|
Replies:
|
|
Thalassophoneus
|
Nov 24 2015, 04:47 AM
Post #151
|
- Posts:
- 5,930
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2,617
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Admantus
- Jul 31 2012, 10:11 AM
In fact, the original type specimen was apparently destroyed during a storm. That was Bruhathkayosaurus. Amphicoelias Fragillimus is believed to have been shattered cause it was fragille, like how its name says.
- Carcharadon
- Jul 31 2012, 11:02 AM
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 Cope described its bones as astonishingly large and since the bones have been destroyed we are lucky to have this picture and original script. Recent studies suggest that even the smallest estimates of its length would place it above almost any other dinosaur.
- SpinoInWonderland
- Jul 31 2012, 01:42 PM
- Godzillaman
- Jul 31 2012, 10:51 AM
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. You only scaled 1 dimension, Amphicoelias is 3-dimensional, you forgot to scale height and width as well Many months ago I tried to estimate its weight by scaling up Diplodocus and I think I got around 111 tons.
I use this scaling up and scaling down method a lot when I make my own fact sheets about dinosaurs.
- SpinoInWonderland
- Aug 1 2012, 01:02 AM
let me get this straight...
First, Godzillaman, Seismosaurus is NOT a valid genus anymore, it's Diplodocus hallorum, which did NOT reach 170 feet, but rather 110 feet, or 33 meters. Stop calling D. hallorum Seismosaurus, or you may just as well refer to Apatosaurus exclesus as Brontosaurus.
Second, Godzillaman is a huge Argentinosaurus fanboy, he just can't accept that Jurassic sauropods reached larger sizes.
Third, If a 25-meter Diplodocus had a mass of 11.5 tonnes(a conservative estimate, 15 tonnes is more likely), then a 60-meter Amphicoelias would have a mass of about 158.976 tonnes. Do the math and you'll se- wait, none of you would understand so I'll do it instead:
Al = Amphicoelias' length Dl = Diplodocus' length
Amphicoelias' mass = Diplodocus' mass * ( ( Al / Dl )3 )
11.5 * ( (60 / 25)3 )
11.5 * ( (2.4)3 )
11.5 * (13.824) = 158.976 tonnes
Fourth, The link that Godzillaman posted was about a hypothetical 50-meter individual, and was actually meant to be a lower bound.
And last but not the least, if Amphicoelias was simply a scaled-up Diplodocus, the square-cube law would make it unable to support itself, so it is more likely that Amphicoelias wasn'y just a scaled-up Diplodocus, but a scaled-up Diplodocus on steroids, which in that case, it would have an even greater mass.
If Amphicoelias was an apatosaurine, it would be impossibly heavy, and would exceed 300+ tonnes.
With all those in mind, Amphicoelias is larger than Godzillaman's beloved titanosaurs
Seriously, Argentinosaurus is becoming the sauropod version of Tyrannosaurus, people are overrating it and downplaying anything that challenges or beats it in size and power.
- Quote:
-
or you may just as well refer to Apatosaurus exclesus as Brontosaurus
Oh, the irony! A few months after you posted this A. Excelsus was reasigned to the genus Brontosaurus, along with two more species!
- SpinoInWonderland
- Aug 1 2012, 01:02 AM
let me get this straight...
First, Godzillaman, Seismosaurus is NOT a valid genus anymore, it's Diplodocus hallorum, which did NOT reach 170 feet, but rather 110 feet, or 33 meters. Stop calling D. hallorum Seismosaurus, or you may just as well refer to Apatosaurus exclesus as Brontosaurus.
Second, Godzillaman is a huge Argentinosaurus fanboy, he just can't accept that Jurassic sauropods reached larger sizes.
Third, If a 25-meter Diplodocus had a mass of 11.5 tonnes(a conservative estimate, 15 tonnes is more likely), then a 60-meter Amphicoelias would have a mass of about 158.976 tonnes. Do the math and you'll se- wait, none of you would understand so I'll do it instead:
Al = Amphicoelias' length Dl = Diplodocus' length
Amphicoelias' mass = Diplodocus' mass * ( ( Al / Dl )3 )
11.5 * ( (60 / 25)3 )
11.5 * ( (2.4)3 )
11.5 * (13.824) = 158.976 tonnes
Fourth, The link that Godzillaman posted was about a hypothetical 50-meter individual, and was actually meant to be a lower bound.
And last but not the least, if Amphicoelias was simply a scaled-up Diplodocus, the square-cube law would make it unable to support itself, so it is more likely that Amphicoelias wasn'y just a scaled-up Diplodocus, but a scaled-up Diplodocus on steroids, which in that case, it would have an even greater mass.
