|
|
Post by Ursus arctos on Apr 17, 2013 16:54:52 GMT -9
RE: 591 mm ulna length, it is confirmed.  That looks more like 581 mm. Is the 591 mm measurement accurate? I need to find Kurten (1967). |
|
|
|
Post by duanmianxiong on Apr 20, 2013 0:32:04 GMT -9
It is 591 mm in Kurten (1967)'paper.
|
|
|
|
Post by grrraaahhh on Apr 20, 2013 6:50:53 GMT -9
RE: 591 mm ulna length, it is confirmed. That looks more like 581 mm. Is the 591 mm measurement accurate? I need to find Kurten (1967). 591 mm is correct. I actually have fossil photos of the Californian specimen including the ulna but my hope/plans were to obtain fossil photos of another large male Nebraska (Hays Spring, NE) GSFB specimen which are housed in NYC. The femur measurement values for this Nebraska specimen rank it 3rd largest for existing GSFB remains. Collectively, if one includes the large Cass County, NE GSFB humerus fossil KUVP C-2427 - altogether (from the photos obtained here as well as those from the literature) we have photos of the three largest GSFB humerus, femur, and ulna fossils.  |
|
blaze
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by blaze on Sept 3, 2013 12:30:06 GMT -9
It seems you oversized U. m. tyrannus, I scaled the image so the ulna of A. angustidens was 570px long and the fragment of BM 24361 came out at 514px, thus 514mm, ~17% bigger than its actual length of 440mm, I modified it for both ulnae to be properly scaled, I hope you don't mind.  btw great work finding all of this stuff! |
|
|
|
Post by duanmianxiong on Sept 6, 2013 1:54:20 GMT -9
largest known Arctotherium angustidens is only 42.3cm,but this is evidently not the upper limit of this giant species.
|
|
blaze
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by blaze on Sept 8, 2013 20:13:28 GMT -9
The largest ulna? nope, the specimen MLP 35-IX-26 described in Soibelzon & Schubert (2011) has a left ulna 570mm long, it's right there in table 2 of the paper.
|
|
|
|
Post by duanmianxiong on Sept 13, 2013 1:42:58 GMT -9
The largest ulna? nope, the specimen MLP 35-IX-26 described in Soibelzon & Schubert (2011) has a left ulna 570mm long, it's right there in table 2 of the paper. I mean the skull. |
|
|
|
Post by grrraaahhh on Oct 29, 2013 0:11:32 GMT -9
It seems you oversized U. m. tyrannus, I scaled the image so the ulna of A. angustidens was 570px long and the fragment of BM 24361 came out at 514px, thus 514mm, ~17% bigger than its actual length of 440mm, I modified it for both ulnae to be properly scaled, I hope you don't mind. btw great work finding all of this stuff! Welcome to the forum and thanks for the support. Sorry for the late reply. I've been very busy and had missed this post. You are correct about the scaling problems. Honestly, the effort was an early exploration of my learning to use Photoshop. |
|
|
|
Post by grrraaahhh on Oct 29, 2013 0:14:38 GMT -9
The largest ulna? nope, the specimen MLP 35-IX-26 described in Soibelzon & Schubert (2011) has a left ulna 570mm long, it's right there in table 2 of the paper. See reply # 8 (same thread) for largest GSFB ulna. |
|
blaze
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by blaze on Dec 12, 2013 1:49:17 GMT -9
duanmianxiongoops, yeah, though, scaling from the Arctodus simus specimen FMNH PM 24880, the largest A. angustidens will only have a skull 47cm long, though IIRC, FMNH PM 24880 is said to have an unusually "short" skull for its size. @grrraaahhh I know but I meant A. angustidens ulna.
|
|
