Largest sauropods

[Fragillimus335]

Aug 29, 2013 5:26:19 GMT 5 blaze said:

Coria and pals, your beef is with them then.

Either way, we can remove Futalongkosaurus out of the picture, it doesn't affect what I said, based of Zach's skeletals of either Alamosaurus or Argentinosaurus you get lengths 28-32m and weights in the 80 tonne range for the owner of that big femur, and we aren't even counting that the femora was described as gracile, meaning it really is just a long femur and might not even represent an animal bigger than known sauropods.

Huh, I'll have to find that paper. Anyway, Zach does say the torso is probably too short, and that tail is probably a tad on the short side as well. It really comes down to like two meters... it's not going to change much, but adjusting those lengths gives you 32-35 meters, or in other words, a bit bigger than Argentinosaurus, and probably one of the biggest sauropods we have physical remains of.


BTW, Only the smaller 2.2 meter femur was called gracile, indicating it might have been a juvenile of the same species that produced the 2.75 meter femur.

[blaze]

Maybe, but I'll like them to be described already, the news came out in 2010 didn't they?

[Fragillimus335]

Aug 29, 2013 6:45:00 GMT 5 blaze said:

Maybe, but I'll like them to be described already, the news came out in 2010 didn't they?

Yeah, but I think the info on the bigger femur was released more recently. Osteocolossus is still an awesome possible name...

[creature386]

For reviving this thread, here something from the SVP abstracts:

Symposium 1 (Wednesday, October 30, 2013, 10:45 AM)
AGING, MATURATION AND GROWTH OF DINOSAURS: EVIDENCE FROM THE HISTOLOGICAL GROWTH MARK RECORD IN LONG BONES
SANDER, P. Martin, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany; GRIEBELER, Eva Maria, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany; KLEIN, Nicole, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Information on aging, maturation, and growth is important for understanding life histories of organisms. In extinct dinosaurs, such information can be derived from the histological record of growth in the mid-shaft cortex of long bones. Here, we construct growth curves to estimate ages at death, ages at sexual maturity, ages at which individuals were fully grown, and maximum growth rates from long bones of six sauropod dinosaur individuals (one indeterminate mamenchisaurid, two Apatosaurus sp., two indeterminate diplodocids, and one Camarasaurus sp.) and one basal sauropodomorph dinosaur individual (Plateosaurus engelhardti). Using these estimates, we establish allometries between body mass and each of these traits and compare these to extant taxa.
Growth models considered for each dinosaur individual were the von Bertalanffy model, the Gompertz model, the logistic model (LGM), all of which have inherently fixed inflection points, and the Chapman-Richards model in which the point is not fixed. We use the arithmetic mean of the age at the inflection point and of the age at which 90% of asymptotic mass is reached as an estimate of age at sexual maturity because unambiguous indicators of maturity in Sauropodomorpha are lacking.
According to a model selection process based on the corrected Akaike's information criterion, the LGM was the best model for our sample. Allometries established are consistent with literature data on other Sauropodomorpha. All Sauropodomorpha reached full size within a time span similar to scaled-up modern mammalian megaherbivores and had similar maximum growth rates to scaled-up modern megaherbivores and ratites, but growth rates of Sauropodomorpha were lower than of an average mammal. Sauropodomorph ages at death probably were lower than that of average scaled-up ratites and megaherbivores. Sauropodomorpha were older at maturation than scaled-up ratites and average mammals, but younger than scaled-up megaherbivores. We conclude that similar environmental factors shaped the life history of Sauropodomorpha and of extant mammalian megaherbivores and ratites.

vertpaleo.org/PDFS/88/887c249a-e0b1-46ee-8393-221f0574c8a3.pdf

PS: 1000 posts!!!!!

[Godzillasaurus]

If bruhathkaysaurus was not surrounded by skepticism, it would represent one of the largest sauropods hands down. Its femur(?) is 30% larger than that of Argentinosaurus. This would make it heavier than amphicoelias, with an estimation of well over 150 tons. Of course, though, this is only an estimate. It would seem highly unlikely that an animal like Argentinosaurus (which is around 100 feet in length, something around there) would weigh only roughly 100 tons while an animal like bruhathkaysaurus would weigh at least a staggering 50 tons more. I feel that this is all a matter of perception

[Fragillimus335]

Oct 17, 2013 6:36:21 GMT 5 Godzillasaurus said:

If bruhathkaysaurus was not surrounded by skepticism, it would represent one of the largest sauropods hands down. Its femur(?) is 30% larger than that of Argentinosaurus. This would make it heavier than amphicoelias, with an estimation of well over 150 tons. Of course, though, this is only an estimate. It would seem highly unlikely that an animal like Argentinosaurus (which is around 100 feet in length, something around there) would weigh only roughly 100 tons while an animal like bruhathkaysaurus would weigh at least a staggering 50 tons more. I feel that this is all a matter of perception

Actually a 33 meter Argentinosaurus likely weighed around 70-75 tons. But when length increases by ~30% weight cubes to 130%^3=220% So if the rest of Bruhathkayosaurus's body was also 30% longer, taller, and wider, it would weigh 2.2 times as much, or ~160 tons.

Weight increases much faster than height, that's why an adult 3 times the heigh of a 23inch newborn weighs 25 times as much!

On another note, Amphicoelias still probably weighed more. Being ~2.7 times as long as Diplodocus 270%^3=2000% heavier, so 12 tons times 27=240 tons!

All of this is estimation of course.

