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
  • 8
  • 13
I'm skeptical about the weight of amphicoelias
Topic Started: Jul 31 2012, 09:02 AM (13,570 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:
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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
More than 200t seem to big for a Sauropod. On what do they base? We only have drawings. But I think around of 170t seem accurate for Amhicoelias.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Aug 2 2012, 01:27 AM
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
Probably not as large as puertasaurus though.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Aug 2 2012, 01:27 AM
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).
Well it´s pretty dubious indeed. But 1,5 times the size of allosaurus would mean 15m (asuming that to base on the specimen often said to be the larges A. fragilis, which is nearly 10m long). there are other indications for a possible landbridge. There are a lot of huge sauropod footprints all over europe, and at least some Theropod footprints from Switzerland and Germany that belong to an animal the size of the largest saurophaganax or larger.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Aug 2 2012, 01:27 AM
[*]They might not have been warm blooded, and thus needed less food, even at an astronomic size
They were, at least for Plateosaurus we have evidence. I think they were very efficient in terms of energy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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
That´s what I meant when I wrote there are good arguments both for a larger and a smaller size. The upper figures are exagerated tough, 221t, how can such an estimate be made? it is pretty obvious that diplodocus wasn´t massive enough to be a base for such figures, even at 70m.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Aug 2 2012, 01:30 AM
There are a lot of huge sauropod footprints all over europe, and at least some Theropod footprints from Switzerland and Germany that belong to an animal the size of the largest saurophaganax or larger.
We do not know it's exact foot to body ratio. Also mos of that footprints were in french(I could imagine that to be connected with Portugal and Spain).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Aug 2 2012, 01:29 AM
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
More than 200t seem to big for a Sauropod. On what do they base? We only have drawings. But I think around of 170t seem accurate for Amhicoelias.
I doubt even 122 tons is accurate. Remember that at least half of its length resided in the neck and tail. This was a very lightly-built animal, at least for sauropod standards.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Aug 2 2012, 01:30 AM
theropod
Aug 2 2012, 01:27 AM
[*]They might not have been warm blooded, and thus needed less food, even at an astronomic size
They were, at least for Plateosaurus we have evidence. I think they were very efficient in terms of energy.
For a 200t animal, endothermy is more of a disadvantage. The gigantoc body size is enough to keep the body warm, thus such an animal would hardly need as much food as a whale living in cold water. I think the largest sauropods probably didn´t show the type of endothermy as mammals have, rather some kind of gigantothermy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Aug 2 2012, 01:34 AM
Jinfengopteryx
Aug 2 2012, 01:30 AM
theropod
Aug 2 2012, 01:27 AM
[*]They might not have been warm blooded, and thus needed less food, even at an astronomic size
They were, at least for Plateosaurus we have evidence. I think they were very efficient in terms of energy.
For a 200t animal, endothermy is more of a disadvantage. The gigantoc body size is enough to keep the body warm, thus such an animal would hardly need as much food as a whale living in cold water. I think the largest sauropods probably didn´t show the type of endothermy as mammals have, rather some kind of gigantothermy.
I agree. Perhaps the smaller dinosaurs, like small ceoulosaurs were endothermic. However, the larger specimens like sauropods were probably ectothermic, due to their large size, thus needing the ability to fast (go without food) for longer periods of time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Aug 2 2012, 01:33 AM
theropod
Aug 2 2012, 01:30 AM
There are a lot of huge sauropod footprints all over europe, and at least some Theropod footprints from Switzerland and Germany that belong to an animal the size of the largest saurophaganax or larger.
We do not know it's exact foot to body ratio. Also mos of that footprints were in french(I could imagine that to be connected with Portugal and Spain).
Yes, but there are sauropod footprints of large ones in switzerland too. I could imagine a land bridge somewhere int hat region.


We don´t know the exact proportios, but basing on elephant feet and asuming that the toes likely were visible extermally can give us an idea.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I ment propotions of MoM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
true. But it must have been huge.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think, bigger animals needer bigger feet, for their weight. Don't they?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
quite true, but we can still see the claws, can´t we?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Aug 2 2012, 01:26 AM
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.
Your links don't downsize any dinosaur, your first link just tries to demonstrate how large the error bars can be, and the second link doesn't say that Amphicoelias is smaller, it just says that Puertasaurus rivals it

But seeing that you're hugging a baby Argentinosaurus right now, anything I say will be torn out of context, and twisted to fit your view.
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
  • 8
  • 13

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.