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
  • 13
I'm skeptical about the weight of amphicoelias
Topic Started: Jul 31 2012, 09:02 AM (13,564 Views)
Godzillasaurus
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Nov 26 2015, 07:34 AM
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.
We could make them a neotype. If they were found in the same area as the previous ones they would probably have been from the same specimen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Mantrid
Nov 26 2015, 07:37 AM
We could make them a neotype.
Not sure about that part. Most animals with lost bones (Spinosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus ect.) at least had useful descriptions of the holotypes allowing an analysis.
Mantrid
Nov 26 2015, 07:37 AM
If they were found in the same area as the previous ones they would probably have been from the same specimen.
This is now very wild speculation, particularly if we assume that these animals did not always live alone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It was really stupid for Ayyasami to just lose the bones like this. I wonder if it was really a fraud or he just wasn't well organized. I mean, you know. India.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Argentinosaurus' "tibia" is actually a fibula, which doesn't allow for direct comparison. A 2 meter tibia would nevertheless be enormous if it is legit, for example the largest specimen referred to Alamosaurus is a fragmentary tibia roughly 170 cm long when complete, a difference of nearly 18%.

You should also read this follow-up article by Nima Hassani (Jinfengopteryx already linked the first of his articles):
http://paleoking.blogspot.co.at/2012/01/rethinking-brouhaha-saurus-what-if-it.html

The material reported of Bruhathkayosaurus appears to be from at least two individuals of somewhat different sizes. The illium and femur fragment are large, but not record breaking, it is only the alleged tibia and a caudal centrum that are potentially record breaking (~15% larger than a posterior dorsal vertebrae of Argentinosaurus). The whole thing is dubious as hell though.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Debate & discussion of dinosaur related topics. · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 13

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.