Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 28, 2013 21:11:05 GMT 5
I need to make this clear. We have no idea how wide the prints are...the outline I made was a guess, I could have easily misinterpreted them. The only thing we have going is length, and as you say, even with Hartman's exceptionally long sauropod feet hip heights of 6 meters are obtained (to the acetabulum), compared to argentinosaurus's 4.95, which would indicate an animal of at least 115 tons. Assuming Argentinosaurus was 65 tons. And all the most recent literature on sauropod tracks and locomotion suggest that sauropod hip heights fell in the 4.5-5.9x foot length range, which is 7.6-10 meters. ( I doubt the ratio was actually above 5x, and 4.5-4.8 seems the most likely.) Here is the paper: www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0001-37652011000100016Directly comparing it with the giant Alamosaurus results in 100 tonnes assuming that the Alamosaurus weighs 75 tonnes, which is rather high in itself. The 4.95m for Argentinosaurus is a lot lower than the around 5.75m I got for the Alamosaurus at the hip as well. I will read the paper later. Read it. It is strongly depedent on the reconstruction. I will nt judge which reconstruction is better but suspect that Hartman's is. I have left a comment at his Alamosaurus Puertasaurus pic at deviant art: coherentsheaf.deviantart.com/art/Clash-of-the-Titans-3781254664.95 to the acetabulum, not the top of the ilium. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 28, 2013 21:11:21 GMT 5
MAtt Wedel did: svpow.com/2009/10/13/how-big-were-the-biggest-sauropod-trackmakers/I cannot believe so few people actually read SVPOW  I was not saying anything was certain, it seems my posts are very easy to misunderstand. I was saying these were not ruled out and within proposed size ranges, and no worse than some other figures also frequently used by members. |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jun 28, 2013 21:13:50 GMT 5
Directly comparing it with the giant Alamosaurus results in 100 tonnes assuming that the Alamosaurus weighs 75 tonnes, which is rather high in itself. The 4.95m for Argentinosaurus is a lot lower than the around 5.75m I got for the Alamosaurus at the hip as well. I will read the paper later. Read it. It is strongly depedent on the reconstruction. I will nt judge which reconstruction is better but suspect that Hartman's is. I have left a comment at his Alamosaurus Puertasaurus pic at deviant art: coherentsheaf.deviantart.com/art/Clash-of-the-Titans-3781254664.95 to the acetabulum, not the top of the ilium. I know. Did not write anything else. Was too lazy to measure the acetabulum heidht. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 28, 2013 21:14:48 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 28, 2013 21:17:13 GMT 5
MAtt Wedel did: svpow.com/2009/10/13/how-big-were-the-biggest-sauropod-trackmakers/I cannot believe so few people actually read SVPOW I was not saying anything was certain, it seems my posts are very easy to misunderstand. I was saying these were not ruled out and within proposed size ranges, and no worse than some other figures also frequently used by members. I somewhat agree with and this contradicts your previous post "100-200 tons sauropods are very real". Alamosaurus, Argentinosaurus and others can be discussed but are actualy very real... When it comes about a bone lost a century ago known by a sktech and foot prints, nothing is real, everything is hypothetical and at the best possible. But far from factual. As Matt Wedel expressed in the article about Amphicoelias, "this is not because we make estimates that we believe in them...". Think about that guys. Or think what you want at the end. But I won't talk a long time with folks always speaking about 200 tons sauropods, surely. |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 28, 2013 21:24:47 GMT 5
4.95 to the acetabulum, not the top of the ilium. I know. Did not write anything else. Was too lazy to measure the acetabulum heidht. Haha. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 21:36:34 GMT 5
"So the “best range of likelihood” is something like 70-150 tonnes, but anything from 50 to 200 or more is credible." -Mike Taylor
200+ tonne sauropods are a considered credible possibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 28, 2013 21:51:52 GMT 5
"So the “best range of likelihood” is something like 70-150 tonnes, but anything from 50 to 200 or more is credible." -Mike Taylor 200+ tonne sauropods are a considered credible possibility. That's why I say and report from Taylor since a while. But some people easily confuses "50-200 tons or more is credible" with "sauropods weighed up to 200 or more"... |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 28, 2013 21:57:43 GMT 5
^That's what I'm saying all the time. it sounds even more likely in Wedel's post on the plagne tracks, and we have to recall the "best range of likelyhood" copies the flaw from Carpenter, producing underestimates. We get roughly 120-200t with the same figures except a corrected Dipplodocus vert. All this matches up nicely. 200t is not unlikely. Not factual, in case someone wants to interpret me to have said that, but it is a valid estimate.
