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
Shoulder height, body mass and shape of proboscideans; Larramendi, A. (2015). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 60. doi:10.4202/app.00136.2014.
Topic Started: Aug 2 2016, 02:58 PM (1,384 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Journal Reference:
Larramendi, A. (2015). "Shoulder height, body mass and shape of proboscideans" (PDF). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 60. doi:10.4202/app.00136.2014.

Abstract
In recent decades there has been a growing interest in proboscideans’ body size, given that mass is highly correlated with biological functions. Different allometric equations have been proposed in the recent decades to estimate their body masses, based on a large number of living examples. However, the results obtained by these formulae are not accurate because extinct animals often had different body proportions and some were outside the size range of extant samples. Here the body mass of a large number of extinct proboscideans has been calculated by the Graphic Double Integration volumetric method which is based on technical restorations from graphical reconstructions of fossils employing photos, measurements and comparative anatomy of extant forms. The method has been tested on extant elephants with highly accurate results. The reconstructions necessary to apply this method give important information such as body proportions. On the other hand, equations to calculate the skeletal shoulder height have been developed, with a large number of published shoulder heights being recalculated. From the shoulder heights, several equations were created to find out the body mass of a series of extant and extinct species. A few of the largest proboscideans, namely Mammut borsoni and Palaeoloxodon namadicus, were found out to have reached and surpassed the body size of the largest indricotheres. Bearing this in mind, the largest land mammal that ever existed seems to be within the order of Proboscidea, contrary to previous understanding.

Attached to this post:
Attached File Shoulder_Height__Body_Mass_and_Shape_of_Proboscideans.pdf (2 MB)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nergigante
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Awesome! Looks likes the elephants are indeed the largest land mammals, Palaeoloxodon namadicus looks more formidable than paracetherium with those large straight tusks IMO, and being larger than the largest paracetherium species and weighting bigger than almost 4 african elephants is just truly fantastic.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Edited by Nergigante, Aug 7 2016, 04:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gyirin
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
22 tons???!?!?!?!? No way!!!! What was its predator?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nergigante
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Someone in devianart named SameerPrehistorica (someone who makes size comparisons of animals) said that M.Borsoni could have maybe weighted more because the fact that 2 of it's specimens are not fully grown with the weight estimate of 18 + tonnes.
Edited by Nergigante, Aug 7 2016, 05:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gyirin
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Heavier than 22 tons? Starting to make sense why they are gone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mammuthus
Member Avatar
Proboscidean Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
In Rhino Kings picture of 'The Largest Land Mammals in History' were is Deinotherium?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gyirin
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
No its Palaeoloxodon namadicus. Apparently its 22 tons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mammuthus
Member Avatar
Proboscidean Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Gyirin
Aug 7 2016, 07:12 PM
No its Palaeoloxodon namadicus. Apparently its 22 tons.
22 tons is too much for Palaeoloxodon. I'd say 16-17 Tons
Edited by Mammuthus, Aug 7 2016, 09:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Gyirin
Aug 7 2016, 05:01 PM
22 tons???!?!?!?!? No way!!!! What was its predator?
It probably had no predators as an adult given its sheer size.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mammuthus
Member Avatar
Proboscidean Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Gyirin
Aug 7 2016, 05:01 PM
22 tons???!?!?!?!? No way!!!! What was its predator?
The only threat for males would be other males
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
A bad joke doesn't get funnier by repeating it.

Interesting to see that Elephas isn't really bulkier at the same shoulder height than Loxodonta.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Paper & PDF Share · Next Topic »
Add Reply