Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2013 22:12:08 GMT 5
Fine with this. But I spit on the establishment of any fact from this, including fragillimus post in deviantart "255 tons and the largest animal ever to live". 255 tonnes for A. fragillimus is a bit too much. Even IF A. fragillimus is proven to reach that size, it is still not so sure that it was the largest animal that ever lived. The enigmatic giant ichthyosaur would probably still surpass it. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 22:15:43 GMT 5
Fine with this. But I spit on the establishment of any fact from this, including fragillimus post in deviantart "255 tons and the largest animal ever to live". 255 tonnes for A. fragillimus is a bit too much. Even IF A. fragillimus is proven to reach that size, it is still not so sure that it was the largest animal that ever lived. The enigmatic giant ichthyosaur would probably still surpass it. This ichthyosaur vertebra is even worst case than A. fragillimus and I wouldn't even talk about this that much. I personnally think that A. fragillimus possibly approached and perhaps equalled the largest blue whales. And just as possibly it could have been quite smaller, lighter than this. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 22:17:40 GMT 5
Yes, he was (imo) a bit overenthusiastic in this regard. Still, you can see the logic in his statements, and you cannot judge him for his opinion. He used Supersaurus (34m, 1,3m postrior dorsal). In some other reconstructions he factored in neck allometry and cartilage, which is a bit liberal but not, as you claim, fanboyish. Let's ignore the liberal parts, and it comes out the same lenght as when based on Dippy, tough possibly slightly heavier, which we should not assume imo since such a large animal would arguably reduce weight when possible. In any case, Amphicoelias fragillimus and the plagne trackmaker seem to outsize the average blue whale and possibly even approach or equal the largest ones. The blue whale is by no means unrivalled. That ichthyosaur has unfortunately not received much publicity or documentation, only a very short note. We should know at least a bit more before jumping to size estimates, tough a ginormous ichthyosaur would everything but surprise me. So what is your opinion on the giant sacrum? |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 22:22:20 GMT 5
Yes, he was (imo) a bit overenthusiastic in this regard. Still, you can see the logic in his statements, and you cannot judge him for his opinion. He used Supersaurus (34m, 1,3m postrior dorsal). In some other reconstructions he factred in neck allometry and cartilage, which is a bit liberal but not, as you claim, fanboyic. Let's ignore the liberal parts, and it comes out the same lenght as when based on Dippy, tough possibly slightly heavier, which we should not assume imo since such a large animal would arguably reduce weight when possible. So what is your opinion on the giant sacrum? Counting the hits and not the miss is totally fanboic. Why shouldn't judge anybody who all the time is arguing with extra-sensationnal claims ? There's a limit at open his mind to anything. Or would you then not judge a guy all the time coming with a 14-15 m tyrannosaur on a somewhat logical basis ? I doubt so. I tell it, I judge anything like that. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 22:30:34 GMT 5
Maybe because there is no somewhat logical basis for that? You have a lacking understanding for fine differences. reliably reported neural arch beats shortly noted phalanx
And yes, I have kept my mind open to such claims long enough and considered everything, and also looked at the context in which these figures came up.
This is about whether such sauropods existed. In the case of the fanboy-T. rexes, it is always just about whether T. rex was bigger than carnosaur xy or spinosaur z
if you compare it to extant animals or argue whether at some time it existed, no problem with a 14m T. rex, not at all, it is even highly probable. That's again your prejudices speaking, a la "theropod the biased T. rex hater"
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 30, 2013 22:32:05 GMT 5
Does the 15 m Tyrannosaur even have a somewhat logical basis? Even the most liberal estimate for the toe bone would yield 14,4 m.
