|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 28, 2013 22:11:23 GMT 5
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. Totally agreed with that post. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 28, 2013 22:12:55 GMT 5
So, after all we share a lot of views?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 28, 2013 22:13:02 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. One question, you are tired of discussing this in sauropods and dismiss people who do as fantasizing even tough it is proposed by scientists and stated to be credible, based on methods published and used by scientists, and fully possible from ecological and biomechanical stantpoints; at the same time you establish hypothetical maximum figures for C. megalodon based on isometric scaling from exceptionally proportioned animals, deviating from average figures for ~30% (dimensional) or ~100% (volumetric). These are just the same as 200t sauropods, and base on the same methodology. Makes me wonder what exactly you mean... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 22:13:05 GMT 5
Haven't you said Parabrontopodus was larger? I changed my opinion. I made the huge Parabrontopodus estimates when I thought that the ~1.45-1.63 meter figures were width figures. Now I know that those were length figures. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 28, 2013 22:14:36 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. One question, you are tired of discussing this in sauropods and dismiss people who do as fantasizing even tough it is proposed by scientists and stated to be credible, based on methods published and used by scientists, and fully possible from ecological and biomechanical stantpoints; at the same time you establish hypothetical maximum figures for C. megalodon based on isometric scaling from exceptionally proportioned animals, deviating from average figures for ~30% (dimensional) or ~100% (volumetric). These are just the same as 200t sauropods, and base on the same methodology. Makes me wonder what exactly you mean... You should read his last response to broly. He can accept 200 t as a hypothetical maximum. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 28, 2013 22:15:22 GMT 5
We should be open to these size estimates for gigapods, not exagerate their meaning, but not dismiss them either, like the guys at SVPOW do. As I already wrote, this makes the 100-200t range valid. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 28, 2013 22:16:42 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. One question, you are tired of discussing this in sauropods and dismiss people who do as fantasizing even tough it is proposed by scientists and stated to be credible, based on methods published and used by scientists, and fully possible from ecological and biomechanical stantpoints; at the same time you establish hypothetical maximum figures for C. megalodon based on isometric scaling from exceptionally proportioned animals, deviating from average figures for ~30% (dimensional) or ~100% (volumetric). These are just the same as 200t sauropods, and base on the same methodology. Makes me wonder what exactly you mean... Ridiculous and unhonest, I've several times repeated my doubts about direct sizing methods. You again show your immaturity here. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 28, 2013 22:17:08 GMT 5
One question, you are tired of discussing this in sauropods and dismiss people who do as fantasizing even tough it is proposed by scientists and stated to be credible, based on methods published and used by scientists, and fully possible from ecological and biomechanical stantpoints; at the same time you establish hypothetical maximum figures for C. megalodon based on isometric scaling from exceptionally proportioned animals, deviating from average figures for ~30% (dimensional) or ~100% (volumetric). These are just the same as 200t sauropods, and base on the same methodology. Makes me wonder what exactly you mean... You should read his last response to broly. He can accept 200 t as a hypothetical maximum. sorry, kind of missed the new page when I responded. Anyway, we all agree basically, I just have the feeling some of us are wording what they write in a manner that doesn't make it apparent. The title for the largest animal to date is a tie between the largest known sauropods and large blue whales. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 28, 2013 22:18:28 GMT 5
One question, you are tired of discussing this in sauropods and dismiss people who do as fantasizing even tough it is proposed by scientists and stated to be credible, based on methods published and used by scientists, and fully possible from ecological and biomechanical stantpoints; at the same time you establish hypothetical maximum figures for C. megalodon based on isometric scaling from exceptionally proportioned animals, deviating from average figures for ~30% (dimensional) or ~100% (volumetric). These are just the same as 200t sauropods, and base on the same methodology. Makes me wonder what exactly you mean... Ridiculous and unhonest, I've several times repeated my doubts about direct sizing methods. You again show your immaturity here. Yet you used them, and at the same time express you don't even argue with other people who do with other animals? Doesn't seem logical I'm immature... |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 28, 2013 22:21:38 GMT 5
Ridiculous and unhonest, I've several times repeated my doubts about direct sizing methods. You again show your immaturity here. Yet you used them, and at the same time express you don't even argue with other people who do with other animals? Doesn't seem logical I'm immature... The results were specifically repeated as hypothetical and based on a debattable method. Still, it was published so has to be used. I agree with the suggestions from SV POW, agreed with the last post of Broly and agreed to possibilities. I don't agree with lines such as "100-200 ton were very real". An beautiful example of your overenthusiasm and (selective) optimism. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 28, 2013 22:37:35 GMT 5
And the 200t is published in SVPOW, as I may remind you a blog whose aggreement you seek with everything regarding sauropod size (in the sense of "if they don't say it, there's no reason to suspect it"). Yes, these figures are very real, real in the sense of valid estimates. Of course it has to be taken relatively since we are talking about ESTIMATES, not FACTS.
So these have to be used by your own logic and you certainly cannot ignore someone doing so.
I don't display selective optimism, I rather try to display a similar degree with all animals, not consider the same kind of figure in some animals less likely than in others.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 29, 2013 1:08:04 GMT 5
Hey guys, I'm trying to compile a list of all sauropods either longer or heavier than the Giraffatitan holotype, this is what I have so far. Did I miss any? Any mysterious bones you have heard of?
Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum
Broome Titanosaur
Huanghetitan ruyangensis
Amphicoelias fragillimus
Brachiosaurus nougaredi
Plagne Diplodocid
Antarctosaurus giganteus
Hudiesaurus sinojapanorum
Puertasaurus reuili
Argentinosaurus huinculensis
Alamosaurus sanjuanensis
Sauroposeidon proteles
Futalogonkosaurus dukei
Supersaurus vivanae
Breviparopus taghbaloutensis
Paralatitan stromeri
Ruyangosaurus giganteus
Parabrontopodus distercii
Elaltitan lilloi
French Titanosaur
Ultrasauripus ungulatus
Argyrosaurus superbus
Brachiosaurus altithorax
Giraffatitan branci
LacovaraÂ’s Titanosaur
Diplodocus hallorum
Apatosaurus excelsus
??Bruhathkayosaurus matleyi??
Moroccan Titanosaur
The Archbishop
Lusotitan atalaiensis
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 29, 2013 1:44:11 GMT 5
D. carnegii and longus and Barosaurus were also longer than the Giraffatitan holotype.
Why exactly do you think the plagne trackmaker was diplodocid? It could also have been a brachiosaur, we know brachiosaurs (gen. nougaredi) reaching this size range as well as diplodocids (A. fragillimus) and sadly the morphology of the ichnites is not recorded properly.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 29, 2013 2:04:16 GMT 5
D. carnegii and longus and Barosaurus were also longer than the Giraffatitan holotype. Why exactly do you think the plagne trackmaker was diplodocid? It could also have been a brachiosaur, we know brachiosaurs (gen. nougaredi) reaching this size range as well as diplodocids (A. fragillimus) and sadly the morphology of the ichnites is not recorded properly. Eh, those puny 12 ton whimps didn't make the cut. lol I'm talking long AND heavyish, aka at least 25 tons. I think they are diplodocid because of the roundness of the prints, but that's just a SWAG, (scientific wild-ass guess)!  |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 29, 2013 2:17:56 GMT 5
Most of the Broome tracks also seem to be pretty round (Thulborn, 2009), but Diplodocids were most likely not present in that habitat. On the other hand pes prints from Lourhinha, possibly made by Dinheirosaurus are not round at all (Mateus & Milan, 2010). I'm taking a strong interest in ichnology at the moment  |
|
