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
  • 7
  • 13
I'm skeptical about the weight of amphicoelias
Topic Started: Jul 31 2012, 09:02 AM (13,571 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:
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Aug 2 2012, 01:06 AM
Dead ones if they were there, and fish if it could catch them. But what indicates an allosaur to be a fish eater?
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
But than we could be also talking about undiscovered mega killers in the Cretaceous.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Aug 2 2012, 01:12 AM
But than we could be also talking about undiscovered mega killers in the Cretaceous.
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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Aug 2 2012, 01:06 AM
Dead ones if they were there, and fish if it could catch them. But what indicates an allosaur to be a fish eater?
We don't know in which case it was related to Allosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinosaurMichael
Member Avatar
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Aug 2 2012, 12:53 AM
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.
But they still weren't as large.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 2 2012, 01:14 AM
Jinfengopteryx
Aug 2 2012, 01:12 AM
But than we could be also talking about undiscovered mega killers in the Cretaceous.
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?
There are still alot of very large sauropods in the Cretaceous. There was Argentinosaurus, puertasaurus, ruyangosaurus, and possibly bruhathkaysaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Aug 2 2012, 01:21 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 2 2012, 01:14 AM
Jinfengopteryx
Aug 2 2012, 01:12 AM
But than we could be also talking about undiscovered mega killers in the Cretaceous.
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?
There are still alot of very large sauropods in the Cretaceous. There was Argentinosaurus, puertasaurus, ruyangosaurus, and possibly bruhathkaysaurus.
Argentinosaurus is not a challenge to Amphicoelias, and Bruhathkayosaurus is a hoax, Ruyangosaurus is Argentinosaurus sized, so that leaves just Puertasaurus...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 2 2012, 01:23 AM
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
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
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).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Aug 2 2012, 01:19 AM
theropod
Aug 2 2012, 12:53 AM
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.
But they still weren't as large.
They were!

@DinoMike: I think Puertasaurus could have exceeded 170t.
Some reasons why sauropods are likely to be larger than blue whales:

  • They lived for a much longer time
  • They never stopped growing throughout their lives
  • They attained a very high age
  • They might not have been warm blooded, and thus needed less food, even at an astronomic size


And now some for people still believing Blue whales to be larger:


  • They don´t think something outside the water can be that large
  • They won´t accept that it might not be a mammal holding the title of the largest animal ever
  • They´d like to have at least this one record in the modern time, and so they don´t want it to pass to an extinct animal
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 2 2012, 01:25 AM
Godzillaman
Aug 2 2012, 01:21 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 2 2012, 01:14 AM
Jinfengopteryx
Aug 2 2012, 01:12 AM
But than we could be also talking about undiscovered mega killers in the Cretaceous.
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?
There are still alot of very large sauropods in the Cretaceous. There was Argentinosaurus, puertasaurus, ruyangosaurus, and possibly bruhathkaysaurus.
Argentinosaurus is not a challenge to Amphicoelias, and Bruhathkayosaurus is a hoax, Ruyangosaurus is Argentinosaurus sized, so that leaves just Puertasaurus...
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.
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
  • 7
  • 13

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.