Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 27, 2013 6:38:12 GMT 5
Question. How would a species of land animals that could potentially reach sizes of up to two hundred tons be even capable of mating? Would a female be strong enough to support three hundred plus tons of weight? Would a two hundred ton male be even capable of rearing up on its hind legs? The limb strength of most animals is calibrated to withstand two times the stress during maximum speed. It is therefore plausible that mating is no that problematic, especially if you have a very long and flexible penis  Haha, yep, and mounting is just one theory for sauropod mating, they could have backed up, tail to tail...and that's where the flexi-penis goes into action.  |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 27, 2013 6:48:22 GMT 5
BTW, you two guys, you will not convince me like your buddies on CF that you were hacked on SV POW. That was just so flagrant ! The same writing, the same long boring arguments, the same time at writing on it, the same time at provoking a team of paleontologists and the same time at turning your minds and then claim about a hacker who, just by chance (!) and for some reason, hacked you too, at the same time here again ! Ridiculous. Grey, please, I can see that you may not share my opinions on the validity of various scaling methods for Amphicoelias, but please don't perpetuate the troll poster thing, it wasn't me, and I would be ashamed to speak in such a combative way to many of the people I look up to most in the field of paleontology. I can't speak for Broly, but the posts came is such a sporadic and incoherent way I doubt he was involved either. Please read them again, they barely make sense in context, and are basically just blocks of text thrown into the discussion. On the topic of Amphicoelias, I think we have done all we can, both of our favored size ranges are speculative and quite possible within the ranges of biological constraints and what little hard evidence we have, I favor the higher, and you the lower, and both with appropriate caution, and I think that is where we must let this discussion lie. That is...until more of Cope's titan comes to light! |
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Jun 27, 2013 6:51:49 GMT 5
I see.
Still, a hypothetical two hundred ton land animal would have had a hellish life style. Large food requirements, majority of water sources too low for comfort, lethal falls, ect. For those reasons alone I sincerely doubt the existence of such behemoths.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 27, 2013 6:58:48 GMT 5
BTW, you two guys, you will not convince me like your buddies on CF that you were hacked on SV POW. That was just so flagrant ! The same writing, the same long boring arguments, the same time at writing on it, the same time at provoking a team of paleontologists and the same time at turning your minds and then claim about a hacker who, just by chance (!) and for some reason, hacked you too, at the same time here again ! Ridiculous. Grey, please, I can see that you may not share my opinions on the validity of various scaling methods for Amphicoelias, but please don't perpetuate the troll poster thing, it wasn't me, and I would be ashamed to speak in such a combative way to many of the people I look up to most in the field of paleontology. I can't speak for Broly, but the posts came is such a sporadic and incoherent way I doubt he was involved either. Please read them again, they barely make sense in context, and are basically just blocks of text thrown into the discussion. On the topic of Amphicoelias, I think we have done all we can, both of our favored size ranges are speculative and quite possible within the ranges of biological constraints and what little hard evidence we have, I favor the higher, and you the lower, and both with appropriate caution, and I think that is where we must let this discussion lie. That is...until more of Cope's titan comes to light! I feel sincerity in that post. Fair enough, but you have to recognise how suspicious were these messages. I have to be honest, I wasn't surprise reading these... As for the rest, I can live with your opinion. Only I know how worshiping works and I don't want to see that valuable board gaining the same amount of kids speculations and crap than in CF or topix. Such statements as "the blue whale has been beaten" are just totally far-fetched at the point we are. I don't say it's impossible, I say that I'd like to see more rationality and cautiousness in these discussions regarding fragmentary very poorly known taxa. And A. fragillimus in particular... |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 27, 2013 7:00:53 GMT 5
I see. Still, a hypothetical two hundred ton land animal would have had a hellish life style. Large food requirements, majority of water sources too low for comfort, lethal falls, ect. For those reasons alone I sincerely doubt the existence of such behemoths. The potential ecological, trophic issues are very very numerous. This adds to the understandable skepticism around. |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 27, 2013 7:24:20 GMT 5
I see. Still, a hypothetical two hundred ton land animal would have had a hellish life style. Large food requirements, majority of water sources too low for comfort, lethal falls, ect. For those reasons alone I sincerely doubt the existence of such behemoths. The potential ecological, trophic issues are very very numerous. This adds to the understandable skepticism around. I dont see them as too bad, recent studies find that give a mixed diet of dry forage a 70 metric ton sauropod would "only" need about 120kg of food per day! That makes a mere 350kg for a 200 ton Amphicoelias. An average acre of mature conifer forest during peak growing season may support 8-9 metric tons of foliage. Thus one 200t Amphicoelias could sustain itself for nearly a month on a single acre of land, not factoring in regrowth of plant matter, or ground plants. In regards to falling, I'm sure being slow and careful was regular business for all large sauropods. |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 27, 2013 7:29:45 GMT 5
