| 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 (13,566 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. |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Jinfengopteryx | Nov 25 2015, 05:01 AM Post #166 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh, that 40 m 83 t Argentinosaurus. I remember blaze, broly and theropod having got huge headaches because of that reconstruction and I think even the authors of the relevant paper admitted that their model was not perfect because they didn't have enough data (and they luckily did not use it in their locomotion modeling). I don't know if such an Argentinosaurus really is the best basis, but the femur based estimates aren't perfect either, so whatever. There is a reason why I nowadays don't like the length/mass debates as much as I used to… |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Nov 25 2015, 05:26 AM Post #167 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually, the authors did use that terrible reconstruction for their locomotion modelling.
|
![]() |
|
| Thalassophoneus | Nov 25 2015, 05:38 AM Post #168 |
![]()
Pelagic Killer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
All I know is that Museo Carmen Funes has a gigantic reconstruction of Argentinosaurus that contains the original material.![]() ![]() ![]() I have got to say that I like this new long necked reconstruction of Argentinosaurus that is based on Dreadnoughtus. ![]() Something irrelevant. I have made my fact sheet of Amphicoelias Fragillimus. At some point I'll probably scan all of it and post it. Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 25 2015, 05:40 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Nov 25 2015, 05:57 AM Post #169 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh, so it was mainly the little oddity in the leg musculature (or the musculature generally?) we've once talked about that was irrelevant for the locomotion? |
![]() |
|
| Thalassophoneus | Nov 26 2015, 12:10 AM Post #170 |
![]()
Pelagic Killer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm rather quite skeptical about Bruhathkayosaurus. Could a 34 m. long sauropod have weighted 139 t.? My two newest fact sheets are those of A. Fragillimus and Bruhathkayosaurus. And I had to make Bruhathkayosaurus very bulky so that it would look even equal to Amphicoelias. |
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Nov 26 2015, 12:18 AM Post #171 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why would you make a fact sheet about a tree? |
![]() |
|
| Thalassophoneus | Nov 26 2015, 01:55 AM Post #172 |
![]()
Pelagic Killer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Very funny. It needs five words This theory that the bones of Bruhathkayosaurus were tree trunks is just an assumption and it isn't based on anywhere. I don't think paleontologists would really confuse fragile chunks of calcium for petrified trees. Anyway, if Bruhathkayosaurus was 34 m. long and it had a structure similar to that of Argentinosaurus (as pictured above) then its weight wouldn't be even close to 139 t. It would have to be overweight. If you take a 44 m. long Bruhathkayosaurus with a structure similar to that of Argentinosaurus and assume Argentinosaurus was 40 m. long and weighted 83 t. then you get a weight of 110,473 t. I really start thinking Mickey Mortimer overestimated it. OK, here's the thing. I measured the following drawing on Paint. ![]() I found it to have been 30 m. long if scaled up to normal size. The tibia is 1,55 m., as the one mentioned here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruhathkayosaurus And as also mentioned here Bruhathkayosaurus had a 2 m. long tibia. So if we use this reconstruction it would give us a length of 38,7 m. for Bruhathkayosaurus. This is just a pure speculation. Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 26 2015, 02:21 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Nov 26 2015, 02:24 AM Post #173 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Correction, nearly every claim about Bruhathkayosaurus is baseless as the material is lost and very poorly described. http://paleoking.blogspot.co.at/2012/01/giant-that-never-was-all-your.html The blog is worth reading full. It explains why the work is at best amateur science and at worst fringe pseudoscience and, due to the lost material, not falsifiable/repeatable (usually required when there are breaking discoveries) anymore. As for the credibility of the relevant paleontologists: Call this an ad hominem attack or whoever you want to call it, but a many of their claims (Dravidosaurus, alleged Triassic birds) fall somewhere between debunked fraud and refuted work. |
![]() |
|
| Thalassophoneus | Nov 26 2015, 02:36 AM Post #174 |
![]()
Pelagic Killer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah. It's true that these things look more like a pile of crap rather than bones. Is there any record of Ayassami's activity after the loss of the "material"? I managed to find the page were the above reconstruction of Argentinosaurus was. I can't send you the link right now. The reconstruction is actually 28,89 m. long and it suggests a weight of 64 tons. If we assume the tibia is 1,55 m. and the tibia of Bruhathkayosaurus is 2 m. then we have a length of 37 m. and a weight of 137,5 t. Off course always assuming Bruhathkayosaurus was a real dinosaur, as widely believed. I believe that this reconstruction is a better one. Let's say that I just corrected Mickey Mortimer.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 26 2015, 02:56 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Nov 26 2015, 05:06 AM Post #175 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The skeletal you linked to is by Zach Armstrong: http://palaeozoologist.deviantart.com/art/Argentinosaurus-skeletal-359353120 |
![]() |
|
| Mirounga leonina | Nov 26 2015, 05:32 AM Post #176 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think he claimed it as his, but I am curious to what he meant by measured in paint. |
![]() |
|
| Thalassophoneus | Nov 26 2015, 06:23 AM Post #177 |
![]()
Pelagic Killer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes. That's the one. I have finished my drawing/fact sheet of Bruhathkayosaurus (I have also finished both species of Amphicoelias) and I might post them on "your dinosaur art" at some time. I made Bruhathkayosaurus 37 m. long, supporting the calculations I made above, and 139 t. in weight. The design I followed is similar to this Argentinosaurus. I made it quite bulky with a vertically thick neck, reminiscent to that of Isisaurus, another much smaller titanosaur that is definitely real and lived in India, like Bruhathkayosaurus, and during the same age. You know. I opened the MS Paint program and I used the gridlines to measure the drawing. But then I managed to find the page of the drawing. Just to know, I'm not completely sure if I measured the tibia with great precision. My estimations of the length of Bruhathkayosaurus might have some errors. But I don't think it really matters. Cause it looks like, unfortunately, Bruhathkayosaurus is much of a matter of speculation anyway. Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 26 2015, 06:26 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Nov 26 2015, 06:36 AM Post #178 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's not. df sda dfsa frtwe tfwe |
![]() |
|
| Thalassophoneus | Nov 26 2015, 06:58 AM Post #179 |
![]()
Pelagic Killer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I believe that paleontologists should stop wasting their time in North American iguanodontids and raptors similar to the ones we have seen again before and get their asses back to India and try to find some more bones of Bruhathkayosaurus. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Nov 26 2015, 07:34 AM Post #180 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Even if we found more bones of a huge sauropod in India, it would be impossible to refer them to Bruhathkayosaurus with any other justification than "large sauropod", as there is no holotype material for comparison to the diagnostic features of the referred specimen. |
![]() |
|
| 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