If Amphicoelias was an apatosaurine, it would be impossibly heavy, and would exceed 300+ tonnes.
With all those in mind, Amphicoelias is larger than Godzillaman's beloved titanosaurs
Seriously, Argentinosaurus is becoming the sauropod version of Tyrannosaurus, people are overrating it and downplaying anything that challenges or beats it in size and power. I amde my own estiamtions using Diplodocus Carnegii. As you can see on the thread "your dinosaur art", where I have posted my own fact sheet (something more than art, scientific art), I assumed Diplodocus Carnegii measured 27 m. long and weighted 16 tons. By scaling up to the length of Amphicoelias I got a weight of about 175 tons, which I believe is too much.
On the same thread, right below my sheet of Diplodocus, I have posted A. Altus which I made lighter in structure. I gave a weight of 11 tons for A. Altus which I got by scalling down A. Fragillimus. My method might sound quite confusing and stupid but I believe it is pretty reasonable. As you can probably see I'm in the mood of necroposting.
- Godzillasaurus
- Jul 31 2012, 11:03 PM
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. The weight you get by scalling up a diplodocine to the length of Amphicoelias is much MUCH closer to 122 t. than the weight you would get by doing the same with an apatosaurine.
- Godzillasaurus
- Aug 1 2012, 01:18 AM
Did amphicoelias even exist? There was very little evidence, just like bruhathkaysaurus. Judging from the photo and script that we ahve from Cope I would say it did exist. I don't know what exactly was it but what everyone, including professional paleontologists, says is that no matter what it was it was enormous.
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 1 2012, 01:18 AM
@brolyeuphyfusion
You don't need to call anybody a fanboy. Also 10t seems more likely for a Diplodocus((That's what I mostly read), it's Torso is VERY short. Also, I don't think that Jurassic Sauropods were the biggest, I still think Puertasaurus earned the title of the biggest Sauropod, 150t seem accurate for a Sauropod of that size. It might be 20m shorter than Amphicoelias, but half of Amphicoelias lengh goes on the extremely long tail. Please look at the size scale in the Diplodocus vs. Triceratops therad! I don't think a Puertasaurus would reach such weight, even if it was 40 m. long like previously assumed (now it is around 30-35 m. long). However it is really probable that this specific sauropod could surpass 100 tons in mass, as it had an extremely wide rib cage and also wide neck.
- Godzillasaurus
- Aug 1 2012, 01:23 AM
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 1 2012, 01:21 AM
- Godzillaman
- Aug 1 2012, 01:19 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Why it's too heavy, they have quite strong legs(look at those of Brontomerus for example, they could support a heigh weight).
Some say that sauropods maybe only grew to about 120-130 tons at most. Assuming Bruhathkayosaurus weighted 139 tons at maximum, it is the only even poorly known sauropod that surpasses this even by a little. Off course I don't think that what people call "animal upper size limit" is really that low.
- Godzillasaurus
- Aug 1 2012, 01:28 AM
Let's see. It's philosophy.
There have been discovered multiple species of sauropods growing up to over 30 m. long. Argentinosaurus, Futalognkosaurus, Supersaurus, Mamenchisaurus, the unnamed Patagonian 2014 titanosaur and several others. So someone says:
"What if we haven't discovered the longest dinosaurs ever existed? What if there were even bigger dinosaurs? Dinosaurs were millions in population and we have found few. It can't be that we have found the largest ones and any others we will find we will smaller."
So someone else replies:
"Maybe. But until we find bigger dinosaurs we will keep assuming those are the largest ones."
So it looks like we have found larger ones. We have found some maximum sized ones. Amphicoelias, Bruhathkayosaurus and several trackmakers.
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 1 2012, 01:35 AM
- Godzillaman
- Aug 1 2012, 01:32 AM
- theropod
- Aug 1 2012, 01:30 AM
But it is often proposed that amphicoelias was even heavier.
I know, especially by YT morons: http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=V0gXjZ9yGpA (Posts by MsMariosonic) I don't see the logic. Well, judging from the fact that Puertasaurus was 35 m. long while Amphicoelias was 60 m. long, I would say that such creature would off course be heavier, even with a diplodocine body structure.
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 1 2012, 05:33 AM
Are the 58m even accurate? According to the german wikipedia, it also exist estimates of 37m and 50t. Gregory S. Paul estimated between 40-60 m., which would give a huge size difference. Ken Carpenter estimated it at 58 m. All paleontologists agree that if the bones were like how they were described by Cope, then this creature would be gigantic anyway. I believe this is convincing enough. I'm quoting all of you guys! Mantrid is here and he will (have intercourse with) all of you!
