To: NormsRevenge
The article is incorrect in one area. It states that Dakota weighed 3 1/2 tons. . . but the National Geographic site says it was 35 tons, one order of magnitude greater.
17 posted on
12/03/2007 12:07:58 AM PST by
Swordmaker
(Entered and posted entirely with my iPhone.)
To: Swordmaker
If the image shown above is accurate, the creature could not have weighed 35 tons. The 3 1/2 ton figure is probably the correct one.
22 posted on
12/03/2007 10:24:59 AM PST by
Renfield
(Turning apples into venison since 1999!)
To: Swordmaker
The article is incorrect in one area. It states that Dakota weighed 3 1/2 tons. . . but the National Geographic site says it was 35 tons, one order of magnitude greater.I think the reporter just didn't see the decimal point or someone had a typo somewhere down the line.
30 posted on
12/03/2007 12:21:00 PM PST by
VirginiaConstitutionalist
(Scary thought: Half of all people are dumber than the average person.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson