|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 6, 2014 18:30:38 GMT 5
It bases on a derived flagellicaudatan instead of a basal diplodocoidean so I won't be taking it. Fine but why no confront him then ? |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jan 6, 2014 18:55:51 GMT 5
It bases on a derived flagellicaudatan instead of a basal diplodocoidean so I won't be taking it. Fine but why no confront him then ? blaze already did, here is the response: |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jan 7, 2014 9:01:24 GMT 5
It really comes down to the reconstruction of the vertebra. Zach still thinks Amphicoelias is a scaled up diplodocus, so it comes down to either the 2.3-2.4 meter vertebra heights or the 2.6-2.7 meter ones. We may know which is more accurate.
Personally I still think Carpenter's reconstruction of the vertebra looks like the best fit. Zach's has an absolutely dinky centra.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jan 7, 2014 12:59:15 GMT 5
 Diplodocus D10, Amphicoelias altus and Amphicoelias fragillimus at the same height Which one still has the smallest centrum and is the most elongated of them all? look how the middle of the neural arch is dwarfed in A. fragillimus compared to those of the others at the same total height, this is why scaling based on absolute size and single measure is bad! even if you accept a 2.7m tall vertebra and reject the centrum length the animal will still be smaller than a Diplodocus scaled 250%. Zach's new reconstruction looks more realistic, unlike Carpenter's further stretching of an already elongated vertebra. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 20:12:29 GMT 5
It bases on a derived flagellicaudatan instead of a basal diplodocoidean so I won't be taking it. Fine but why no confront him then ? Well, because I'm not really challenging his opinion, just saying that I'm not really agreed with it for the above reason. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 7, 2014 20:21:17 GMT 5
It really comes down to the reconstruction of the vertebra. Zach still thinks Amphicoelias is a scaled up diplodocus, so it comes down to either the 2.3-2.4 meter vertebra heights or the 2.6-2.7 meter ones. We may know which is more accurate. Personally I still think Carpenter's reconstruction of the vertebra looks like the best fit. Zach's has an absolutely dinky centra. Even with a 2.7 m vertebra, it won't get heavier than 111 t. |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jan 8, 2014 23:47:03 GMT 5
It really comes down to the reconstruction of the vertebra. Zach still thinks Amphicoelias is a scaled up diplodocus, so it comes down to either the 2.3-2.4 meter vertebra heights or the 2.6-2.7 meter ones. We may know which is more accurate. Personally I still think Carpenter's reconstruction of the vertebra looks like the best fit. Zach's has an absolutely dinky centra. Even with a 2.7 m vertebra, it won't get heavier than 111 t.  That would make it ~180 tons... unless you think Diplodocus weighed 7 tons. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 9, 2014 0:09:32 GMT 5
No need for a 7 t Diplodocus. I just scaled up from Zach's estimate. He used a 2.4 m long vertebra and got 78 t.
78*(2.7/2.4)3?111 t.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinokid202 on Jan 22, 2014 4:14:16 GMT 5
probably argentinosaurus is the biggest
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 22, 2014 20:29:50 GMT 5
I would recommend you to read Zach's new DA entry (it was linked at page 20). He estimated Argentinosaurus at "only" 64 t. This would place it below the lowest estimates for Amphicoelias. However, it is debatable if Amphicoelias should be taken into account, so I accept this answer (although I can't really imagine it to be lighter).
|
|
|
|
Post by dinokid202 on Jan 23, 2014 4:56:13 GMT 5
but walking with dinosaurs said that argentinosaurus was the biggest dinosaur of all time
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 23, 2014 5:41:06 GMT 5
Documentaries do not get updated and can contain inaccuracies.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 23, 2014 16:46:17 GMT 5
Can? Based on statistics, Id say they always do.
Argentinosaurus was featured...in a BBC special that also involved a guy who traveled through time in order to observe Giganotosaurus hunting Argentinosaurus (The two aren´t even sympatric!). And yes, that special claimed it to be the biggest dinosaur, but just because it copied what was stated in newspaper articles at the time, and because it didn´t do any in-depth research on this animal or other sauropods--it just parroted what was generally believed.
Accordingly, the weight estimate they gave is inaccurate, and several other sauropods rival or exceed Argentinosaurus´ size.
|
|
Derdadort
Junior Member
Excavating rocks and watching birds
Posts: 267 
|
Post by Derdadort on Jan 23, 2014 22:48:11 GMT 5
If I have the right numbers in mind, they said something about 90t, which fits with an early estimate of Paul (1994), lower numbers first appeared in 2004, well, and due to the fact that this documentation was aired in 2002 you cannot really make a reproach. And WWD had always a problem with choosing sympatric animals, just look at the Diplodocus-Anurognathus or Plateosaurus-Postosuchus thing.  |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 23, 2014 23:03:15 GMT 5
The Plateosaurus-Postosuchus thing is not that terrible, considering that Europe was connected with America at that time.
|
|
That would make it ~180 tons... unless you think Diplodocus weighed 7 tons.
