Largest sauropods

[Fragillimus335]

I just noticed this little excerpt while surfing around SV-POW... Many posters here believe that no other reasonable paleontologist has ever said 70m+, and 200 ton+ estimates are possible. Well, here is a nice quote from the guys at SV-POW,

"Amphicoelias fragillimus appears to have been built like a big Diplodocus–well, okay, an extremely mind-blowingly immense Diplodocus. The femur may have been anywhere from 3-4.6 meters long (Carpenter 2006), and was more likely in the upper part of that range. In the big mounted skeletons of Diplodocus, the femora are just a little over 1.5 meters long. So Amphicoelias may have been 2-3 times the size of Diplodocus in linear terms."

That means anywhere from about 53-78 meters, and 88-295 tons are deemed possible by the guys at SV-POW, and note that the upper portion of the range is more likely.

If I had to stake my bets I would say a good range for Amphicoelias would be 65-80 meters and 160-260 tons. Once again, assuming Carpenter got the vertebra height right.

[Fragillimus335]

Jun 18, 2013 21:27:59 GMT 5 stomatopod said:

Scott Hartman´s Puertasaurus is even shorter than my estimate.
*Sarcasm*What a biased conservative sauropod hater. *Sarcasm*

Yeah, Nima WAYYY oversized his, I doubt the specimen we have was more than 30 meters at the absolute most, but still pretty heavy at 70-75 tons. Compared to Nima's whopping 38 meters and 110 tons!

[Grey]

So where are the international news and scientific interviews speaking that the blue whale has lost its crown ?

[Fragillimus335]

Only Tyrannosaurus gets that kind of attention.

[Grey]

Jun 27, 2013 1:21:36 GMT 5 Fragillimus335 said:

Only Tyrannosaurus gets that kind of attention.

No, all big things attract attention. To me, no sauropod equalds the blue whale yet, that's possibilities nothing else.

[Fragillimus335]

Jun 27, 2013 1:26:14 GMT 5 Grey said:

Jun 27, 2013 1:21:36 GMT 5 Fragillimus335 said:

Only Tyrannosaurus gets that kind of attention.

No, all big things attract attention. To me, no sauropod equalds the blue whale yet, that's possibilities nothing else.

There is also a possibility that Allosaurus fed exclusively on nectar. lol, I'm not saying the sauropod thing is as clear cut as that, but even the guys at SV-POW think it is not only possible, but probable. Also, don't forget that the average adult Blue weights a mere 80-100 tons.

[gigadino96]

Jun 27, 2013 1:30:10 GMT 5 Fragillimus335 said:

Jun 27, 2013 1:26:14 GMT 5 Grey said:

No, all big things attract attention. To me, no sauropod equalds the blue whale yet, that's possibilities nothing else.

There is also a possibility that Allosaurus fed exclusively on nectar. lol, I'm not saying the sauropod thing is as clear cut as that, but even the guys at SV-POW think it is not only possible, but probable. Also, don't forget that the average adult Blue weights a mere 80-100 tons.

I really doubt that the Amphicoelias (if it really existed) is on average the gigantic 75 meters and 268 tons.

I think that both Amphicoelias and Blue Whale were about the same size on average, but Amphicoelia grown at higher size.

[Grey]

I've several time discussed about this with the guys at SV POW, they've never talked about probabilities but possibilities. Breaking blue whale record is something that would deserve huge publicity and numerous scientifics interventions about the limits of biomechanics and living land organisms and so...I've not seen something like this and I've nowhere read them writing something as "Amphicoelias was probably 295 tons".

[Fragillimus335]

Jun 27, 2013 1:34:28 GMT 5 Grey said:

I've several time discussed about this with the guys at SV POW, they've never talked about probabilities but possibilities. Breaking blue whale record is something that would deserve huge publicity and numerous scientifics interventions about the limits of biomechanics and living land organisms and so...I've not seen something like this and I've nowhere read them writing something as "Amphicoelias was probably 295 tons".

Forget it man, everything you claim as evidence against my assumptions I tear down, then you change the subject and claim that I am wrong. READ the quote, A PALEONTOLOGIST (that you said is an authority on sauropods) SAID AMPHICOELIAS VERY POSSIBLY COULD HAVE BEEN 3 TIMES AS LONG AS DIPLODOCUS. That is ~78 meters, no fanboy guesses, a respected estimation.

[Grey]

Mike Taylor Says:

May 31, 2013 at 8:30 am

Ted, I think youÂ’re missing the key point of this post, which is (and I quote):

Folks — please remember, the punchline is not “Amphicoelias fragillimus only weighed 78.5 tonnes rather than 122.4 tonnes”. The punchline is “when you extrapolate the mass of an extinct animal of uncertain affinities from a 132-year-old figure of a partial bone which has not been seen in more than a century, you need to recognise that the error-bars are massive and anything resembling certainty is way misplaced.”

