| 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 (13,569 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: | |
|---|---|
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 2 2012, 12:37 PM Post #121 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Please stop with this fanboy stuff! It is rude and somewhat trollish! Don't deny that you are obviously a fanboy yourself. Please stop! |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Aug 2 2012, 12:45 PM Post #122 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Says the one who twists his sources out of context... |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 2 2012, 12:47 PM Post #123 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I do? Clearly puertasaurus was far bulkier than amphicoelias. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Aug 2 2012, 01:00 PM Post #124 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You are the one who thought that the 78 tonne estimate was meant to downsize Amphicoelias. It was meant to demonstrate how large the potential errors can be if scaling was done from a single bone, not to downsize anything!!!! And Puertasaurus was only wider, and the very paleoartist who made the Puertasaurus drawing said that it challenges A. fragillimus, NOT exceeds it... |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 2 2012, 01:03 PM Post #125 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is still evidence that it was probably heavier |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 2 2012, 07:24 PM Post #126 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, all that indicates that amphicoelias wasn´t larger than puertasaurus either, especially as it´s error bars can be so high. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 2 2012, 10:45 PM Post #127 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Are you talking to him or me? Because I still think puertasaurus was heavier. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 2 2012, 10:54 PM Post #128 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
to him, he´s the one who thinks amphicoelias was heavier. just look at the vertebrae! even tough it is much taller, what it indicates is the typical diplodocid body, which is tall and narrow. there is no way it would weight more than the possessor of the titanosaur dorsal next to it, because it indicates a broad body, which was probably much much longer than a titanosaurs. for amphicoelias we have a range of 50-70m, and a weight range of 75-150t, everything above that simply bases on exagerated figures. for puertasaurus I have already explained how easily it could have exceeded that. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 2 2012, 11:34 PM Post #129 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It isn't narrow, just very short. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 2 2012, 11:43 PM Post #130 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
the skeletons I have seen were pretty narrow compared to other sauropods. Just look at the vertebrae, this already shows how different the body shape is. It has to be narrov and tall in order to fit such neural spines into it. the largest part of the vertebra is actually neural spine, so a portion at the back would be pretty thin. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 2 2012, 11:48 PM Post #131 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Most people seem to ignore it:
|
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Aug 3 2012, 12:03 AM Post #132 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If Amphicoelias was simply a scaled-up Diplodocus, the square-cube law would seal it's fate...it needs extra muscle to support itself or else it would be lying down on the ground to die of thirst/starvation/predators For A. fragillimus to be able to support it's own body weight: 1) A. fragillimus isn't simply a scaled-up Diplodocus, but a steroided scaled-up Diplodocus 2) Diplodocus and/or Amphicoelias altus has far higher lb for lb "strength" than any animal of it's size To me, option 1 seems more likely... |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 3 2012, 12:08 AM Post #133 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree with you, but on any reconstruction, it is just an upscaled Diplodocus. We don't know how much muscels it needed. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 3 2012, 12:15 AM Post #134 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
it also saved weight as good as it could. To some extend, it certainly needed extra muscle mass, but it had to stay as light as possible. also, you can apply this to any sauropod, so it wont make amphicoelias heavier compared to puertasaurus or Argentinosaurus |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Aug 3 2012, 12:20 AM Post #135 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Puertasaurus and Argentinosaurus are very robust and wide already, so there's no need to assume them to be extra muscular...but that may change if more of those creatures are uncovered...why are the supergiant dinosaurs always so fragmentary!!!!!!! Edited by SpinoInWonderland, Aug 3 2012, 12:23 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 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