3 ms·
Yes, 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 leviath
by davidw 5y ago
Yes, 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.