- Godzillasaurus
- Aug 1 2012, 05:34 AM
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 1 2012, 04:07 AM
Dude that's because it was MUCH bigger than the others, it is believed to reach 190 feet, a HUGE difference. It was the only one who could exceed 100t, but this doesn't change the calculations. Scaling up from a 50t/150 ft D. hallorum, you get a 101t/190 ft Amphicoelias.
BTW D. hallorum has been debunked to be only 108 ft long, 150 ft were just hype.
I know. The whole reason why it was much bigger is my question. why was it so much bigger than all of its closest relatives? Why is the Blue Whale so much bigger than even the Fin Whale?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphicoelias#Paleobiology
- theropod
- Aug 1 2012, 06:20 AM
I doubt that we have ANY evidence for something definitely more massive. Of course you can make a very liberal estimate for amphicoelias and claim it to be larger, but still nobody knows whether it existed, and one could do the same with Puertasaurus.
IF bruhatkayosaurus had existed, it could have been larger, depending on the sauropod we take as a reference for extrapolating size (Puertasaurus 40m estimate seems to be the upper size, while bruh being the same size bases on a low figure for Argentinosaurus), but as it probably didn´t, that has no importance.
To complete this, my largest sauropods at the moment:
:::::::::Puertasaurus (40+m, adding cartilage, 170+t) ::::::::Parabrontopus/Breviparopus/Brachiosaurus or whatever this all the time occuring huge brachiosaurs are (40+m, adding cartilage, 150+t) :::::::Amphicoelias (60+m adding cartilage, 120+t) ::::::Turiasaurus (35-40m?, what I have seen of it doesn´t seem quite as huge as Puertasaurus and the others, but it´s size figures are still enourmous, 120+t) :::::Argentinosaurus (30, maybe 35m, 100+t, that of course only at the upper estimate)
- Quote:
-
:::::::::Puertasaurus (40+m, adding cartilage, 170+t) ::::::::Parabrontopus/Breviparopus/Brachiosaurus or whatever this all the time occuring huge brachiosaurs are (40+m, adding cartilage, 150+t) :::::::Amphicoelias (60+m adding cartilage, 120+t) ::::::Turiasaurus (35-40m?, what I have seen of it doesn´t seem quite as huge as Puertasaurus and the others, but it´s size figures are still enourmous, 120+t) :::::Argentinosaurus (30, maybe 35m, 100+t, that of course only at the upper estimate)
I agree with all of them except Puertasaurus. Mainly becuase 40 m. might be outdated and 40+ m. never existed for it.
At this point I would like to say that I believe the Chinese titanosaurs Huanghetitan Ruyangensis and, possibly, Ruyangosaurus Giganteus might also have surpassed 100 t. I say this judging from the body part size proportions. For exaple if the following size comparison is accurate, then Huanghetitan had a body equal in size to that of Amphicoelias Fragillimus.

- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 1 2012, 06:28 AM
Xinghesaurus was much smaller than said here, if I'm not wrong. I say this judging from what Brolyeupfusion (SpinoInWonderland) wrote below his latest artwork of Xinghesaurus.
The dinosaur that is mentioned in this page and really dragged my eye towards there was the Broome Sandstone trackmaker. This dinosaur is probably what inspired me to sign into Carnivora. During my first days I was debating about it with passion and I used the footprints to give a length estimate of around 70 m. or more and a maximum size stimate of over 400 tons . Good times! While my current estimations aren't that big I still believe that it is a candidate for the largest dinosaur ever record (if not largest animal ever record).
- SpinoInWonderland
- Aug 1 2012, 03:52 PM
- theropod
- Aug 1 2012, 05:56 AM
- Godzillaman
-
Maybe we should just live with that fact that puertasaurus was the largest dinosaur, knowing how bruhathkaysaurus, like amphicoelias, might be all about hype.
I already live with that fact. It seems more likely to exist, and even if they all existed it probably outweighed Amphicoelias fragillimus. No it didn't, the most liberal mass estimate for Puertasaurus is 110 tonnes, and that's from Paleo-King's restoration.
Why are cretaceous sauropods so overatted? I could write a 999,999 page essay on why Jurassic sauropods should be the largest I don't know if Jurassic sauropods in general were really larger than Cretaceous ones. Jurassic had light diplodocids and Amphicoelias while Cretaceous had titanosaurs and Bruhathkayosaurus. Jurassic had Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan and Cretaceous had Sauroposeidon and Abydosaurus. Jurassic had Mamenchisaurus and Cretaceous had... nothing like it. Mamenchisaurids were unique.
