3 ms·
you left out the part of the quote that gives it context. "compared to most animals that lived in the seas at that time, most of which barely reached the size o
by NelsonMinar 5y ago
you left out the part of the quote that gives it context. "compared to most animals that lived in the seas at that time, most of which barely reached the size of a pinky finger."
- davidw 5y agoYes, but with the headline and the guy talking 'massive'... they could have included a 'relative to' or something? I was expecting some kind of deep sea leviathan.
- isk517 5y ago'Dog-sized animal species discovered...' gets a lot less clicks.
- Fricken 5y agoThe relation was made in the headline. It stands to reason that a massive half billion year old animal would be massive relative to other animals from a half billion years ago.
- Dylan16807 5y agoDoes the average person have a good sense of how big animals were 500 million years ago vs. 250-300 million years ago? The latter of which was quite big, and any 'massive' from there on would be fitting by modern standards.
- stan_rogers 5y agoThe average interested person would have, yes. That would include anybody who's watched any of the relevant PBS Nova programming, or any of David Attenborough's work, etc. - you don't need to have kept your head in the journals to be informed at that level.