| 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: |
| I'm skeptical about the weight of amphicoelias | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 31 2012, 09:02 AM (13,565 Views) | |
| Godzillasaurus | Jul 31 2012, 09:02 AM Post #1 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Though amphicoelias was very large, the fact that it was a diplodocid is making me skeptical about its weight. Diplodocids were very slender and lightly built for sauropod standards, being longer, though lighter than brachiosaurs and titanosaurs. Most of the candidates for the "world's largest dinosaur" are dinosaurs like Argentinosaurus, puertasaurus, and bruhathkaysaurus, all of which were titanosaurs. Amphicoelias is another candidate. However, it was a diplodocid. When you look at size comparisons with other sauropods, it looks like a human with a bunch of mice surrounding it. IT LOOKS FRICKIN HUGE! Another large diplodocid, supersaurus, weighed in at only 35-40 tons. Amphicoelias was estimated to have weighed a whopping 122 tons! That is assuming the proportions were correct. Something isn't right here. It doesn't make sense that the diplodocids, which were slender and lightly-built for sauropod standards, would have the world's heaviest dinosaur (other than bruhathkaysaurus) on their side. Amphicoelias makes titanosaurs look like wimps. That is, if it wasn't much smaller, and/or if it even existed. |
![]() |
|
| linnaeus1758 | Jul 31 2012, 09:06 AM Post #2 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't trust, there is very little evidence about this dinosaur. |
![]() |
|
| Admantus | Jul 31 2012, 10:11 AM Post #3 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In fact, the original type specimen was apparently destroyed during a storm. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Jul 31 2012, 10:51 AM Post #4 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I just did some math to determine whether or not amphicoelias size is accurate. It's all about proportions. Let's take the length of a diplodocus (about 80 feet), and take the maximum weight (about 17 tons). Now, let's try and balloon that into a larger size. 80X2=160 feet 17X2=35 tons. Then, add the extra 40 feet. 160+40=200 feet (the max length for amphicoelias). 17/2=about 9 tons. |
![]() |
|
| Carcharadon | Jul 31 2012, 11:02 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Shark Toothed Reptile
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We only have so little remains of Amphicoelias, so there is not much evidence. But the vertebra found was larger than any other vertebrae of any other land animal that ever lived |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Jul 31 2012, 11:29 AM Post #6 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The evidence was destroyed. On top of that, the proportions are way off. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Jul 31 2012, 11:53 AM Post #7 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I also read an article just now that described that amphicoelias was only 78 tons. http://svpow.com/2010/02/19/how-big-was-amphicoelias-fragillimus-i-mean-really/ I don't know if this is a good source, but the author sure got a point across. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jul 31 2012, 01:42 PM Post #8 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You only scaled 1 dimension, Amphicoelias is 3-dimensional, you forgot to scale height and width as well |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jul 31 2012, 02:15 PM Post #9 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
the formula looks like this: Al = Amphicoelias' length Dl = Diplodocus' length Amphicoelias' mass = Diplodocus' mass*((Al/Dl)3) Edited by SpinoInWonderland, Jul 31 2012, 02:15 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jul 31 2012, 02:17 PM Post #10 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Supersaurus was nowhere near the size of Amphicoelias |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jul 31 2012, 06:54 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Really??? I tought it are only 108t. Scaling up from a 10t Diplodcus, you get 111 t. Their Torsos are short, but quite fat. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Jul 31 2012, 10:54 PM Post #12 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's my point. Amphicoelias was too heavy for the proportions of diplodocids. If amphicoelias was an apatosaurine, it would be about 110 tons. But it wasn't. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Jul 31 2012, 11:00 PM Post #13 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, past estimates weighed in at 122 tons. I know that it was a very long animal, but seismosaurus, a seemingly heavy diplodocid, only tipped the scales at about 30-50 tons. Even though seismosaurus is a species of diplodocus, some ignore the fact that it was a diplodocid, and weigh it up at about 80-100 tons. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Jul 31 2012, 11:03 PM Post #14 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Think about it guys, diplodocids were the longest dinosaurs that ever lived, maybe even the longest animals that ever lived. However, they were very light, with 85 footers reaching only about 20 tons. Apatosaurines, however, were much more robust. One apatosaurus could weigh as much as 3-4 elephants! Amphicoelias was not an apatosaurine, thus slimming it down. Even though it was about 200 feet long, it still couldn't have been as heavy as 122 tons, knowing the proportions of diplodocids. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jul 31 2012, 11:11 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
However, the Torso is short, but quite strong built, keep that in mind. The estimates for Seismosaurus are very exaggerated, in this case I agree with you, but Seismosaurus had quite a long torso for Diplodocus standarts, so you shouldn't judge it because of it's relationships:![]() We don't know in which case Amphicoelias is related to Diplodocus, maybe it had a longer Torso but a shorter tail, the fossils are lost, on any reconstruction, it's just an upscaled Diplodocus, with exact the same propotions, because we have no fssils, only drawings from a few fossils. Also, if you scale up a 16t Diplodocus(that's it's higher estimate)to the size of Amphicoelias, you get 177t. Good that's probably exaggerated, I don't think that the 16t figure is accurate, however I doubt Amphicoelias was lighter than 110t, because if it had the same propotions as A 10t Diplodocus(this figure is widely accepted), it would weigh 111t. You can calculate it on your own, if you don't trust me. However, I don't really believe in 122t, but it doesn't look too liberal to me, because it's qute close to the upscaling from diplodocus and bigger animals are usually stronger built. |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate & discussion of dinosaur related topics. · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
9:36 AM Jul 11
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)


![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






9:36 AM Jul 11