- Godzillasaurus
- Aug 1 2012, 10:40 PM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 1 2012, 04:04 PM
- Godzillaman
- Aug 1 2012, 01:28 AM
Paleo King says that Puertasaurus has a mass of 110 tonnes, so the link you posted, does not support your side, Godzillaman.
Well he clearly stated that puertasaurus was a much more heavily-built animal. I'm sorry, but puertasaurus might have been heavier than amphicoelias. I would like to repeat. A 35 m. long dinsoaur wouldn't probably easily approach or exceed a titan (or hekatonkeir, as I call it) like Amphicoelias. The unusually heavy structure of Puertasaurus is the only reason why it might have surpassed 100 t. in weight, exceeding its 40 m. long relative, Argentinosaurus.
- Godzillasaurus
- Aug 1 2012, 10:45 PM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 1 2012, 06:38 PM
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 1 2012, 06:16 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Jurassic sauropods have virtually no competitors, but Cretaceous sauropods face heavy competition from ornithopods. The abundance of huge sauropods in the Jurassic would force theropods to evolve larger sizes, which causes the sauropods to grow even larger to avoid predation, thus causing an evolutionary size growth loop in the Jurassic.
Also, the low-nutrient food in the Jurassic period necessitated a larger digestive tract, so the sauropods that lived in that time needed to grow larger to accommodate a larger digestive system. The Cretaceous period did not necessitate such digestive systems.
Most Jurassic theropods hunted in packs, which needed even larger size to deter or beat them.
Many Cretaceous sauropods had armor, therefore not needing to be so large, but Jurassic sauropods did not, so they needed greater size to compensate.
Why did only a few contenders for the largest dinosaur exist in the Jurassic? Most of them lived in the Cretaceous. Since during the Cretaceous, they had to face predators like carcharodontosaurus and giganotosaurus, which were much larger than any Jurassic predator. I think Mamenchisaurus and relatives, like Hudiesaurus and Xinjiangtitan, might have been the second largest dinosaurs after Amphicoelias. Mamenchisaurus had a 18 m. long neck and this would require a large and powerful body and a short but thick tail to support it. Some estimates of its weight place it at 80 t.
|
|
|
| |
|
Spartan
|
Nov 24 2015, 05:46 AM
Post #152
|
- Posts:
- 1,948
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2,550
- Joined:
- Jun 4, 2014
|
Edit edit edit edit edit
Edited by Spartan, Dec 24 2015, 08:40 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Thalassophoneus
|
Nov 24 2015, 05:47 AM
Post #153
|
- Posts:
- 5,930
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2,617
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
My God! I'm being watched!
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 2 2012, 12:49 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 1 2012, 11:06 PM
Das Monster von Minden says hi...
Evidence for Das Monster von Minden, not just being a fisher? OK, why do people consider all unusually large theropods just fishers? First Spinosaurus and now this... whatever it was?
- Godzillasaurus
- Aug 2 2012, 01:21 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 2 2012, 01:14 AM
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 2 2012, 01:12 AM
But than we could be also talking about undiscovered mega killers in the Cretaceous. But it's more likely that the undiscovered Jurassic mega-killers were larger, the abundance of huge prey in the Jurassic points towards it. Do you need to be super-massive if you ate ornithopods?
There are still alot of very large sauropods in the Cretaceous. There was Argentinosaurus, puertasaurus, ruyangosaurus, and possibly bruhathkaysaurus.
- Quote:
-
and possibly bruhathkaysaurus
Sorry. Didn't you say that Bruhathkayosaurus is poorly described like Amphicoelias?
- SpinoInWonderland
- Aug 2 2012, 01:25 AM
- Godzillaman
- Aug 2 2012, 01:21 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 2 2012, 01:14 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deepBut it's more likely that the undiscovered Jurassic mega-killers were larger, the abundance of huge prey in the Jurassic points towards it. Do you need to be super-massive if you ate ornithopods?
There are still alot of very large sauropods in the Cretaceous. There was Argentinosaurus, puertasaurus, ruyangosaurus, and possibly bruhathkaysaurus. Argentinosaurus is not a challenge to Amphicoelias, and Bruhathkayosaurus is a hoax, Ruyangosaurus is Argentinosaurus sized, so that leaves just Puertasaurus...
- Quote:
-
Ruyangosaurus is Argentinosaurus sized
Read above what I wrote about Ruyangosaurus and Huanghetitan. Allow me to try and solve this.
