blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Sept 28, 2014 2:15:48 GMT 5
The measurement I mentioned for QM F2942 was 66.5mm and seems a reasonable centrum length given the 68.8mm width you mention based on the figures of posterior dorsals of V. komodoensis in Hocknull et al. (2009a?).
I wonder if Hetch (1975) has photos and measurements of that dentary.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Sept 28, 2014 2:28:42 GMT 5
The measurement I mentioned for QM F2942 was 66.5mm and seems a reasonable centrum length given the 68.8mm width you mention based on the figures of posterior dorsals of V. komodoensis in Hocknull et al. (2009a?). Nope, Molnar. Btw where are 66.5mm length from? Me too, unfortunately the paper is elusive. |
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Sept 28, 2014 2:47:00 GMT 5
What I meant by "based on the figures of posterior dorsals of V. komodoensis in Hocknull et al. (2009a?)" is that based on those figures, the centrum width is a little more than the centrum length. I did understand that you were citing Molnar for the 68.8mm you mentioned, I should have put a comma or something. The 66.5mm is what that commenter wrote in the article linked in the op, he/she referenced Hecht (1975).
I found a paper, Lees (1986) "Catalogue of type, figured and mentioned fossil fish, amphibians and reptiles held by the Queensland Museum." it list the dentary like this:
QM F6562
Megalania prisca : Hill, Playford & Woods, 1970, pl.
CZ7(9); Hecht, 1975, p. 246, pl. 17, fig, 3; Molnar
1982, p. 625.
So there's a plate and a figure of QM F6562 in Hecht (1975).
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Sept 28, 2014 2:48:54 GMT 5
Oh sry, misread you.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Sept 28, 2014 2:54:02 GMT 5
No problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Sept 28, 2014 2:54:24 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Sept 28, 2014 3:56:56 GMT 5
And this article effectively changes...........................nothing
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Sept 28, 2014 4:29:06 GMT 5
We got measurements, catalogue numbers and more relevant references to search for, we also got a photo of that dentary that supposedly suggest an svl of 3.1m
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Sept 28, 2014 4:39:01 GMT 5
We got measurements, catalogue numbers and more relevant references to search for, we also got a photo of that dentary that supposedly suggest an svl of 3.1m Notably some things Molnar said are wrong. Note that directly scaling by width from the lace monitor and using a normal 3rd power exponen gives a body mass of just over 600kg for QMF 2942. |
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Sept 28, 2014 5:46:24 GMT 5
Indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Sept 28, 2014 13:40:51 GMT 5
Ok, this is the picture of the detary:  The fragment is said to be 212mm long from coronoid contact to symphisis. For a comparative measurement we can use: "The V. komodoensis skull used in the present study is from a young adult male (AM R106933) with a snout-tail length of 1.6 m. Maximal length, height and width of the cranium are 142 mm, 34 mm, and 68 mm, respectively. " www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2423397/ |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Sept 28, 2014 15:02:24 GMT 5
Using this pic  and linear scaling from the KD measurements I came to a result of about 6.5m total length which seems pretty similar with Hecht's scaling. I don't completely trust my objectivity, can someone please double check. In any case this suggests that Megalania either had a very large skull or that this individual weighed about a tonne. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 28, 2014 15:33:35 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Sept 28, 2014 15:37:09 GMT 5
Yeah that seems to be simple geometric scaling. |
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Sept 28, 2014 22:06:12 GMT 5
I had scaled the dentary using a photo of an skull from skullsunlimited, supposedly 21cm long, I got it at 49cm premaxilla to quadrate, pretty much what Hecht estimated, I also used a photo of a pretty robust skull floating in the internet and got it at 44cm in the same measurement but I didn't saved them, I'll try searching for them again.
Isn't it frustrating how is it harder to find good photos of skulls of modern animals than of prehistoric ones?
|
|