Caveat estimator!

So the “best range of likelihood” is something like 70-150 tonnes, but anything from 50 to 200 or more is credible.

There is simply no more certainty to be had.

Credible is not very possible yet.

[theropod]

It's as simple as this: even in the known fossil record, constituting a small part of the fauna that existed back then, we have evidences pointing out to possible sizes of 100-200t. They are not rejected by specialists, but even proposed on a somewhat liberal basis (no more liberal than many other estimates, just more shocking to some). From a biomechanical perspective, they are fully possible as well.

I don't understand this tendency to absolutely want to make them as small as possible, considering those are mere fossils and we haven't even really started to get a complete picture of the extinct fauna. There is no reason why they should not have plausibly reached that size. Since our sample is not exactly large compared to the extant animals we compare them to, there is no point in desparately resorting to conservatives. They very likely are not the most accurate ones.

That something has not received media attention means nothing. There are lots of huge animals that received little, if at all, and the last time sauropods were truly popular must have been a hundred years ago.

I don't remember Amphicoelias getting attention either. The media take far less part in advocating certain fossil taxa than you think. a huge, harmless plant eater doesn't interest them too much, especially if it is known from some badly accessible, poorly known footprints somewhere in europe...

[Grey]

Folks — please remember, the punchline is not “Amphicoelias fragillimus only weighed 78.5 tonnes rather than 122.4 tonnes”. The punchline is “when you extrapolate the mass of an extinct animal of uncertain affinities from a 132-year-old figure of a partial bone which has not been seen in more than a century, you need to recognise that the error-bars are massive and anything resembling certainty is way misplaced.”

Caveat estimator!

So the “best range of likelihood” is something like 70-150 tonnes, but anything from 50 to 200 or more is credible.

There is simply no more certainty to be had.


I'm leaving the forum for several months normally for professionnal reasons soon. I would be really sad at my return to see the board full of tons of scales, drawings and unscientific factual datas like 300 tons sauropods. You really all start to piss me off with your kid crap. I'm not even sure I would come back if it's for read tons of fanboy crap like that. Enough is enough ! Such a disappointement.

[coherentsheaf]

Jun 27, 2013 2:19:19 GMT 5 Grey said:

Folks — please remember, the punchline is not “Amphicoelias fragillimus only weighed 78.5 tonnes rather than 122.4 tonnes”. The punchline is “when you extrapolate the mass of an extinct animal of uncertain affinities from a 132-year-old figure of a partial bone which has not been seen in more than a century, you need to recognise that the error-bars are massive and anything resembling certainty is way misplaced.”

Caveat estimator!

So the “best range of likelihood” is something like 70-150 tonnes, but anything from 50 to 200 or more is credible.

There is simply no more certainty to be had.


I'm leaving the forum for several months normally for professionnal reasons soon. I would be really sad at my return to see the board full of tons of scales, drawings and unscientific factual datas like 300 tons sauropods. You really all start to piss me off with your kid crap. I'm not even sure I would come back if it's for read tons of fanboy crap like that. Enough is enough ! Such a disappointement.

Unless some major new information arrives I will argue against the existence of super giant sharks, mosasaurs, sauropods and pliosaurs. I don't feel confident on theropods though
so no worries!

[Grey]

I am not surprised coming from you ! Just hoping this forum does not become a heaven of fantasy monsters like ridiculous dinosaur subforum of CF.

[Fragillimus335]

Jun 27, 2013 2:19:19 GMT 5 Grey said:

Folks — please remember, the punchline is not “Amphicoelias fragillimus only weighed 78.5 tonnes rather than 122.4 tonnes”. The punchline is “when you extrapolate the mass of an extinct animal of uncertain affinities from a 132-year-old figure of a partial bone which has not been seen in more than a century, you need to recognise that the error-bars are massive and anything resembling certainty is way misplaced.”

Caveat estimator!

So the “best range of likelihood” is something like 70-150 tonnes, but anything from 50 to 200 or more is credible.

There is simply no more certainty to be had.


I'm leaving the forum for several months normally for professionnal reasons soon. I would be really sad at my return to see the board full of tons of scales, drawings and unscientific factual datas like 300 tons sauropods. You really all start to piss me off with your kid crap. I'm not even sure I would come back if it's for read tons of fanboy crap like that. Enough is enough ! Such a disappointement.

When you can't continue a losing debate you scream fanboy and change the subject...

I hope you better your interpersonal skills during your professional retreat... adios.