Here's what I believe guys. There's enough evidence to suggest that Amphicoelias could reach a maximum length of 60 m. and even though it was lightly built, its gigantic size gave it a huge weight, reaching up to 122 t. which sound reasonable creature. The only known dinosaur that could surpass it was Bruhathkayosaurus. Some other dinosaurs that MIGHT have been larger are the Broome trackmaker and Parabrontopodus, although these ones are poorly known. Some dinosaurs that might have approached Amphicoelias in weight were Ruyangosaurus, Huanghetitan and Puertasaurus. Other dinosaurs, approaching these ones, were Argentinosaurus, Mamenchisaurus and Futalognkosaurus.
OK?
|
|
|
| |
|
Spartan
|
Nov 24 2015, 06:14 AM
Post #154
|
- Posts:
- 1,948
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2,550
- Joined:
- Jun 4, 2014
|
- Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 05:47 AM
OK? No.
i need more words five
|
|
|
| |
|
Thalassophoneus
|
Nov 24 2015, 06:25 AM
Post #155
|
- Posts:
- 5,930
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2,617
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Spartan
- Nov 24 2015, 06:14 AM
- Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 05:47 AM
OK?
No. i need more words five GET OUT OF HERE!!!
I'm joking. I think that my points are quite reasonable. I'm really proud of myself! I love me!
- theropod
- Aug 3 2012, 08:59 PM
Actually I´m just talking about puertasaurus, which was huge and which didn´t live in a cold enviroment. Uuuuuuuuuh... Puertasaurus lived in Patagonia. Was it warmer back then? I'm quoting everyone! I don't stop! I rule! Aaaaaaaaaaaand i have turned myself into an attraction.
|
|
|
| |
|
Ausar
|
Nov 24 2015, 06:36 AM
Post #156
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
- Posts:
- 8,771
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #771
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
|
- Mantrid
-
Oh, the irony! A few months after you posted this A. Excelsus was reasigned to the genus Brontosaurus, along with two more species! You mean years?
|
|
|
| |
|
Thalassophoneus
|
Nov 24 2015, 06:38 AM
Post #157
|
- Posts:
- 5,930
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2,617
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Ausar
- Nov 24 2015, 06:36 AM
- Mantrid
-
Oh, the irony! A few months after you posted this A. Excelsus was reasigned to the genus Brontosaurus, along with two more species!
You mean years? Yeah, whatever. It still happened soon. I think my arguments are pretty good. I'm a huge skepticist.
|
|
|
| |
|
Ausar
|
Nov 24 2015, 06:42 AM
Post #158
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
- Posts:
- 8,771
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #771
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
|
- Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 06:38 AM
- Ausar
- Nov 24 2015, 06:36 AM
- Mantrid
-
Oh, the irony! A few months after you posted this A. Excelsus was reasigned to the genus Brontosaurus, along with two more species!
You mean years?
Yeah, whatever. It still happened soon.
I think my arguments are pretty good. I'm a huge skepticist. Eh...not that soon...
It needs at least five words.
|
|
|
| |
|
Spartan
|
Nov 24 2015, 06:49 AM
Post #159
|
- Posts:
- 1,948
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2,550
- Joined:
- Jun 4, 2014
|
Lol maybe you should really listen to your mother and go outside more often.
|
|
|
| |
|
Jinfengopteryx
|
Nov 24 2015, 07:13 AM
Post #160
|
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
- Posts:
- 12,534
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #363
- Joined:
- Jun 8, 2012
|
Just felt like I need to reply to some of Mantrid's replies to my old stuff. Note that it is hard to reply when I sometimes forgot what was on my mind while posting.- Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 04:47 AM
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 1 2012, 01:18 AM
@brolyeuphyfusion
You don't need to call anybody a fanboy. Also 10t seems more likely for a Diplodocus((That's what I mostly read), it's Torso is VERY short. Also, I don't think that Jurassic Sauropods were the biggest, I still think Puertasaurus earned the title of the biggest Sauropod, 150t seem accurate for a Sauropod of that size. It might be 20m shorter than Amphicoelias, but half of Amphicoelias lengh goes on the extremely long tail. Please look at the size scale in the Diplodocus vs. Triceratops therad!