EDIT: This was a reply to Grey, the posting frequency hates me today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2013 22:33:49 GMT 5
255 tonnes for A. fragillimus is a bit too much. Even IF A. fragillimus is proven to reach that size, it is still not so sure that it was the largest animal that ever lived. The enigmatic giant ichthyosaur would probably still surpass it. This ichthyosaur vertebra is even worst case than A. fragillimus and I wouldn't even talk about this that much. I know that the ichthyosaur vertebra is quite problematic, that's why I used words that signify uncertainty and at the same time don't point out how certain it is("probably" as opposed to "likely" or "unlikely") Now to move on to another topic: Alamosaurus I've always felt that those ~70+ tonne estimates for Alamosaurus were exaggerated, and it seems that lately, my suspicions have support. Scott Hartman states that Brachiosaurus was likely more massive than Alamosaurus, but also that Alamosaurus can exert force more effectively(if I interpreted it correctly)
"Actually I suspect the Brachiosaurus would be heavier, but the Alamosaurus would kick it's butt in a wrestling contest." - Scott Hartman comments.deviantart.com/1/377926032/3090910432 |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 22:34:43 GMT 5
@creature686:He likes speaking in general ranges. The only estimates exceeding 14,5m are those based on Frank Fang's growth formula. The largest T. rex for now that has a slim indication is the UCMP phalanx. Likely that such an animal existed. Unlikely that we can speak of sufficient evidence as compared to other theropods and their size figures. According to the illiterate scholar, they yield "15-16,8m" and he claims 16 was likely. Since the formula appears to be a completely madeup, laughable mess from topix forum (!), and he filled in wrong skull sizes from the beginning (suggested adult skull size=1,6m WHERE'S THAT BS FROM??? suggested skull size=1,55m-yeah, and sue has a 1,65m skull, does't it?) I didn't bother checking.  @broly: I kinda doubt that was meant completely seriously. Apart from that, his brachiosaurus is freaking huge, comparing it and the Alamosaurus to the puertasaurus it may well be 70t or so. His sauropods are kind of short, but he envisions them as pretty bulky (didn't he state 75t or so for puertasaurus or am I confusing something?). |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 30, 2013 22:37:50 GMT 5
The only estimates exceeding 14,5m are those based on Frank Fang's growth formula. Those who yield a 17 m Tyrannosaurus? Such a Tyrannosaurus could easily exceed 20 t. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 22:38:42 GMT 5
This ichthyosaur vertebra is even worst case than A. fragillimus and I wouldn't even talk about this that much. I know that the ichthyosaur vertebra is quite problematic, that's why I used words that signify uncertainty and at the same time don't point out how certain it is("probably" as opposed to "likely" or "unlikely") Now to move on to another topic: Alamosaurus I've always felt that those ~70+ tonne estimates for Alamosaurus were exaggerated, and it seems that lately, my suspicions have support. Scott Hartman states that Brachiosaurus was likely more massive than Alamosaurus, but also that Alamosaurus can exert force more effectively(if I interpreted it correctly)
"Actually I suspect the Brachiosaurus would be heavier, but the Alamosaurus would kick it's butt in a wrestling contest." - Scott Hartman comments.deviantart.com/1/377926032/3090910432Then you shouldn't use "would surpass it" but rather "could". And since no work has been done about the size estimate I would avoid the make any conclusion about this. I have very big doubts about such a specimen. Funny, the "biggest" are almost always lost since a long time (not that I consider Amphicoelias fake at all), but such an old desription has to be taken very carefully. |
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193 
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Jun 30, 2013 23:57:39 GMT 5
Guys can you stop talking about T. rex fanboys in wrong thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 1, 2013 21:18:33 GMT 5
I've asked Hartman what he thinks about B. nougaredi and he wrote it seemed Brachiosaurs had proportionally small sacra, so we should dig up some comparative and phylogenetic data.
He wrote he doesn't include amphicoelias because he thinks a lost bone is not worth the effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 1, 2013 21:35:30 GMT 5
I've asked Hartman what he thinks about B. nougaredi and he wrote it seemed Brachiosaurs had proportionally small sacra, so we should dig up some comparative and phylogenetic data. He wrote he doesn't include amphicoelias because he thinks a lost bone is not worth the effort. That's reminescent of what I said...Though, I appreciate to read the time-to-time related posts on SV POW but discussing of this perpetually becomes pointless without new stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 1, 2013 23:04:54 GMT 5
As would be not considering sauropods as potentially the largest known animals.
Some almost certainly seem to exceed the 100t mark, even one known from body fossils among those. Even this definitely outsizes the average blue whale. Some of them are possibly in the territory of record-holding blue whales, and this is acknowledged and argued by scientists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 1, 2013 23:15:53 GMT 5
As would be not considering sauropods as potentially the largest known animals. That's possible or at least possible some rivaled the largest whale, but for now I wouldn't too much dream about that. We have yet to have an actual sauropod specimen definitely exceeding 100 tons. Hope the time will say. |
|