[creature386]

Oct 17, 2013 6:36:21 GMT 5 Godzillasaurus said:

If bruhathkaysaurus was not surrounded by skepticism, it would represent one of the largest sauropods hands down. Its femur(?) is 30% larger than that of Argentinosaurus. This would make it heavier than amphicoelias, with an estimation of well over 150 tons. Of course, though, this is only an estimate. It would seem highly unlikely that an animal like Argentinosaurus (which is around 100 feet in length, something around there) would weigh only roughly 100 tons while an animal like bruhathkaysaurus would weigh at least a staggering 50 tons more. I feel that this is all a matter of perception

Bruhathkaysaurus should not be taken serously IMO. I have shown you on carnivora, why it shouldn't be even taken seriously:
carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8335506&t=9657885

[Godzillasaurus]

Bruhathkaysaurus should not be taken serously IMO. I have shown you on carnivora, why it shouldn't be even taken seriously:
carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8335506&t=9657885

For one, I can't go there anymore because I was banned... Frickin Taipan thought I was being too whiny

And second, I honestly feel as if people are taking the petrified wood thing a little bit too seriously as well. Titanosaurs were found in India, so why should it suddenly be so unusual to find a 100+ ton Late Cretaceous titanosaur there? I am not treating it as total fact, but people just need to quit overlooking this.

[creature386]

It is extremely poorly described and the people who described it are known for being bad at identification (they also described Dravidosaurus).
Here you have the link:
paleoking.blogspot.co.at/2012/01/giant-that-never-was-all-your.html
Here a quote:

"From email correspondence with Dr. Ayyasami, it appears that the material was never actually properly prepared and was left exposed to the elements so when heavy monsoon rains struck the region the fossils were carried away in the rains. He says that the material was definitely dinosaurian in nature, and apparently Dr. Sankar Chatterjee also was able to confirm its dinosaurian (and apparently, titanosaurian) nature. However, as you note, both of these guys have not had the best track record in identifying fossils."

[theropod]

The description and documentation are so pathetic it appears most likely it was made up by the guys who described it. Otherwise, what reason would they have to include such bad images with basically no value for indentifying the remains, and why would they let their biggest dinosaur ever be lost in a flood?

Today, everybody can easily aquire a proper camera, and considering the attention bruhathkayosaurus gets, findinga team to save the fossils would be easy.

[Deleted]

Oct 18, 2013 4:47:35 GMT 5 Godzillasaurus said:

I honestly feel as if people are taking the petrified wood thing a little bit too seriously as well. Titanosaurs were found in India, so why should it suddenly be so unusual to find a 100+ ton Late Cretaceous titanosaur there? I am not treating it as total fact, but people just need to quit overlooking this.

The describers were total incompetents when it came to fossil description. They described Protoavis and Dravidosaurus, and look what those turned out to be.

They have less credibility than some amateurs I know

[theropod]

Excluding youtube fanboys, most amateurs I know have better credibility.
At least I'd concider most of my aquaintances capable of taking proper photographs, drawing in a fashion not reminiscent of a pre-school child, and taking care of the so called "biggest dinosaur" not being simply whashed away.

[Fragillimus335]

Oct 18, 2013 21:29:09 GMT 5 theropod said:

Excluding youtube fanboys, most amateurs I know have better credibility.
At least I'd concider most of my aquaintances capable of taking proper photographs, drawing in a fashion not reminiscent of a pre-school child, and taking care of the so called "biggest dinosaur" not being simply whashed away.

I'd be even madder if it turns out it really was a 150 foot titanosaur that they lost.

[theropod]

Then I would recommend life-long psychiatric treatment

[theropod]

"A giant, skeletally immature individual of Apatosaurus from the Morrison Formation of Oklahoma
Matt Wedel
Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona,
USA.
A collection of Apatosaurus fossils from the Morrison Formation of the Oklahoma
panhandle represents several individuals, including at least one of exceptional size.
Elements from the largest individual include cervical, dorsal, and caudal vertebrae, ribs, a
partial scapulocoracoid, distal femur, fibula, and pedal elements.
These elements are all 11-30% larger (linearly) than the equivalent bones from CM 3018, the mounted
Apatosaurus at the Carnegie Museum.
Surprisingly, the giant Oklahoma
Apatosaurus was not skeletally mature when it died.
A dorsal vertebra, OMNH 1329, has a visible
neurocentral fusion line these are all remodelled away in CM 3018.
More compellingly, a very large cervical rib, OMNH 1368, is unfused.
This is consistent with fusion patterns in other neosauropod
s, in which neurocentral fusion precedes fusion of
the cervical ribs.
In Diplodocus and Giraffatitan, the largest individuals with unfused
cervical ribs are less than 80% the linear size (and therefore only half the mass) of the
largest known individuals.
Despite its immense size, the Oklahoma giant probably was
not done growing, and does not represent the upper size limit for
Apatosaurus.
Linear measurements of the Oklahoma
Apatosaurus imply a body mass roughly twice that of
CM 3018.
The latter specimen has been estimated to mass 18-40 tons.
The Oklahoma giant may have massed 36-80 tons, potentially exceeding
Supersaurus and Brachiosaurus and rivalling the largest titanosaurs."

svpca.org/years/2013_edinburgh/abstracts.pdf

A few links:
svpow.com/2012/04/25/the-giant-oklahoma-apatosaurus-omnh-1670/
svpow.com/2012/04/30/the-giant-oklahoma-apatosaurus-omnh-1670-redux/
skeletaldrawing.blogspot.co.at/2012/04/yup-ok-apatosaurus-is-freakin-huge.html
svpow.com/2013/03/24/omnh-1331-is-my-new-hero/

Even tough by now, largely due to Hartman's and SVPOW articles and comparisons, most people realise how huge the largest Apatosaurus actually were, it is still not given as much credit as it deserves. We are talking about 30m, 50-60t animals here, that weren't even fully grown!