Archaeologica.org

Posted: **Fri May 23, 2008 7:18 pm**

This article is yet another illustration of the weaknesses of theorizing, and how it can lead you completely up the garden path.

Tuesday, 20 May 2008

Biggest rodent 'shrinks in size'

The animal is still the largest rodent ever discovered
The largest rodent ever recorded might not have been as monstrous as was first suggested, a scientist has claimed.
A fossil skull belonging to the rodent Josephoartigasia monesi was uncovered in Uruguay, where the beast roamed 2-4 million years ago.
It was first thought to have weighed a whopping [...]

Sorry, but estimates between 468kg and 2,586kg are bit too liberal to take seriously.

Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7408743.stm

Posted: **Fri May 23, 2008 8:28 pm**

but estimates between 468kg and 2,586kg

A little like Bush guessing about the budget deficits he's run up.

Posted: **Sat May 24, 2008 11:56 am**

So what was used to arrive at the lower figure other than theory?

Posted: **Sat May 24, 2008 12:28 pm**

Is it just the teeth shape the determines if an animal is a rodent.
They are all "gnawers/"
Ones this size would need a lot of vegetation to gnaw.

Posted: **Sat May 24, 2008 12:34 pm**

The Dinos were bigger.

Posted: **Sat May 24, 2008 1:02 pm**

So was their poop.

Archaeologica.org

Guesswork

Guesswork