|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 28, 2013 20:12:39 GMT 5
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Oct 29, 2013 0:47:14 GMT 5
Just noting that Supersaurus had a neck 15 meters long and it probably weighed as much as an entire Tyrannosaurus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 31, 2013 4:10:00 GMT 5
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Nov 1, 2013 5:51:49 GMT 5
I wish I could post on the Carnivora "Problem with Amphicoelias" page... I have so much to say!
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Nov 1, 2013 9:22:24 GMT 5
I wish I could post on the Carnivora "Problem with Amphicoelias" page... I have so much to say! Copy the offeding part. I am sure mantis and theropod will be happy to correspond with you. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 1, 2013 18:42:03 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 1, 2013 20:10:32 GMT 5
I wish I could post on the Carnivora "Problem with Amphicoelias" page... I have so much to say! Are you still able to read the posts on carnivora (like Grey) or has someone shown the posts to you? |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Nov 1, 2013 21:03:35 GMT 5
I wish I could post on the Carnivora "Problem with Amphicoelias" page... I have so much to say! Are you still able to read the posts on carnivora (like Grey) or has someone shown the posts to you? Heh, I have to turn my computer to "private mode" because Taipan banned me while I was logged in, so I never actually was able to log out! So I can still see the board. |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Nov 1, 2013 21:09:23 GMT 5
Just the points that Amphicoelias is more likely to look like a basal diplodocid, and that "Seismosaurus" had vertebra that were 40% taller but only a few precent longer than those of Diplodocus. I think people are underestimating the economy of scale, and body type when talking about Amphicoelias. It seems very unlikely that a sauropod of that size would have a morphology similar to Dicraeosaurus, instead, a Diplodocus/Barosaurus morphology seems much more feasible for a 100-250 ton sauropod. In regards to the Seismosaurus thing,  The vertebra are nearly identical in the proportions of all parts. Someone's measurements must be off.... |
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on Jan 5, 2014 22:09:52 GMT 5
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jan 6, 2014 1:16:03 GMT 5
Maybe the measurements are along the surface of the bone, or the photos of Diplodocus are distorted by the angle, fisheye effect or something.
I'm going to read Armstrong's journal entry now.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 6, 2014 1:29:12 GMT 5
He made a 64 t GDI estimate for Argentinosaurus? Wow, it looks like this animal is getting lighter than I thought (earlier, I believed in stuff over 100 t, than in 100 t, than in 73 t and now this).
I don't know if this is an off topic comment, because Argentinosaurus relates to this thread.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jan 6, 2014 2:58:20 GMT 5
Yes, based on a multiview skeletal he made some months ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 6, 2014 3:15:44 GMT 5
Fanatics will not be happy (just like Cau's Spinosaurus) but Amphicoelias remains actually an absolute giant, still bigger than Argentinosaurus and Alamosaurus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 13:56:38 GMT 5
It bases on a derived flagellicaudatan instead of a basal diplodocoidean so I won't be taking it.
|
|
