stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Sept 7, 2014 15:27:53 GMT 5
Futa actually is a pretty light animal, around the weight of the Berlin Giraffatitan. It got a really wide torso, but it is really short.
I think Scott Hartmans reconstruction has a problem, the pubis is oriented far too ventally, greatly increasing Volumen of the torso. I am still waiting for the paper correcting the misconceptions for both Futa and Puerta, its been floating around for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 7, 2014 19:54:12 GMT 5
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Sept 7, 2014 22:22:03 GMT 5
The 50 tonnes plus for Futalongkosaurus is from Greg Paul, he recently posted in the dml about the weight of Dreadnoughtus and it seems he is oversizing it (Futa) big time, he thinks it's similarly sized to Argentiosaurus and gives it a 2.4m long femur, he also talks about 2.5m brachiosaur femora and then gives his usual estimates for G. brancai and B. altithorax which none of them have femora much longer than 2m.
I just measured his Futa skeletal in page 49 of his recent book, it's 16m from the first cervical to the last sacral, I wonder if he hasn't read Calvo et al. (2008), the conference abstract that says this measurement in Futa is 13m. Nima Sassani also doesn't seem to acknowledge it thus his Futa is also oversized (14.3m C1-S5).
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 7, 2014 22:29:14 GMT 5
Thanks, I didn't know which estimate came from which source, so I guessed.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Sept 10, 2014 4:53:32 GMT 5
It seems the 1.5m+ prints are legit tracks, not under prints. Thulborn says they are conservative lower bound estimates, and are almost certainly longer than 150cm. That's a big print, probably from an animal larger than Argentinosaurus.
Abstract
Some unusual sauropod dinosaur tracks in the Broome Sandstone (Lower Cretaceous) of Western Australia
SVPCA Platform Presentation, 2014 (York)
Tony Thulborn
The Broome Sandstone (Lower Cretaceous, Valanginian?) of the Dampier Peninsula, in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, is now known to contain many, varied and unusually well-preserved dinosaur tracks. This ichnofauna constitutes practically the entire fossil record of dinosaurs in the western half of Australia and is more ancient than the better-known Cretaceous dinosaur faunas of eastern Australia (Aptian-Albian of Queensland and Victoria). The vast majority of tracks are those of sauropods, most probably brachiosaurs and titanosaurs (or, at least, titanosaur relatives such as Diamantinasaurus, Wintonotitan and, perhaps, ?Austrosaurus). Most of their tracks are transmitted reliefs ('undertracks') but wherever possible observations have been based on examples which are definitely primary impressions ('true' footprints). The distribution of footprints through a range of environmental settings, from intertidal to fully terrestrial (with palaeosols and plants in growth position) provides some insight into the habitat preferences of sauropods. The mean size of the Broome Sandstone sauropod tracks is about the same as that for tracks in the Glen Rose Formation (Trinity Group, Early Cretaceous) of Texas and Arkansas, though both tails of the size distribution are more attenuated in the Broome Sandstone sample. The smallest specimens discovered to date in the Broome Sandstone are well-preserved manus-pes couples; it is difficult to specify the exact size of the largest, though in these the pes print is certainly greater than 150 cm in length (a conservative figure). Some seemingly unique specimens reveal how sauropods interacted with the other animals, plants and obstacles they encountered in life.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Sept 10, 2014 5:32:04 GMT 5
And I too think Dreadnoughtus was less than 60 tons. Femur based weight estimates just don't seem all that accurate. 45 tons seems more reasonable for a 26 meter long, super robust titanosaur. An adult 20% longer might hit 75 tons.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Sept 10, 2014 8:26:24 GMT 5
It's all because this equations are based on stinkin mammals, megamammals are just too damn sluggish as evidenced by such gracile limbs for their body weight  (remember what people used to say about sauropods some decades ago?) The abstract doesn't specify that the largest prints are true footprints. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 12:04:26 GMT 5
I think Dreadnoughtus was in the region of ~30-35 tonnes, give or take.
I posted a size comparison with it and Brachiosaurus in the size comparison thread.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Sept 11, 2014 6:22:53 GMT 5
It's all because this equations are based on stinkin mammals, megamammals are just too damn sluggish as evidenced by such gracile limbs for their body weight (remember what people used to say about sauropods some decades ago?) The abstract doesn't specify that the largest prints are true footprints. Yes, he says that wherever possible real tracks were used. And since he calls the largest tracks "prints" and not under prints. It means they are real prints. He posted an emphatic reply about this on SV-POW. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 11, 2014 8:24:26 GMT 5
svpow.com/2014/09/11/how-massive-was-dreadnoughtus/(...) Based on the data available, I don’t think the holotype individual of Dreadnoughtusmassed anything like 59 metric tons. I think 35-40 metric tons is much more defensible. But I’m happy to have my errors pointed out and new data and arguments brought to the fore. Your thoughts are most welcome.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Sept 11, 2014 15:38:48 GMT 5
Fragillimus335He uses footprint and track interchangeable after he said that, I don't think saying "pes print" instead of "pes underprint" proves it is, or did he said that they are true footprints in SVPOW? GreyHA!
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 11, 2014 19:17:09 GMT 5
svpow.com/2014/09/11/how-massive-was-dreadnoughtus/(...) Based on the data available, I don’t think the holotype individual of Dreadnoughtusmassed anything like 59 metric tons. I think 35-40 metric tons is much more defensible. But I’m happy to have my errors pointed out and new data and arguments brought to the fore. Your thoughts are most welcome. Just added this to Wikipedia! |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 14, 2014 12:56:12 GMT 5
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Sept 14, 2014 20:10:31 GMT 5
Then, Nima is not a credible source for anything. He has a 40 Meter Puertasaurus, for Christs sake. And he often sees erosion/distortion where there is not any.
Dont get me started on his invented phylogenies. He is a great artist but no way is he a scientist.
I am saying this because he attacks the GDI methods by others without delivering real evidence.
He doubts the phylogenetic analysis based on observation of single bones.
Ok, time to calm down.
I am on the side that is based on data, not opinions
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 14, 2014 20:30:21 GMT 5
What I posted above is actually palaeoart, but of course I linked the source should someone be interested in it, that’s just a matter of course.
Nima loves to speculate, like many people on the internet do.
I recall none less than Darren Naish once speculated on a possible carcharodontosaurian affinity of Yutyrannus based on its skull.
|
|
(remember what people used to say about sauropods some decades ago?)