unnatural twist between their proximal and distal ends, as evident from comparing pre-restoration photographs with the tibiae on display in the exhibit (Fig. 22). The ratio of the length of the tibia to that of the femur is approximately 0.75, as noted in the original description [14]. This value is higher than in other sauropods, which typically have tibia: femur length ratios between 0.56–0.68 (see The autapomorphic tibia: femur ratio of Huabeisaurus in the Discussion). The tibiae are gracile elements, with a midshaft width to length ratio of 0.11 (Table 9). In dorsal view, the proximal end has a subrectangular outline, with a concave posterior margin"
Oczywiście nie wiele można wywnioskować z rysunków z pracy z 1987 ale wzmiankowane pomiary tej piszczeli dają pewne wyobrażenie.