Grey, please, I can see that you may not share my opinions on the validity of various scaling methods for Amphicoelias, but please don't perpetuate the troll poster thing, it wasn't me, and I would be ashamed to speak in such a combative way to many of the people I look up to most in the field of paleontology. I can't speak for Broly, but the posts came is such a sporadic and incoherent way I doubt he was involved either. Please read them again, they barely make sense in context, and are basically just blocks of text thrown into the discussion. On the topic of Amphicoelias, I think we have done all we can, both of our favored size ranges are speculative and quite possible within the ranges of biological constraints and what little hard evidence we have, I favor the higher, and you the lower, and both with appropriate caution, and I think that is where we must let this discussion lie. That is...until more of Cope's titan comes to light! I feel sincerity in that post. Fair enough, but you have to recognise how suspicious were these messages. I have to be honest, I wasn't surprise reading these... As for the rest, I can live with your opinion. Only I know how worshiping works and I don't want to see that valuable board gaining the same amount of kids speculations and crap than in CF or topix. Such statements as "the blue whale has been beaten" are just totally far-fetched at the point we are. I don't say it's impossible, I say that I'd like to see more rationality and cautiousness in these discussions regarding fragmentary very poorly known taxa. And A. fragillimus in particular... I agree, such rash statements don't do much good from a scientific standpoint, but it is important to consider the possibility. The Blue whale definitely has the record locked up, in terms of definitives. In fact, I doubt we know how big blues get either! In the thousands of years before whaling, I'm sure there were a few 220+ ton specimens. |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jun 27, 2013 7:33:31 GMT 5
The potential ecological, trophic issues are very very numerous. This adds to the understandable skepticism around. I dont see them as too bad, recent studies find that give a mixed diet of dry forage a 70 metric ton sauropod would "only" need about 120kg of food per day! That makes a mere 350kg for a 200 ton Amphicoelias. An average acre of mature conifer forest during peak growing season may support 8-9 metric tons of foliage. Thus one 200t Amphicoelias could sustain itself for nearly a month on a single acre of land, not factoring in regrowth of plant matter, or ground plants. In regards to falling, I'm sure being slow and careful was regular business for all large sauropods. 277kg in fact if we scale not to body mass but according to typical scaling in verterates. |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 27, 2013 8:48:16 GMT 5
I dont see them as too bad, recent studies find that give a mixed diet of dry forage a 70 metric ton sauropod would "only" need about 120kg of food per day! That makes a mere 350kg for a 200 ton Amphicoelias. An average acre of mature conifer forest during peak growing season may support 8-9 metric tons of foliage. Thus one 200t Amphicoelias could sustain itself for nearly a month on a single acre of land, not factoring in regrowth of plant matter, or ground plants. In regards to falling, I'm sure being slow and careful was regular business for all large sauropods. 277kg in fact if we scale not to body mass but according to typical scaling in verterates. That's with increased metabolic efficiency due to size right? It is amazing how efficient huge dinosaurs could be! :0 |
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226 
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jun 27, 2013 12:32:08 GMT 5
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! Wich vertebrae? |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 27, 2013 13:14:11 GMT 5
Blue whale are 60-65 tonnes on average ?  Broly, when it comes about marine life and even animals, just don't argue. As a ultimate worshiper considering dinosaurs more like super heroes than animals, it's a long time I avoid to read you. Since when did I consider dinosaurs as superheroes? You are making a false accusation. Are you trying to spite me? This source: www.seaworld.org/infobooks/baleen/phycharbw.htmlSays ~64 tonnes. What about a scientific source for your claim?  biol.wwu.edu/mbel/media/pdfs/CBP2001_129.pdfEDIT: I did not see that Grey already replied. Sorry. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 14:57:15 GMT 5
Okay, maybe I was underestimating the blue whale. ~90-95 tonnes it is then. But still the ~150-200 tonne ones should be ignored when comparing it to gigantic extinct taxa.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 27, 2013 14:59:03 GMT 5
Okay, maybe I was underestimating the blue whale. ~90-95 tonnes it is then. But still the ~150-200 tonne ones should be ignored when comparing it to gigantic extinct taxa. No data has to be segregated. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 27, 2013 16:59:14 GMT 5
We had the same problem with Livyatan and Megalodon. How come you assume the size known from fossils (especially when taking the conservative approach to it) is in any way representative of the maximum size, and should be compared to it in much more well known taxa with bigger samples?
100-200t is for now a range for the largest sauropods that has been proposed by scientists and that is by no means unrealistic, neither is it contradicted by biomechanics or ecology. Which end you favour is your decision, both are possible, but keep in mind even the lower end is bigger than the average Blue whale, and the upper end at least on par with the largest ones. So there is absolutely nothing unrealistic in suggesting the Blue whale was not bigger than the largest sauropods.
There is no reason to be overenthusiastic, but being oversceptical can be wrong as well. conservative figures are not the most likely to be right, they are the most likely not to be TOO HIGH.
For me, if in a fossil taxon 100-200t is a fully probable, scientifically proposed range, it is obviously on par with or larger than the only extant animal large specimens of which are in this range. You can always try to get it lower of course. How an estimate turns out greatly depends on how you want it to turn out. IOf you want, you can knock off a few metres everywhere. But if you want, you can also add them...
It is time to consider whales are not unrivaled and there were true behemoths during the mesozoic. Not unequivocally proven to be THAT huge, no, but coutnless evidences point out to it, which is more than enough considering the probability to leave fossil traces or remains behind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 27, 2013 17:09:52 GMT 5
Whales are not yet rivaled with certainity. We don't speculate about one specimen being average or not, as it is possible but not necessary, especially in very enigmatics taxa like these sauropods in which we have extremely wide range of possible size estimates.
So it's possible but far from certainity, and that's what summarize the guys at SV POW on that question.
|
|
