|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 4, 2016 22:55:11 GMT 5
This depends on the definition of "natural", maybe Grey means statistically relevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 4, 2016 23:48:59 GMT 5
A 6 m white shark is a natural large-sized specimen, a 7.5 m one would be a freak.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 5, 2016 0:02:13 GMT 5
I think it’s pretty clear that 24m sperm whales, if they exist(ed) aren’t statistically relevant, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t natural. Like every maximum size, a 7.5m great white or a 24m sperm whale would certainly not be a good choice to represent the species, but if like some people your primary interest is how large the largest individuals could grow, then it’s still good for that purpose. creature386, glad that you can sign in again! |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 5, 2016 0:18:17 GMT 5
Yeah, proboards did help.
On topic, it depends on the definition of "natural" as I tried to explain above. It is sometimes used as the opposite of artificial, but it can also be used to mean something like "normal". The semantical stuff is not so important anyway, I believe it is clear what Grey meant to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 5, 2016 1:56:19 GMT 5
In other words, the Robert Wadlow or Angus Macaskill of each species aren't relevant or representative of the normal maximum size of the species (even though Macaskill was the largest natural giant in record).
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Nov 8, 2016 6:28:55 GMT 5
|
|
Apex
Junior Member
Posts: 207
|
Post by Apex on Nov 8, 2016 21:38:24 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Nov 8, 2016 23:44:13 GMT 5
Wood Gerald (1983). The Guinness book of animal facts and feats
|
|
Apex
Junior Member
Posts: 207
|
Post by Apex on Nov 9, 2016 1:00:20 GMT 5
Thankyou very much
|
|
