|"Faster than a beer-league softball player! More powerful than the disapproval of your peer group! Longer than the average school bus! Able to look into second-story windows without straining itself!"|
"We're all individuals!"
The perils of dinosaur size estimates are fairly simple to enumerate. Let's begin with the subjects being observed. Most dinosaurs are known from the remains of a single individual. In virtually all cases, that individual's skeleton is incomplete, so some improvisation with (hopefully) related animals is required if you want to fill in the gaps. Say you've got a best-case scenario, where the skeleton is basically complete and articulated. You are now equipped to make intelligent statements about the size of...one individual. There are a number of important parameters that you can't take into account:
- How has crushing and deformation distorted the specimen?
- How old was the individual?
- What sex was the individual, and is that important for dimensions?
- Was this individual normally proportioned? Was it unusually large or small? Did it have any conditions that affected its size?
- Did it belong to a species that had different sizes in different geographic areas?
- Did its species change size over the time it existed?
- Did its species have significant nonbony tissues or other non-fossilized characteristics that affected its size? For example, was there a lot of cartilage? Were there thick intervertebral discs? Did it have a lot of air sacs that would have made it lighter? How about its muscles and fat deposits? How much weight would feathers add?
If you have multiple individuals, many of these problems still hold, but you can at least start to address some of them. For example, typical proportions will start to come into focus, and alterations from crushing and deformation will be more obvious.
Let's say you've somehow stumbled onto a find that would make even the coldest-hearted paleontologist weep. You've got 500 complete, articulated skeletons of Tyrannosaurus rex in a small area, and you know they all died at the same time because each one is holding a ticket, fashioned from an ankylosaur scute, with the same date on it. Aside from the fact that everyone at the next Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting will either want to be your best friend or kill you out of jealousy, you now have a sample size that will allow you to do some interesting things statistically (as long as you remember that the answers apply to the tyrannosaurs of this time and place). Inevitably, someone is going to want to know the biggest/smallest/average. What is the best way to answer this?
Measuring a whole Tyrannosaurus is an interesting conceptual problem. If you want to get the length, you quickly run into the realization that you are dealing with something that is not a straight line. How do you take into account the natural curves of the body? In various reptiles and amphibians, a length known as "snout to vent" is often used, from the tip of the snout to the opening of the versatile cloaca; the idea is to exclude the tail, which is variable and often lost and regrown. Dinosaurs are not as convenient; the problem is not so much the tail but the neck and anterior torso, which are often strongly curved (see for example hadrosaurs and stegosaurs). Going along the curve of certain dinosaurs will lead to greater lengths than the animal's "effective" length (which is affected by choices in reconstruction). Despite this rather obvious issue, it is rare that anyone explains how exactly they measured when they tell you that, say, their new pachycephalosaurid Curleyia howardi was 2.5 meters long. Is that along the curve, which is reasonably simple albeit anatomically impossible to actually attain, or something else? If you want to get the mass, well, you have your choice of formulas for estimation, all of which have their strong points, biases, and flaws (and there's certainly no harm in using multiple methods). The important thing, again, is to say how you did it.
Height is not a particularly useful dimension for dinosaurs, and has receded into the same place where they keep the dinosaurs with the "tailed scaly human" posture. Dinosaurs were hindlimb dominant, so shoulder height isn't relevant for most. The hindlimbs of most were permanently flexed, so you run into the "straight line" problem again if you try to get at hip height. Head height runs into a multitude of problems, from which part of the head is considered the benchmark, to the posture of the limbs and neck, to the fact that many dinosaurs had low heads but big bodies (armored dinosaurs especially). Oddly, the more you get into the question of overall linear dimensions, the more it seems like dinosaurs didn't "want" to be measured, at least not with any simple straight lines.
Say you've done a great job estimating size. You send your estimates off into the world. Immediately they become used as monolithic figures for the entire species, over its entire time of existence, over its entire geographic range, for both sexes and all individuals, as if every individual of that species or genus came standard-issue and produced to exacting manufacturing standards, like a plastic toy. Then your numbers will be abandoned once someone comes up with a more pleasing (read: larger) estimate.