| 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 (13,572 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: | |
|---|---|
| theropod | Aug 1 2012, 07:07 PM Post #76 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, during the jurassic they had their peak, but that doesn´t mean that they couldnd have attained the smae size later. In the sourthern hemispere they still had few compeditors, and maybe competitional pressure and new vegetation even forced then to become larger Bout the theropods, the same happens in every period, tough I agree that the jurassic ones probably grew exceptionally large due to the sheer ABUNDANCE of sauropods all over the world. I think the new plants of the cretaceous mainly were exploited by ornithopods, sauropods kept feeding on low nutrition-plants, which smaller animals had a hard time to digest. in order to be more efficient and keep their nicht, they grew even larger. Who says the cretaceous ones didn´t?
A few had armour, but that appearantly didn´t keep others from growing veeery large. Just look at this: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_u6CUqDWU5nw/S5VdzJHzGHI/AAAAAAAAAmY/hGfH5yTKfkI/s1600/supersauropodverts1_07.gif Puertasaurus is definitly huge, and definitely not smaller than Amphicoelias in terms of weight, not to mention the uncertainity about Amphicoelias´ existence and size. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 1 2012, 07:10 PM Post #77 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We have...let´s call it good indication. just look at how many allosaurs were found together. And no theropods can´t bring down a large sauropod on their own, therefore all theropods that hunted really big sauropods must have somehow cooperated as a group. Edited by theropod, Aug 1 2012, 07:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 1 2012, 07:33 PM Post #78 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I asked for evidence that shows that Jurassic ones rather hunted in packs, so debunking that those in the Cretaceous hunted in packs. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 1 2012, 07:47 PM Post #79 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
if they wanted to hunt sauropdos, they all must have hunted in packs, it´s as easy as that. it is not logical to asume that only the theropods from a certain time did so. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 1 2012, 10:40 PM Post #80 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well he clearly stated that puertasaurus was a much more heavily-built animal. I'm sorry, but puertasaurus might have been heavier than amphicoelias. Edited by Godzillasaurus, Jan 21 2013, 12:55 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 1 2012, 10:40 PM Post #81 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If the size estimates were right though, amphicoelias probably was the second or third largest dinosaur of all time. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 1 2012, 10:42 PM Post #82 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think this proves that puertasaurus was the largest dinosaur. That is, if bruhathkaysaurus didn't exist. There is just too little evidence to prove whether or not it existed. But so far, I think puertasaurus was the heaviest. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 1 2012, 10:45 PM Post #83 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Aug 1 2012, 11:06 PM Post #84 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus? Das Monster von Minden says hi... Also note that the number of known dinosaurs is dwarfed by the total number of dinosaurs that ever existed, so you can't use the number of contenders per period to support your side. Add that to the fact that the number of Jurassic dinosaurs known is much less than the number of known Cretaceous dinosaurs, and it becomes likely that the largest theropod is still undiscovered and lived in the Jurassic. Same goes for the largest sauropod. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 2 2012, 12:44 AM Post #85 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How is it likely? Most of the largest dinosaurs existed in the Cretaceous period. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 2 2012, 12:49 AM Post #86 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Evidence for Das Monster von Minden, not just being a fisher? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 2 2012, 12:53 AM Post #87 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, Saurophaganax, Torvosaurus and the Monster of Minden were similar to Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus in size actually. I would bet on saurophaganax having grown to much larger sizes than the largest of the four specimens we have (OMNH 1935), basing on those european footprints, MoM and the abundance of sauropods. But we really can´t state anything like "the largest lived in the **", because we know too little of the whole system. For now, Puertasaurus remains the largest. There aren´t less contenders from the Jurassic. We have amphicoelias, turiasaurus and breviparopus, and also some for the "longest dinosaur"-title. from the cretaceous we only have Puertasaurus, (possibly) Alamosaurus and Bruhathkayosaurus, which is likely to be a hoax. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 2 2012, 12:59 AM Post #88 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A fisher? you mean a piscivore? what indicates that? From what I heard it consists of two animals of very different size, one of which was said to be an allosaur and the other one a megalosaur. The only other info we have is that one rib was 1,5 times the one of allosaurus, and that the smaller one was considered a megalosaur in the dinosaur mailing list, being said to measure 7-8m. so it remains an allosaur probably around 15m long, if the rib´s measurement is correct. That somehow fits the enourmous sauropod Turiasaurus that lived in europe as well. in the case of an allosaur, Saurophaganax comes to mind as the closest in size. As long as there is no further info about it, I´ll consider it to be saurophaganax. A theropod that size in the jurassic seems highly probably to me, so no need to try finding any reason to be able to debunk it. Therefore a possibly even greater size than OMNH 1935 for S. maximus seems possible. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 2 2012, 01:04 AM Post #89 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, it had not much more to eat, so it probably ate fish or Pliosaurs. Why it shouldn't? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 2 2012, 01:06 AM Post #90 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Dead ones if they were there, and fish if it could catch them. But what indicates an allosaur to be a fish eater? |
![]() |
|
| 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