|
|
Post by theropod on May 31, 2013 16:12:04 GMT 5
Yeah, looks like a posterior sacral, save for the shape  But I think from that it is more easy to envision the hugeness of this remain and what it can fit/not fit. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on May 31, 2013 21:10:45 GMT 5
More rigourously, Amphicoelias is listed in the 90-150 tons range and I'm perfectly fine with this. I agree with that, although some freak specimen may have been able to reach the 200 t mark (looking at the size ranges of modern animals), but such specimen should be ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 31, 2013 21:18:16 GMT 5
^In that case, I suggest also ignoring the same specimens in Balaenoptera musculus.
But in the end, how rigorous something is doesn't jsut depend on how many scientists agree with it.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on May 31, 2013 21:47:00 GMT 5
^In that case, I suggest also ignoring the same specimens in Balaenoptera musculus. But in the end, how rigorous something is doesn't jsut depend on how many scientists agree with it. Exactly, and on a more shocking note, the average Blue whale weighs 68 tons. DOES THAT NOT BLOW YOUR MIND. If we are going by strict averages, there were probably a few sauropods that topped old blue. (At least the current, whaling depleted blues) Sad... |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on May 31, 2013 21:57:15 GMT 5
^In that case, I suggest also ignoring the same specimens in Balaenoptera musculus. I do so. Exactly, and on a more shocking note, the average Blue whale weighs 68 tons. DOES THAT NOT BLOW YOUR MIND. Not all.  biol.wwu.edu/mbel/media/pdfs/CBP2001_129.pdf |
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226 
|
Post by gigadino96 on May 31, 2013 22:52:11 GMT 5
There is a difference between ignoring the specimens of Blue Whale and Amphicoleias of 200 t, or the fact that we know that the blue whale exists, while Amphicoelias we have no evidence of its existence. The largest Balenoptera musculus ever recorded is 33.5 meters long and weighs 180 tons.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 1, 2013 0:41:47 GMT 5
The 200 t Amphicoelias are hypothethical.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 1, 2013 1:43:15 GMT 5
The 200 t Amphicoelias are hypothethical. As is the weight estimate for every extinct animal!  Hypothetical does not mean unlikely, or incorrect. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 1, 2013 2:26:18 GMT 5
I wouldn't call it hypothetical. It bases on isometric scaling for the specimen we had. It might be more or less unlikely tough, depending on the method. In any case it is possible even for that specimen.
In a range of 90-150t, it is still larger than the blue whale. That means still calling the blue whale the largest animal is just as speculative as estimating Amphicoelias at a size equaling/exceeding its maximum. Something we definitely know is that the largest known sauropods are competitors for that title.
B. musculus merely remains the largest PROVEN animal. Depending on the estimate, there are sauropods that might claim its title.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 1, 2013 11:41:10 GMT 5
The 200 t Amphicoelias are hypothethical. As is the weight estimate for every extinct animal! Hypothetical does not mean unlikely, or incorrect. 200 t were a weight I suggested for freak specimen. It could have reached 200 t on average, but I stick to the published weights. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 1, 2013 15:08:25 GMT 5
120t?
That is pretty low, don't you think so? 200t is not suggested for a freak, not even another specimen than the single neural arch Cope found. It is merely a higher estimate. it is not hypothetical, but an isometrically optained figure based on Diplodocus. The only things that are speculative about it is whether it should be based on Diplodocus and whether the vertebra was scaled correctly. Both are clear possibilities.
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jun 1, 2013 15:13:25 GMT 5
Amphicoelias, if it had existed, in my opinion, would weigh 150 tons, it was a Diplodocidae. Remember that Diplodocus was more than 20 meters long, but hardly weighed more than 12 tons.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 1, 2013 15:24:40 GMT 5
The 26m D. carnegii was estimated at ~10-12t. I took 10,25 by SVPOW.
If we scale up to both ends of Amphicoelias' range:
vertebral height of 2,3m
2,3³*10,25=124t
vertebral height of 2,7m
2,7³*10,25=201t
I've rounded up the size of Dippys vert to 1m, so in fact it may even get a bit larger but making precise figures is pretty much useless anyway here.
It is probable that an Amphicoelias based on diplodocus falls somewhere in between those two. First one is exactly what Taylor did, second one is exactly what Carpenter did; merely with a corrected figure for Diplodocus since both assumed it's vertebra to be too large (that is, Mike Taylor basically just lowered Carpenter's estimate with a new weight figure for Dippy and a lower vertebral size).
Both are basing on the lowest figure for Diplodocus, and vertebral-height estimates and methods directly from Carpenter and Taylor.
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jun 1, 2013 15:27:39 GMT 5
And the average is 162.5 tons. That sounds reasonable IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 1, 2013 15:36:44 GMT 5
Yes, if we base it on Diplodocus.
a larger number of estimates based on other taxa would be better of course. However if we just take the metods scientists have used, it turns out that large.
|
|
Hypothetical does not mean unlikely, or incorrect.