The determination with which some people want to reject it is too much and not completely objective, and doesn't base on factual evidence.
Doubts are a different story, but as shown by several posters (fragillimus on the food issue, coherentsheaf on the water issue, my quotes and pictures of feet and footprints showing soft-tissue and allometry are not excessive) there have to be some substantial arguments why we should consider the upper figures less likely.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 28, 2013 21:59:47 GMT 5
"So the “best range of likelihood” is something like 70-150 tonnes, but anything from 50 to 200 or more is credible." -Mike Taylor 200+ tonne sauropods are a considered credible possibility. That's why I say and report from Taylor since a while. But some people easily confuses "50-200 tons or more is credible" with "sauropods could have weighed up to 200 (or more?) based on valid evidence" No confusion here. 200t is valid enough to be considered a proper size estimate. Don't make me repeat what I already wrote and quoted... |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 28, 2013 22:03:40 GMT 5
MAtt Wedel did: svpow.com/2009/10/13/how-big-were-the-biggest-sauropod-trackmakers/I cannot believe so few people actually read SVPOW I was not saying anything was certain, it seems my posts are very easy to misunderstand. I was saying these were not ruled out and within proposed size ranges, and no worse than some other figures also frequently used by members. I somewhat agree with and this contradicts your previous post "100-200 tons sauropods are very real". Alamosaurus, Argentinosaurus and others can be discussed but are actualy very real... When it comes about a bone lost a century ago known by a sktech and foot prints, nothing is real, everything is hypothetical and at the best possible. But far from factual. As Matt Wedel expressed in the article about Amphicoelias, "this is not because we make estimates that we believe in them...". Think about that guys. Or think what you want at the end. But I won't talk a long time with folks always speaking about 200 tons sauropods, surely. This is my problem. You consider them ridiculous, to a degree of refusing to argue with people who consider them, while nobody else, including scientists, seems to do. My quote completely agrees with my previous post. It proposes this approximate range as valid, tough it gives some arguments to consider, for and against it. Please read them and consider them first. Based on the evidence they presented, 200t is a fully credible figure for the largest sauropods we have, and cannot be disregarded or ridiculed as if this was some fanboyic guess. I recommend you to read the comment by steveoc on the Amphicoelias post, especially the last sentence, and Taylor's reply. What the guys at SVPOW conclude is merely uncertainity. They don't exclude figures as BS like you want to do, and don't automatically reject everything that seems unconventionally large for a sauropod, even tough many arguments for it exist. I tend to have greater respect for estimates made in appreciation of their error bars than sensationalist claims made in exagerated certainty of a hypothesis, even if both are made by scientists. That the scientific conservative figure for the plagne sauropod when based on Giraffatitan, is in excess of 110t (larger than the average blue whale) speaks for itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 28, 2013 22:05:19 GMT 5
The same could have weighed 50 tons just as 200 tons. 70-150 tons being the more likely and I'm agreed with this.
All the time repeated myself that I'm opened to the possibility, but no freaking fact, thanks to the regular reading of SV POW.
Now I'm tired of that discussion about hypothetical animals known by almost nothing and with so huge size ranges that they are almost meaningless. Believe what you want in your minds guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 28, 2013 22:06:33 GMT 5
^That's what I'm saying all the time. it sounds even more likely in Wedel's post on the plagne tracks, and we have to recall the "best range of likelyhood" copies the flaw from Carpenter, producing underestimates. As I said, they are aware of that flaw: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/3902/thread |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 22:07:41 GMT 5
"So the “best range of likelihood” is something like 70-150 tonnes, but anything from 50 to 200 or more is credible." -Mike Taylor 200+ tonne sauropods are a considered credible possibility. That's why I say and report from Taylor since a while. But some people easily confuses "50-200 tons or more is credible" with "sauropods weighed up to 200 or more"... Well, sometimes if the wording of the post isn't careful, possibilities can be mistaken as "facts"... What the quote also tries to state is that ~200+ tonne sauropods shouldn't simply be dismissed as nonsense. Btw, I seriously doubt the existence of sauropods beyond ~250 tonnes, even taking freak specimens into account. My present opinion is that A. fragillimus represents the upper limit for terrestrial animals. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 28, 2013 22:09:49 GMT 5
Haven't you said Parabrontopodus was larger?
|
|
