| 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 (13,571 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: | |
|---|---|
| SpinoInWonderland | Aug 2 2012, 01:09 AM Post #91 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
He's not taking into account the fact that only a tiny portion of all the dinosaurs that ever lived has been discovered, there most likely are undiscovered sauropods, stegosaurs, etc. in Germany |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 2 2012, 01:12 AM Post #92 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But than we could be also talking about undiscovered mega killers in the Cretaceous. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 2 2012, 01:13 AM Post #93 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Also, Germany seemed t be at that timea horrible place for Sauropods, many shrunked(Europasaurus)and many dinosaurs were much smaller than their North American counter parts. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Aug 2 2012, 01:14 AM Post #94 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But it's more likely that the undiscovered Jurassic mega-killers were larger, the abundance of huge prey in the Jurassic points towards it. Do you need to be super-massive if you ate ornithopods? |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 2 2012, 01:15 AM Post #95 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We don't know in which case it was related to Allosaurus. |
![]() |
|
| DinosaurMichael | Aug 2 2012, 01:18 AM Post #96 |
|
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree that the weight of Amphicoelias is incorrect, but I don't doubt that there could still be a fossil of Sauropod yet to be discovered that would've exceeded 250 tons on average even bigger than the Blue Whale. We just haven't discovered it yet. I wouldn't find it surprising because after all Sauropods were very large animals |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 2 2012, 01:19 AM Post #97 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But they still weren't as large. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 2 2012, 01:21 AM Post #98 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There are still alot of very large sauropods in the Cretaceous. There was Argentinosaurus, puertasaurus, ruyangosaurus, and possibly bruhathkaysaurus. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 2 2012, 01:21 AM Post #99 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
it was said to be consitsing of an allosaur and a smaller megalosaur (there is a figure for the megalosaur), otherwise the size disparity wouldn´t be so great. Actually, we also have giants in europe, on some islands the animals shrunk, but the opposite can also be the case. maybe germany was connected to portugal at that time. We have Torvosaurus sp (at least twice as massive as the american one, rather tree times), Turiasaurus (a primitive sauropod that grew huge long after it´s relatives went extinct), the Monster of Minden, Dacenturus Seemingly not all got smaller |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Aug 2 2012, 01:23 AM Post #100 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This is worth reading: http://palaeozoologist.deviantart.com/journal/Amphicoelias-fragillimus-bigger-than-you-think-221544713 Zach A. (palaeozoologist) calculated A. fragillimus to have a mass of 151-221 tonnes |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Aug 2 2012, 01:25 AM Post #101 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Argentinosaurus is not a challenge to Amphicoelias, and Bruhathkayosaurus is a hoax, Ruyangosaurus is Argentinosaurus sized, so that leaves just Puertasaurus... |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 2 2012, 01:26 AM Post #102 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The other links that I posted indicate amphicoelias to be smaller than sauropods like puertasaurus. The last link I posted, stated that puertasaurus was very thick, thus making it more like a tank. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 2 2012, 01:27 AM Post #103 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
According to DR, Portugal was a huge Island in the late Jurassic. All animals there were suprisingly big, but in Germany this wasn't the case. Probably Das Monster von Minden will be shrunked one day, it exist estimates lower than 15m(the old were 13-14m, I haven't seem them to be debunked). |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 2 2012, 01:27 AM Post #104 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They were! @DinoMike: I think Puertasaurus could have exceeded 170t. Some reasons why sauropods are likely to be larger than blue whales:
And now some for people still believing Blue whales to be larger:
|
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 2 2012, 01:28 AM Post #105 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Bruhathkaysaurus was not a for-sure hoax. However, we have little evidence to prove that it still existed. And did you not read what I said? I said there were giants during the Cretaceous. I did not say all of them were contenders for the title of the "world's largest dinosaur". That being said, amphicoelias was still probably not 122 tons. |
![]() |
|
| 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