|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 9, 2021 1:19:42 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 30, 2022 23:10:27 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by spartan on Jul 9, 2022 4:45:55 GMT 5
Was this the supposed tree? That's really wild.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jul 9, 2022 4:55:48 GMT 5
Yup, that's the one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2023 5:01:21 GMT 5
AFAIK Maraapunisaurus is the largest sauropod yet discovered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 9, 2023 22:51:13 GMT 5
Body mass estimate of Bruhathkayosaurus and other fragmentary sauropod remains suggest the largest land animals were about as big as the greatest whales www.idunn.no/doi/10.18261/let.56.2.5 |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 10, 2023 2:27:28 GMT 5
Body mass estimate of Bruhathkayosaurus and other fragmentary sauropod remains suggest the largest land animals were about as big as the greatest whales www.idunn.no/doi/10.18261/let.56.2.5To comment on this, while I don’t necessarily disagree with the overall notion, and the core finding (the size estimate for Bruhatkayosaurus looks like it may actually be the most rigorous thing in the paper (even if I still wouldn’t consider Bruhatkayosaurus alone overly strong evidence of anything), there are some really "out there" claims in that paper, including about the maximum size of animals as a whole, an unsourced and unexplained size estimate for the Broome trackmaker, wide-ranging claims about size evolution in marine animals based on Paul’s own (doubtful as I argued elsewhere on this board) estimates presented not in a scientific venue but in his princeton field guide to mesozoic sea reptiles as well as, funnily enough, about megalodon, including in the very last sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 10, 2023 3:17:50 GMT 5
Body mass estimate of Bruhathkayosaurus and other fragmentary sauropod remains suggest the largest land animals were about as big as the greatest whales www.idunn.no/doi/10.18261/let.56.2.5To comment on this, while I don’t necessarily disagree with the overall notion, and the core finding (the size estimate for Bruhatkayosaurus looks like it may actually be the most rigorous thing in the paper (even if I still wouldn’t consider Bruhatkayosaurus alone overly strong evidence of anything), there are some really "out there" claims in that paper, including about the maximum size of animals as a whole, an unsourced and unexplained size estimate for the Broome trackmaker, wide-ranging claims about size evolution in marine animals based on Paul’s own (doubtful as I argued elsewhere on this board) estimates presented not in a scientific venue but in his princeton field guide to mesozoic sea reptiles as well as, funnily enough, about megalodon, including in the very last sentence. Yup. I've yet to read the full paper myself but I know one claim made about the evolutionary duration of large baleen whales isn't really true (they've been around since the late Miocene IIRC). However, for a while now I've had no problem with the idea of the largest sauropods being on par with at least average blue whales in size. I've heard people poo-pooing this paper due to Greg Paul's association alone, which I honestly think is unfair. One of the things Greg Paul is known for is his skeletals & volumetric mass estimates. Okay, admittedly he's not always right on those, but they are more in his alley. And if nothing else I certainly trust Asier Larramendi. As long as we understand that this should be taken with a pinch of salt, but maybe not *quite* impossible, I think it's okay (and honestly, the same could be said for other fossil giants, yet far fewer people scrutinize them, *cough* Palaeoloxodon namadicus *cough*). |
|
