| 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 (13,570 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: | |
|---|---|
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 2 2012, 01:29 AM Post #106 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 2 2012, 01:30 AM Post #107 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Probably not as large as puertasaurus though. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 2 2012, 01:30 AM Post #108 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 2 2012, 01:30 AM Post #109 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They were, at least for Plateosaurus we have evidence. I think they were very efficient in terms of energy. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 2 2012, 01:32 AM Post #110 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 2 2012, 01:33 AM Post #111 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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). |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 2 2012, 01:33 AM Post #112 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 2 2012, 01:34 AM Post #113 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 2 2012, 01:36 AM Post #114 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 2 2012, 01:36 AM Post #115 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 2 2012, 01:43 AM Post #116 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I ment propotions of MoM. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 2 2012, 02:26 AM Post #117 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
true. But it must have been huge. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 2 2012, 02:28 AM Post #118 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think, bigger animals needer bigger feet, for their weight. Don't they? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 2 2012, 02:30 AM Post #119 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
quite true, but we can still see the claws, can´t we? |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Aug 2 2012, 09:57 AM Post #120 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| 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