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
  • 5
  • 13
I'm skeptical about the weight of amphicoelias
Topic Started: Jul 31 2012, 09:02 AM (13,573 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:
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Aug 1 2012, 05:40 AM
It even seems to be hyped up, as you see while reading the comments of the Amphicoelias moron on YT.
Maybe we should just live with that fact that puertasaurus was the largest dinosaur, knowing how bruhathkaysaurus, like amphicoelias, might be all about hype.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Aug 1 2012, 05:43 AM
Jinfengopteryx
Aug 1 2012, 05:40 AM
It even seems to be hyped up, as you see while reading the comments of the Amphicoelias moron on YT.
Maybe we should just live with that fact that puertasaurus was the largest dinosaur, knowing how bruhathkaysaurus, like amphicoelias, might be all about hype.
Agreed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Aug 1 2012, 05:35 AM
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.
And the closest relatives of elephants? Sirenians, of which all extant forms are not only aquatic but far smaller. You can´t judge about an animals possible size by looking at their relatives.

Of course size estimates can be wrong, but as IO wrote, I have seens convincing arguments both for larger and smaller sizes. imo there is a trend to make such animals smaller than they are, or at least to give the lowermost size figure, nowaday. A logical reaction to centuries of exageration, but of course possibly wrong in some cases.

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.

Being the only sauropod in that size range with actual remains to study, though they are few, it certainly has more credentials that other sauropods. At least we have definite proof for it existence, and we know that it was huge.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Aug 1 2012, 05:56 AM
Godzillaman
Aug 1 2012, 05:35 AM
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.
And the closest relatives of elephants? Sirenians, of which all extant forms are not only aquatic but far smaller. You can´t judge about an animals possible size by looking at their relatives.

Of course size estimates can be wrong, but as IO wrote, I have seens convincing arguments both for larger and smaller sizes. imo there is a trend to make such animals smaller than they are, or at least to give the lowermost size figure, nowaday. A logical reaction to centuries of exageration, but of course possibly wrong in some cases.

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.

Being the only sauropod in that size range with actual remains to study, though they are few, it certainly has more credentials that other sauropods. At least we have definite proof for it existence, and we know that it was huge.


Well, I don't really know what to say about the whole families thing. I'm trying to find out the answers, but I just don't know how. And yes, maybe we should just say puertasaurus is the largest dinosaur. That is, until we find more evidence of something more massive.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Have a look at this: http://paleoking.blogspot.de/2011/11/15-biggest-dinosaurs-youve-never-heard.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I know it. appearantly there are many huge undetermined footprints. The list however doesn´t really rank them after size, and it includes many animals appearantly somewhat smaller that the ones I listed. Maybe I´ll one day make such a list myself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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
Paleo King says that Puertasaurus has a mass of 110 tonnes, so the link you posted, does not support your side, Godzillaman.
Edited by SpinoInWonderland, Aug 1 2012, 04:05 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I know you are somewhat biased towards Amphicoelias, no offence, but do the calculation yourself! you can´t directly compare different estimates, just look at the animals and use logic. So far the highest official mass estimate belongs to Bru. And there are reasons why most sources don´t accept A. fragillimus.

110t is both the lower limit in this and in amphicoelias case, it´s as simple as that. There just haven´t been any other estimates for Puertasaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 1 2012, 03:52 PM
I could write a 999,999 page essay on why Jurassic sauropods should be the largest[/color]
Do it, if you want to convince somebody.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 1 2012, 01:02 AM
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.
Clearly not. People think it's an easier prey than Triceratops.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Aug 1 2012, 06:16 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 1 2012, 03:52 PM
I could write a 999,999 page essay on why Jurassic sauropods should be the largest[/color]
Do it, if you want to convince somebody.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superpredator
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
This is a 999,999 page essay? lol . Anyway, good points.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 1 2012, 06:38 PM
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.
Actually, in the cretaceous of the northern hemisphere, Sauropods had hard competition, but in the southern one, they were the dominant herbivores. There the enemys weren't harder, than those in the jurassic.

brolyeuphyfusion
 
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.


Seems like this new plants, mainly were on the northern hemisphere(grass, modern trees, flowers).

brolyeuphyfusion
 
Most Jurassic theropods hunted in packs, which needed even larger size to deter or beat them.


According to Planet Dinosaur, we have evidence that Mapusaurus hunted in packs.

Have we evidence that Jurassic Theropods rather hunted in packs?

brolyeuphyfusion
 
Many Cretaceous sauropods had armor, therefore not needing to be so large, but Jurassic sauropods did not, so they needed greater size to compensate.


Not many. Such an armour is only evidenced in Saltasaurus(who's quite small), not in Puertasaurus or Argentinosaurus.
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
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 13

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.