I don't think a Puertasaurus would reach such weight, even if it was 40 m. long like previously assumed (now it is around 30-35 m. long). However it is really probable that this specific sauropod could surpass 100 tons in mass, as it had an extremely wide rib cage and also wide neck. I admit that nearly all the weight figures I posted back then were based on gut feeling, so I won't really defend them. However, if you say that a 35 m Puertasaurus weighed ~100 t, 150 t for a 40 m one hardly sound unreasonable ((40/35)3≈1.5). But as you said, 40 m for Puertasaurus lacks evidence.- Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 04:47 AM
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 1 2012, 01:35 AM
Well, judging from the fact that Puertasaurus was 35 m. long while Amphicoelias was 60 m. long, I would say that such creature would off course be heavier, even with a diplodocine body structure. These lengths are hardly "facts", but I now agree that Amphicoelias would likely be heavier under the premise that these lengths are accurate. I don't quite remember all my opinions 2-3 years ago, a lot happened and I frankly don't like to read some of my old and childish posts (like this one when I thought everyone on YouTube is a moron), but I think I even slightly later revised my opinion on the Puertasaurus vs Amphicoelias weight.- Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 04:47 AM
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 1 2012, 05:33 AM
Are the 58m even accurate? According to the german wikipedia, it also exist estimates of 37m and 50t.
Gregory S. Paul estimated between 40-60 m., which would give a huge size difference. Ken Carpenter estimated it at 58 m. All paleontologists agree that if the bones were like how they were described by Cope, then this creature would be gigantic anyway. I believe this is convincing enough. I am aware of all these estimates, I was pointing out other estimates to throw them in the discussion because I felt like it was not addressed enough (but this is irrelevant, as the German Wikipedia now recanted these numbers). Moreover, it should be noted that Ken Carpenter's estimates are not free of critic responds: http://svpow.com/2010/02/19/how-big-was-amphicoelias-fragillimus-i-mean-really/ Alternative estimates of the vertebra put Amphicoelias fragilimus at around 50 m and less than 100 t (about the median of Paul's range). Though some members here defended Carpenter if I remember correctly because their own reconstructions were more similar to his one.- Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 05:47 AM
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 2 2012, 12:49 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 1 2012, 11:06 PM
Das Monster von Minden says hi...
Evidence for Das Monster von Minden, not just being a fisher?
OK, why do people consider all unusually large theropods just fishers? First Spinosaurus and now this... whatever it was? 1. "First" is wrong, I was heavily convinced that a huge part Spinosaurus' diet consisted of terrestrial dinosaurs back then. 2. I back then considered Das Monster von Minden a piscivore under the premise that the Jurassic Central Europea was a largely marine environment (supported by the huge amounts of aquatic animals found there) with a few islands that could hardly sustain large enough animals to feed a 12 m+ theropod. 3. I nowadays don't talk about the Minden Monster anymore. You don't need to know a lot about it. An allegedly theropod found in Germany that fascinated all in 2012, but the evidence for saying anything about it is absolutely pathetic, it is not even properly described.
|
|
|
| |
|
Thalassophoneus
|
Nov 24 2015, 08:03 AM
Post #161
|
- Posts:
- 5,930
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2,617
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Spartan
- Nov 24 2015, 06:49 AM
Lol maybe you should really listen to your mother and go outside more often. OK, seriously now. Get out of here.
- Jinfengopteryx
- Nov 24 2015, 07:13 AM
Just felt like I need to reply to some of Mantrid's replies to my old stuff. Note that it is hard to reply when I sometimes forgot what was on my mind while posting. - Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 04:47 AM
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 1 2012, 01:18 AM
@brolyeuphyfusion
You don't need to call anybody a fanboy. Also 10t seems more likely for a Diplodocus((That's what I mostly read), it's Torso is VERY short. Also, I don't think that Jurassic Sauropods were the biggest, I still think Puertasaurus earned the title of the biggest Sauropod, 150t seem accurate for a Sauropod of that size. It might be 20m shorter than Amphicoelias, but half of Amphicoelias lengh goes on the extremely long tail. Please look at the size scale in the Diplodocus vs. Triceratops therad!
I don't think a Puertasaurus would reach such weight, even if it was 40 m. long like previously assumed (now it is around 30-35 m. long). However it is really probable that this specific sauropod could surpass 100 tons in mass, as it had an extremely wide rib cage and also wide neck.
I admit that nearly all the weight figures I posted back then were based on gut feeling, so I won't really defend them. However, if you say that a 35 m Puertasaurus weighed ~100 t, 150 t for a 40 m one hardly sound unreasonable ((40/35) 3≈1.5). But as you said, 40 m for Puertasaurus lacks evidence. - Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 04:47 AM
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 1 2012, 01:35 AM
Well, judging from the fact that Puertasaurus was 35 m. long while Amphicoelias was 60 m. long, I would say that such creature would off course be heavier, even with a diplodocine body structure.
These lengths are hardly "facts", but I now agree that Amphicoelias would likely be heavier under the premise that these lengths are accurate. I don't quite remember all my opinions 2-3 years ago, a lot happened and I frankly don't like to read some of my old and childish posts (like this one when I thought everyone on YouTube is a moron), but I think I even slightly later revised my opinion on the Puertasaurus vs Amphicoelias weight. - Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 04:47 AM
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 1 2012, 05:33 AM
Are the 58m even accurate? According to the german wikipedia, it also exist estimates of 37m and 50t.
