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
I'm skeptical about the weight of amphicoelias
Topic Started: Jul 31 2012, 09:02 AM (13,574 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:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Aug 1 2012, 01:28 AM
Do you guys think that, knowing the new size estimates, animals like puertasaurus and argentinosaurus grew heavier than amphicoelias?

http://paleoking.blogspot.com/2010/03/forgotten-giants-1-puertasaurus.html
Tha´s what I´m saying all the time, puertasaurus was just enourmous, and it is ofte forgotten by many people.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Aug 1 2012, 01:30 AM
Godzillaman
Aug 1 2012, 01:28 AM
Do you guys think that, knowing the new size estimates, animals like puertasaurus and argentinosaurus grew heavier than amphicoelias?

http://paleoking.blogspot.com/2010/03/forgotten-giants-1-puertasaurus.html
Tha´s what I´m saying all the time, puertasaurus was just enourmous, and it is ofte forgotten by many people.
But it is often proposed that amphicoelias was even heavier.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Aug 1 2012, 01:32 AM
theropod
Aug 1 2012, 01:30 AM
Godzillaman
Aug 1 2012, 01:28 AM
Do you guys think that, knowing the new size estimates, animals like puertasaurus and argentinosaurus grew heavier than amphicoelias?

http://paleoking.blogspot.com/2010/03/forgotten-giants-1-puertasaurus.html
Tha´s what I´m saying all the time, puertasaurus was just enourmous, and it is ofte forgotten by many people.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I couldn´t keep myself from posting a link to this tread as a comment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What's wrong with that?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Maybe I´m sometimes butting in in too many debates. lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hey guys. Also remember that amphicoelias was sort of an oddball among diplodocoids. The only diplodocoids that were relatively heavy in camparison to their length were apatasaurines. Others, like diplodocus, were very long, but not very heavy. If you keep that in mind, you would realize that even the really long 150 foot diplodocids like seismosaurus (now known as a species of diplodocus), weighed only about 50 tons. And then amphicoelias suddenly appears in the mix and is thought to have weighed 122 tons. In the scientific aspect of it all, the size estimates for amphicoelias could be very wrong. Families don't start off at 15 tons, and then go up constantly as the animals get bigger, and then suddenly grow into an animal that is 122 tons. It should be constant, but it isn't. That is also ignoring the fact that amphicoelias is the only diplodocid to supposedly exceed 100 tons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Aug 1 2012, 03:29 AM
Hey guys. Also remember that amphicoelias was sort of an oddball among diplodocoids. The only diplodocoids that were relatively heavy in camparison to their length were apatasaurines. Others, like diplodocus, were very long, but not very heavy. If you keep that in mind, you would realize that even the really long 150 foot diplodocids like seismosaurus (now known as a species of diplodocus), weighed only about 50 tons. And then amphicoelias suddenly appears in the mix and is thought to have weighed 122 tons. In the scientific aspect of it all, the size estimates for amphicoelias could be very wrong. Families don't start off at 15 tons, and then go up constantly as the animals get bigger, and then suddenly grow into an animal that is 122 tons. It should be constant, but it isn't. That is also ignoring the fact that amphicoelias is the only diplodocid to supposedly exceed 100 tons.
We don´t have enough fossils, and why actually not? compare elephants to their closest relatives, you´ll see that there is no constant size increase.

Amphicoelias was ~60m long. I´ve read some convincing arguments for an even larger size, as well as some for a smaller one.


Diplodocus hallorum measured 33, maybe 35m, and it weighed possibly around 30t, not 50.

Please use metres, it´s more widespread and the translation ft/m is not uniform, resulting in me not knowing what exact size you are talking about. most sources give a masurement in metres anyway.

sure there were intermediate sized forms between diplodocus hallorum and amphicoelias fragillimus, no question, but you see how little fossils we have of these really big sauropods.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Doubts about an estimate just because other relatives weren´t anywere near the size aren´t valid as long as there is no other reason. You have seen how easily this anymal exceeds 100t using the msot slender possible diplodocus. now give it one additional ton, and one metre less as the estimate actually was, and you get an animal by far exceeding 120t.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Are the 58m even accurate? According to the german wikipedia, it also exist estimates of 37m and 50t.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Aug 1 2012, 05:26 AM
Godzillaman
Aug 1 2012, 03:29 AM
Hey guys. Also remember that amphicoelias was sort of an oddball among diplodocoids. The only diplodocoids that were relatively heavy in camparison to their length were apatasaurines. Others, like diplodocus, were very long, but not very heavy. If you keep that in mind, you would realize that even the really long 150 foot diplodocids like seismosaurus (now known as a species of diplodocus), weighed only about 50 tons. And then amphicoelias suddenly appears in the mix and is thought to have weighed 122 tons. In the scientific aspect of it all, the size estimates for amphicoelias could be very wrong. Families don't start off at 15 tons, and then go up constantly as the animals get bigger, and then suddenly grow into an animal that is 122 tons. It should be constant, but it isn't. That is also ignoring the fact that amphicoelias is the only diplodocid to supposedly exceed 100 tons.
We don´t have enough fossils, and why actually not? compare elephants to their closest relatives, you´ll see that there is no constant size increase.

Amphicoelias was ~60m long. I´ve read some convincing arguments for an even larger size, as well as some for a smaller one.


Diplodocus hallorum measured 33, maybe 35m, and it weighed possibly around 30t, not 50.

Please use metres, it´s more widespread and the translation ft/m is not uniform, resulting in me not knowing what exact size you are talking about. most sources give a masurement in metres anyway.

sure there were intermediate sized forms between diplodocus hallorum and amphicoelias fragillimus, no question, but you see how little fossils we have of these really big sauropods.
I'm talking about families. There are only 2 elephants in the family alive today.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Aug 1 2012, 05:28 AM
Doubts about an estimate just because other relatives weren´t anywere near the size aren´t valid as long as there is no other reason. You have seen how easily this anymal exceeds 100t using the msot slender possible diplodocus. now give it one additional ton, and one metre less as the estimate actually was, and you get an animal by far exceeding 120t.
I'm just trying to say that the size estimates could be wrong. After all, the remains were destroyed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It even seems to be hyped up, as you see while reading the comments of the Amphicoelias moron on YT.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate & discussion of dinosaur related topics. · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.