Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
What was the world's tallest dinosaur?
Topic Started: Jul 30 2014, 01:05 AM (4,833 Views)
vegetarian
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
What was the world's tallest dinosaur?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
DarkGricer
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
If we're gonna include more dubious examples, I feel Breviparopus is worth mentioning. Breviparopus is know only from a set of trackways. But they suggest a Brachiosaur that might've reached over 20 meters in height.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
DarkGricer
Mar 21 2015, 05:14 AM
If we're gonna include more dubious examples, I feel Breviparopus is worth mentioning. Breviparopus is know only from a set of trackways. But they suggest a Brachiosaur that might've reached over 20 meters in height.
The newest measurements place Breviparopus to a length of 34-37 meters which is equal to the maximum of a Sauroposeidon.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinosaurFan95
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
At hip hight, the lost species of Ampaloceiolias (spp?), at head hight, Brachiosaurus branchi, not to be confused with the slightly smaller B. altithorax.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Allosaurusatrox
Mar 21 2015, 05:39 AM
At hip hight, the lost species of Ampaloceiolias (spp?), at head hight, Brachiosaurus branchi, not to be confused with the slightly smaller B. altithorax.
First, you MURDERED the word "Amphicoelias". Second, it is Giraffatitan Brancai. And third, you are seriously telling me that Giraffatitan was taller than Sauroposeidon?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinosaurFan95
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
KaizerGoji
Apr 3 2015, 02:32 AM
Allosaurusatrox
Mar 21 2015, 05:39 AM
At hip hight, the lost species of Ampaloceiolias (spp?), at head hight, Brachiosaurus branchi, not to be confused with the slightly smaller B. altithorax.
First, you MURDERED the word "Amphicoelias". Second, it is Giraffatitan Brancai. And third, you are seriously telling me that Giraffatitan was taller than Sauroposeidon?
I consider "giraffititan" to be a junior synonym of Brachiosaurus.

I murdered no name! He was like that when I looked him up! lol

And yes, I'm believe that B. Branchi was taller than sauroposeidon. (Who we don't have enough bones to tell hight).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Allosaurusatrox
Apr 3 2015, 10:01 AM
KaizerGoji
Apr 3 2015, 02:32 AM
Allosaurusatrox
Mar 21 2015, 05:39 AM
At hip hight, the lost species of Ampaloceiolias (spp?), at head hight, Brachiosaurus branchi, not to be confused with the slightly smaller B. altithorax.
First, you MURDERED the word "Amphicoelias". Second, it is Giraffatitan Brancai. And third, you are seriously telling me that Giraffatitan was taller than Sauroposeidon?
I consider "giraffititan" to be a junior synonym of Brachiosaurus.

I murdered no name! He was like that when I looked him up! lol

And yes, I'm believe that B. Branchi was taller than sauroposeidon. (Who we don't have enough bones to tell hight).
Giraffatitan is considered a distinct species from Brachiosaurus.

If you search "Ampaloceiolas" you will get about nothing while if you search "Amphicoelias" you will get tons of serach results. It comes from the Greek words "Amphi" which means "from both sides" and "Koilos" which means "Hollow". In Greek it is pronounced "Amphikoilios".

Why do you have this habit to shrink all dinosaurs?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@allosaurusatrox: You don’t have enough bones to tell it was larger, but enough to tell it was smaller?

Clearly the four cervical vertebrae of sauroposeidon suggest something taller than G. brancai, regardless of what the rest looks like (i.e. even if all that was larger was the neck).

B. altithorax is larger than G. brancai, at least going by mass.
Edited by theropod, Apr 3 2015, 08:25 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Apr 3 2015, 08:06 PM
You don’t have enough bones to tell it was larger, but enough to tell it was smaller?

Clearly the four cervical vertebrae of sauroposeidon suggest something taller than G. brancai, regardless of what the rest looks like (i.e. even if all that was larger was the neck).

B. altithorax is larger than G. brancai, at least going by mass.
Giraffatitan Brancai also had other anatomical differences like a proportionally smaller body and a more protruding forehead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Of course.
Brachiosaurus althithorax and Giraffatitan brancai may not even be sister-taxa, meaning that if one were to include both in the same genus, one would have to do that to various other brachiosaurs.
Of course, many people working on extant animals may well be inclined to do that, but unless you consider Abydosaurus and Cedarosaurus junior synonyms of Brachiosaurus too, you should be careful doing so with Giraffatitan.


http://svpow.com/2013/01/23/and-that-ladies-and-gentlemen-is-why-you-code-brachiosaurus-and-giraffatitan-separately/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinosaurFan95
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
KaizerGoji
Apr 3 2015, 08:09 PM
theropod
Apr 3 2015, 08:06 PM
You don’t have enough bones to tell it was larger, but enough to tell it was smaller?