Gregory S. Paul estimated between 40-60 m., which would give a huge size difference. Ken Carpenter estimated it at 58 m. All paleontologists agree that if the bones were like how they were described by Cope, then this creature would be gigantic anyway. I believe this is convincing enough.
I am aware of all these estimates, I was pointing out other estimates to throw them in the discussion because I felt like it was not addressed enough (but this is irrelevant, as the German Wikipedia now recanted these numbers). Moreover, it should be noted that Ken Carpenter's estimates are not free of critic responds: http://svpow.com/2010/02/19/how-big-was-amphicoelias-fragillimus-i-mean-really/Alternative estimates of the vertebra put Amphicoelias fragilimus at around 50 m and less than 100 t (about the median of Paul's range). Though some members here defended Carpenter if I remember correctly because their own reconstructions were more similar to his one. - Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 05:47 AM
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 2 2012, 12:49 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
OK, why do people consider all unusually large theropods just fishers? First Spinosaurus and now this... whatever it was?
1. "First" is wrong, I was heavily convinced that a huge part Spinosaurus' diet consisted of terrestrial dinosaurs back then. 2. I back then considered Das Monster von Minden a piscivore under the premise that the Jurassic Central Europea was a largely marine environment (supported by the huge amounts of aquatic animals found there) with a few islands that could hardly sustain large enough animals to feed a 12 m+ theropod. 3. I nowadays don't talk about the Minden Monster anymore. You don't need to know a lot about it. An allegedly theropod found in Germany that fascinated all in 2012, but the evidence for saying anything about it is absolutely pathetic, it is not even properly described.
- Quote:
-
Just felt like I need to reply to some of Mantrid's replies to my old stuff. Note that it is hard to reply when I sometimes forgot what was on my mind while posting. - Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 04:47 AM
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 1 2012, 01:18 AM
@brolyeuphyfusion
You don't need to call anybody a fanboy. Also 10t seems more likely for a Diplodocus((That's what I mostly read), it's Torso is VERY short. Also, I don't think that Jurassic Sauropods were the biggest, I still think Puertasaurus earned the title of the biggest Sauropod, 150t seem accurate for a Sauropod of that size. It might be 20m shorter than Amphicoelias, but half of Amphicoelias lengh goes on the extremely long tail. Please look at the size scale in the Diplodocus vs. Triceratops therad!
I don't think a Puertasaurus would reach such weight, even if it was 40 m. long like previously assumed (now it is around 30-35 m. long). However it is really probable that this specific sauropod could surpass 100 tons in mass, as it had an extremely wide rib cage and also wide neck.
I admit that nearly all the weight figures I posted back then were based on gut feeling, so I won't really defend them. However, if you say that a 35 m Puertasaurus weighed ~100 t, 150 t for a 40 m one hardly sound unreasonable ((40/35) 3≈1.5). But as you said, 40 m for Puertasaurus lacks evidence.
I honestly think 150 t. would be extreme for Puertasaurus. Not unreasonable but extreme. This is above the average weight of a Blue Whale, which is 130 t., if I'm not wrong, and i don't think a body with a thin tail and neck and thin legs would be heavier than this giant muscular mass. Just saying. Especially if it was no more than 35 m. long.
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
Well, judging from the fact that Puertasaurus was 35 m. long while Amphicoelias was 60 m. long, I would say that such creature would off course be heavier, even with a diplodocine body structure.
These lengths are hardly "facts", but I now agree that Amphicoelias would likely be heavier under the premise that these lengths are accurate.
Well... not "facts facts" but you know. Probable. Based on evidence.
- Quote:
-
I frankly don't like to read some of my old and childish posts (like this one when I thought everyone on YouTube is a moron)
Don't worry. You are quite right.
- Quote:
-
- Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 05:47 AM
- Jinfengopteryx
- Aug 2 2012, 12:49 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
OK, why do people consider all unusually large theropods just fishers? First Spinosaurus and now this... whatever it was?
1. "First" is wrong, I was heavily convinced that a huge part Spinosaurus' diet consisted of terrestrial dinosaurs back then. 2. I back then considered Das Monster von Minden a piscivore under the premise that the Jurassic Central Europea was a largely marine environment (supported by the huge amounts of aquatic animals found there) with a few islands that could hardly sustain large enough animals to feed a 12 m+ theropod. 3. I nowadays don't talk about the Minden Monster anymore. You don't need to know a lot about it. An allegedly theropod found in Germany that fascinated all in 2012, but the evidence for saying anything about it is absolutely pathetic, it is not even properly described.
