|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 1, 2013 19:19:00 GMT 5
200t is not suggested for a freak It isn't, but that was my own suggestion. 120 t could have indeed been too low, but remember that there are much smaller estimates for the vertebra, than Carpenter's. What do you think of 150 t? |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 1, 2013 19:49:25 GMT 5
200t is not suggested for a freak It isn't, but that was my own suggestion. 120 t could have indeed been too low, but remember that there are much smaller estimates for the vertebra, than Carpenter's. What do you think of 150 t? I think it is very possible, but I consider it on the lower end. IMO it was closer to 200 tons. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 1, 2013 22:16:29 GMT 5
200t is not suggested for a freak It isn't, but that was my own suggestion. 120 t could have indeed been too low, but remember that there are much smaller estimates for the vertebra, than Carpenter's. What do you think of 150 t? It gets to about 120t when using the lower-end estimate for the vertebra. 150t is not bad, it is a reasonable figure imo, not too liberal or conservative. I'd still prefer to see about some other diplodocoids for comparison. If it is really more similar to Apatosaurus, we should also reconstruct its vertebra based on it (and then of course there's the question which apatosaurus to use, since it's a pretty variable genus). |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 3, 2013 4:17:52 GMT 5
It isn't, but that was my own suggestion. 120 t could have indeed been too low, but remember that there are much smaller estimates for the vertebra, than Carpenter's. What do you think of 150 t? It gets to about 120t when using the lower-end estimate for the vertebra. 150t is not bad, it is a reasonable figure imo, not too liberal or conservative. I'd still prefer to see about some other diplodocoids for comparison. If it is really more similar to Apatosaurus, we should also reconstruct its vertebra based on it (and then of course there's the question which apatosaurus to use, since it's a pretty variable genus). Well I have done the work for you!!! My results! First I scaled an Apatosaurus D9 to roughly the same centrum size of Carpenter's reconstruction. Due to the massive and tall neural spine the vert was ~3 meters tall. When you scale Scott Hartman's apatosaur skeletals to this vertebra they measure. A. ajax-61 meters perhaps ~260 tons A. excelsus-49 meters perhaps ~165 tons A. Louisae-50 meters perhaps ~185-200 tons Apatosaurs are freaking chubby! |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 3, 2013 19:44:16 GMT 5
Why centrum size, why not the size of the neural arch known of A. fragilimus?
Where did you take the measurements and images from? I like to do work myself.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 3, 2013 21:51:32 GMT 5
Why centrum size, why not the size of the neural arch known of A. fragilimus? Where did you take the measurements and images from? I like to do work myself. Well, I scaled it to neural arch at first, but things got freaky big, so I stayed conservative.  I just did this...  |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 4, 2013 1:09:20 GMT 5
I don't see how apatosaurus would be a good analogy at all, it has completely different vertebra morphology than A. altus...
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 4, 2013 1:57:18 GMT 5
I don't see how apatosaurus would be a good analogy at all, it has completely different vertebra morphology than A. altus... My thoughts exactly. IMO I would think A. altus or Barosaurus would be the most likely models for a super-massive sauropod like Amphicoelias. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 4, 2013 22:11:21 GMT 5
I don't see how apatosaurus would be a good analogy at all, it has completely different vertebra morphology than A. altus... That probably only was to take multiple kinds of sauropods for scaling, due to Amphicoelias' unclear taxonomy. |
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Jun 18, 2013 21:27:59 GMT 5
Scott Hartman´s Puertasaurus is even shorter than my estimate.
*Sarcasm*What a biased conservative sauropod hater. *Sarcasm*
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 26, 2013 23:29:56 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 26, 2013 23:42:46 GMT 5
Possibility is no confirmation. I had read that, thanks anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jun 27, 2013 0:23:48 GMT 5
Liberal doesn't mean wrong. It means wrong more often than not. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 27, 2013 0:41:49 GMT 5
He is aware of that, he was just talking about possibilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 27, 2013 1:00:15 GMT 5
Yes I was talking about possibilities, since earlier it has been noted these sizes were totally unsupported and baseless.
|
|