Clearly the four cervical vertebrae of sauroposeidon suggest something taller than G. brancai, regardless of what the rest looks like (i.e. even if all that was larger was the neck).

B. altithorax is larger than G. brancai, at least going by mass.
Giraffatitan Brancai also had other anatomical differences like a proportionally smaller body and a more protruding forehead.
Both of which fall within the normal morphological variations of a species. No two animals are copies of one another. Just look at chimps or elephants, or for a more osteological example, look at a selection of gorilla skulls, each shows a subtle (but sometimes not) variation in brow thickness, crest hight, or the prominence of the zygomatic arches. If by your logic B. branchi should be a separate species based on such subtle characters as brow hight, then H. sapiens should be divided into at least six or seven species.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Allosaurusatrox
Apr 4 2015, 04:59 AM
Both of which fall within the normal morphological variations of a species. No two animals are copies of one another. Just look at chimps or elephants, or for a more osteological example, look at a selection of gorilla skulls, each shows a subtle (but sometimes not) variation in brow thickness, crest hight, or the prominence of the zygomatic arches. If by your logic B. branchi should be a separate species based on such subtle characters as brow hight, then H. sapiens should be divided into at least six or seven species.
Taylor (2009) disagrees that they even fall within the normal morphological variations of a genus, let alone a species. Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan are not closer to each other than to a number of other brachiosaurs.

You may as well synonymise Giraffatitan and Europasaurus or Brachiosaurus and Abydosaurus. Of course that is entirely subjective, but subjectivity doesn’t mean one doesn’t have to give reasons. As I wrote, if you think all of brachiosaurs are one genus, that’s fine with me. Understandable even, from an extant point of view. May as well put all tyrannosaurids or diplodocids in one genus then, tough.

"B. branchi" is a valid species of South African frog described in 2012 based on morphological and genetic characters.→

Giraffatitan brancai is a valid species , definitely separate from Brachiosaurus althithorax, that much has never been doubted. The recent tendency is to put it in its own genus too. If you look at those subtle differences you think could be intraspecific variation, you’ll notice that they are every bit as large as those between any two brachiosaurs you could pick.
Edited by theropod, Apr 5 2015, 10:35 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Giraffatitan with Europasaurus? Seriously? There is no way the two names are synonyms!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinosaurFan95
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Apr 5 2015, 10:34 PM
Allosaurusatrox
Apr 4 2015, 04:59 AM
Both of which fall within the normal morphological variations of a species. No two animals are copies of one another. Just look at chimps or elephants, or for a more osteological example, look at a selection of gorilla skulls, each shows a subtle (but sometimes not) variation in brow thickness, crest hight, or the prominence of the zygomatic arches. If by your logic B. branchi should be a separate species based on such subtle characters as brow hight, then H. sapiens should be divided into at least six or seven species.
Taylor (2009) disagrees that they even fall within the normal morphological variations of a genus, let alone a species. Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan are not closer to each other than to a number of other brachiosaurs.

You may as well synonymise Giraffatitan and Europasaurus or Brachiosaurus and Abydosaurus. Of course that is entirely subjective, but subjectivity doesn’t mean one doesn’t have to give reasons. As I wrote, if you think all of brachiosaurs are one genus, that’s fine with me. Understandable even, from an extant point of view. May as well put all tyrannosaurids or diplodocids in one genus then, tough.

"B. branchi" is a valid species of South African frog described in 2012 based on morphological and genetic characters.→

Giraffatitan brancai is a valid species , definitely separate from Brachiosaurus althithorax, that much has never been doubted. The recent tendency is to put it in its own genus too. If you look at those subtle differences you think could be intraspecific variation, you’ll notice that they are every bit as large as those between any two brachiosaurs you could pick.
Well I guess I'm a "lumper" then. :D

Can't let a person make a simple spelling error...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The only extant example where you find such big differences between species is in reptiles, herpetologists are such lumpers that if mosasaurs were alive they'll probably be in varanus too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinosaurFan95
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
blaze
Apr 6 2015, 04:21 AM
The only extant example where you find such big differences between species is in reptiles, herpetologists are such lumpers that if mosasaurs were alive they'll probably be in varanus too.
Mammals are just as variable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate & discussion of dinosaur related topics. · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.