I don't really care about it. This doesn't really belong here. I was just quoting everyone.
|
|
|
| |
|
Jinfengopteryx
|
Nov 24 2015, 08:14 AM
Post #162
|
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
- Posts:
- 12,534
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #363
- Joined:
- Jun 8, 2012
|
- Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 08:03 AM
I honestly think 150 t. would be extreme for Puertasaurus. Not unreasonable but extreme. This is above the average weight of a Blue Whale, which is 130 t., if I'm not wrong, and i don't think a body with a thin tail and neck and thin legs would be heavier than this giant muscular mass. Just saying. Especially if it was no more than 35 m. long. Sure, this was for a hypothetical 40 m Puertasaurus which is in itself an extreme length. Extreme length implies extreme weight here.- Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 08:03 AM
I don't really care about it. This doesn't really belong here. I was just quoting everyone. Well, looks like you passed your challenge, so congratulation! And now you can go out.
(The last part should not be taken so seriously)
|
|
|
| |
|
Thalassophoneus
|
Nov 24 2015, 10:24 PM
Post #163
|
- Posts:
- 5,930
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2,617
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Jinfengopteryx
- Nov 24 2015, 08:14 AM
- Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 08:03 AM
I honestly think 150 t. would be extreme for Puertasaurus. Not unreasonable but extreme. This is above the average weight of a Blue Whale, which is 130 t., if I'm not wrong, and i don't think a body with a thin tail and neck and thin legs would be heavier than this giant muscular mass. Just saying. Especially if it was no more than 35 m. long.
Sure, this was for a hypothetical 40 m Puertasaurus which is in itself an extreme length. Extreme length implies extreme weight here. - Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 08:03 AM
I don't really care about it. This doesn't really belong here. I was just quoting everyone.
Well, looks like you passed your challenge, so congratulation! And now you can go out. (The last part should not be taken so seriously)
- Quote:
-
- Mantrid
- Nov 24 2015, 08:03 AM
I honestly think 150 t. would be extreme for Puertasaurus. Not unreasonable but extreme. This is above the average weight of a Blue Whale, which is 130 t., if I'm not wrong, and i don't think a body with a thin tail and neck and thin legs would be heavier than this giant muscular mass. Just saying. Especially if it was no more than 35 m. long.
Sure, this was for a hypothetical 40 m Puertasaurus which is in itself an extreme length. Extreme length implies extreme weight here.
I don't think 40 m. is an extreme length. I just think 150 t. is an extreme weight for 40 m. thus also an extreme weight for 35 m.
|
|
|
| |
|
Jinfengopteryx
|
Nov 24 2015, 11:58 PM
Post #164
|
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
- Posts:
- 12,534
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #363
- Joined:
- Jun 8, 2012
|
Well, I showed merely you that a 40 m 150 t Puertasaurus would have the the same body proportions as a 100 t 35 m Puertasaurus (which was what you suggested if I read your post correctly), due to cubic mass growth.
100 t for a 35 m Puertasaurus may be far too high though. I don't like pulling numbers out of nowhere, but given that a 35 m Argentinosaurus weighed "only" 73 t, anything above 80 t (or maybe 90, don't know how much bulkier it was) is very liberal.
|
|
|
| |
|
Thalassophoneus
|
Nov 25 2015, 04:38 AM
Post #165
|
- Posts:
- 5,930
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2,617
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Jinfengopteryx
- Nov 24 2015, 11:58 PM
Well, I showed merely you that a 40 m 150 t Puertasaurus would have the the same body proportions as a 100 t 35 m Puertasaurus (which was what you suggested if I read your post correctly), due to cubic mass growth.
100 t for a 35 m Puertasaurus may be far too high though. I don't like pulling numbers out of nowhere, but given that a 35 m Argentinosaurus weighed "only" 73 t, anything above 80 t (or maybe 90, don't know how much bulkier it was) is very liberal. I don't know. I don't say this based on anything official or some kind of calculations. I'm just thinking "Argentinosaurus was 40 m. long and 83 t. in weight while Puertasaurus was 35 m. long but had a much bulkier body, could Puertasaurus have weighted more?" I made some calculations right now and I found that a 35 m. Puertasaurus with proportions similar to those of a 40 m., 83 t. Argentinosaurus would weight less than 56 tons. So such Puertasaurus would hardy be so close to 100 t. (which means I have to correct the fact sheet I have made for Puertasaurus).
|
|
|
| |
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
|