Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 22:57:22 GMT 5
Don't know how reliable it is, but with a lack of available better sources it could do. Animal Longevity and ScaleI'm having difficulty attempting to replicate their result of "10% greater scale = 6% greater lifespan", but maybe somebody else is better with this than I am. Maybe we can try to roughly estimate the lifespans of the giant carnosaurs by scaling off of Allosaurus' estimated ~28-year lifespan. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 16, 2015 23:44:51 GMT 5
Not getting a sensible result either.
10^(0.97+0.573*log(1.1)) is 9.8564, when it should be something close to 1.06. That’s not the first regression that just won’t work for me, no idea why.
I don’t think that will yield very useful results though. Note the extremely poor correlation between mass and longevity. It’s just a trend that larger animals live longer, but it shouldn’t be used to extrapolate lifespan estimates. The data also aren’t very precise or anything, they don’t even specify the type of monkey, snake or frog.
Its probably safer to say that giant carnosaurs reached a similar or slightly higher age than Allosaurus. We know from tyrannosaurs that they attained their giant size by growing faster rather than growing longer. The oldest Daspletosaurus is also just 2 years younger than sue.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jul 24, 2015 20:15:57 GMT 5
Have you guys tried different logharithms (log can mean base e, or base 2 or base 10 after all, or maybe some base specified in the source)
|
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240 
|
Post by Deathadder on Jul 24, 2015 20:37:47 GMT 5
I tried once.
Failed.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 24, 2015 23:09:43 GMT 5
coherentsheaf the source didnt specify. I think I tried 10 and e, not sure whether I tried 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jul 24, 2015 23:51:55 GMT 5
ok I tried the formula now. When they say: 10% increase in scale gives 6% increase in lifespan, this means "if you multiply the scale by 1.1, the lifespan gets multiplied by 1.06 which checks out, approcimately (actually 1.056..), regardless of the base of the log you use. Sry for the confusion first day back from vacation.
|
|
