That rhino ancestor, that’s a 44 ton land mammal… I had no idea that was possible. Truly fascinating.
And that’s assuming that the animal isn’t “chonkier” than the fossils demand. We generally underestimate the weight of prehistoric species because the bones don’t provide sufficient proof that the creature had extra fat or muscle tissue. So any size larger than the minimum the bones could suggest is speculative. - But that doesn’t mean they weren’t larger, we just can’t assert that they were.
That rhino ancestor, that’s a 44 ton land mammal… I had no idea that was possible. Truly fascinating.
And that’s assuming that the animal isn’t “chonkier” than the fossils demand. We generally underestimate the weight of prehistoric species because the bones don’t provide sufficient proof that the creature had extra fat or muscle tissue. So any size larger than the minimum the bones could suggest is speculative. - But that doesn’t mean they weren’t larger, we just can’t assert that they were.