Animal Sizes

[dinosauria101]

So, after having refined it several times, I'd like to post some alternate mass figures to what theropod got earlier in this thread for large Triceratops.

This GDI (link) gives a Triceratops specimen with a 2.5 meter skull and length of 8.34 meters (USNM 4276) a mass of 10527.15 kg.
And this is not the largest Triceratops specimen - scaling this to the size of the largest specimens such as UCMP 128561 (a nasal estimated by EoFauna to belong to a 2.7 meter Triceratops skull, link) and AMNH 5040 (a series of vertebrae that suggest a Triceratops with a ~275 cm skull, link) gets us masses of approximately 13261 and 14011 kg, respectively. 

However, I have reason to believe that even these sizes may be conservative.
-The GDI I hyperlinked above has very little soft tissue on parts of the legs, tail, and chest, and has the parts of the head in red excluded. This could possibly bump up the mass of the specimen somewhat - if I had to guess, most likely somewhere in the region of ~11 tonnes (though it may be more), therefore increasing the mass of the aforementioned specimens to 13.85 and 14.67 tonnes respectively.
-Not just that, but the ribcage is quite thin as well compared to other specimens, and likely undersized. I was able to get approximately 112 pixels for the ribcage width, and 162 pixels for the skull, meaning that the Triceratops with a 2.5 meter skull and 8.34 meters TL would have a ribcage of approximately 173 cm. The thing is, a 6-7 meter specimen of Triceratops called Kelsey, with an articulated and well preserved ribcage, is 185 cm wide (here is a figure from the BHI's skeletal catalogue which supports that figure, and it's probably a fairly reliable source seeing as how the people who order these skeletals need to know the exact dimensions, no more and no less, so that they can have just the right amount of space for them).

Scaling this specimen to USNM 4276 gives about 235 cm ribcage, and when scaled to the largest specimens it would give 253 cm and 258 cm, respectively. This would increase mass further; by how much, I do not know.
Note that this is by no means set in stone or guaranteed, just a possibility. However, providing this holds, the largest specimens of Triceratops could have been well into the 13-14 tonne size range and possibly even more.

References:
www.deviantart.com/getawaytrike/art/The-maximum-662100498
www.deviantart.com/eofauna/art/Eotriceratops-vs-Triceratops-341153326
www.bhigr.com/catalog/product_pages/BHIGR_KELSEY-Triceratops.pdf
www.deviantart.com/spinoinwonderland/journal/Some-GDI-s-for-a-few-folks-648811067
www.deviantart.com/spinoinwonderland/journal/Some-more-GDI-s-again-2-708079280

[dinosauria101]

Here are some size figures I was able to obtain for the French Monster, a very large, unnamed sauropod from France. It is most likely a macronarian but may be a turiasaur as well.

It is known from a lot of bones, including giant femurs up to an estimated 3.2 meters (link), toe bones (link), and giant claws (link). The best bones to scale from are a 2.2 meter femur, a femur fragment estimated at 2.6 meters, and a 2 meter fibula estimated to belong to an animal with a 3.2 meter femur. I'll use 2 different dinos as a base, brachiosaurids/basal titanosaurs and turiasaurs.

Scaling from this Paluxysaurus (14 tonnes, 18 meters, 147 cm femur) yields ~26.93 meters and ~46.92 tonnes for the 2.2 meter femur, ~31.83 meters and ~77.45 tonnes for the 2.6 meter femur, and ~39.18 meters and ~144 tonnes for the 3.2 meter estimated femur (however, the last result is not very likely due to its size; this animal likely had proportionately longer legs than the other 2 specimens and weighed 100-110 tonnes or so).

Scaling from this Turiasaurus (30 tonnes, 21.1 meters, 190 cm femur) yields ~46.57 tonnes for the 2.2 meter femur, ~76.87 tonnes for the 2.6 meter femur, and ~143.3 tonnes for the estimated 3.2 meter femur (again, take this last one with a grain of salt; the animal was likely only around 100-110 tonnes or so).

Overall this is a fairly large sauropod, likely around ~50-100 tonnes very roughly.

References:
www.deviantart.com/paleo-king/journal/Is-the-French-Monster-the-biggest-dinosaur-ever-674393795
www.deviantart.com/eofauna/art/Turiasaurus-riodevensis-371396084
dml.cmnh.org/2017Apr/msg00032.html
www.deviantart.com/steveoc86/art/Paluxysaurus-Sauroposeidon-324864928

[dinosauria101]

Here are some mass figures I have obtained for the titanosaur Traukutitan based on other titanosaurs. It's known from a pair of 187 cm femora, but doesn't appear to have any rigorous mass estimates.

Based on a 26 meter, 48.45 tonne Dreadnoughtus with a 190 cm femur, I get ~25.58 meters and ~46.19 tonnes.
Based on a 31 meter, 60 tonne Ruyangosaurus with a 207 cm femur, I get ~28 meters and ~44.23 tonnes.
Based on an 18 meter, 15 tonne Antarctosaurus wichmannianus with a 130 cm femur, I get ~25.89 meters and ~44.64 tonnes.
Based on a 26 meter, 40+ tonne Futalognkosaurus with a 190 cm femur, I get ~25.58 meters and ~38.13+ tonnes
Based on a 10 meter, 5 tonne Bonitasaura with a 105 cm femur, I get ~23.07 meters and ~31 tonnes (when factoring in neck/tail elongation).

I think we can conclude it likely massed somewhere between ~31-46 tonnes going by these.

References:
Paul, G.S. 2010. The Princeton field guide to dinosaurs. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Paul, G.S. 2016. The Princeton field guide to dinosaurs. 2nd Ed.. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001853
www.deviantart.com/paleo-king/art/Ruyangosaurus-giganteus-Mk-II-712420775
www.deviantart.com/ornithopsis/art/Antarctosaurus-wichmannianus-716495860
Salgado, L. and Calvo, J.O., 1993, "Report of a sauropod with amphiplatyan mid-caudal vertebrae from the Late Cretaceous of Neuquén province (Argentina)", Ameghiniana, 30: 215-218
Rubén D. Juárez Valieri & Jorge O. Calvo (2011). "Revision of MUCPv 204, a Senonian Basal Titanosaur from Northern Patagonia". In Calvo, González, Riga, Porfiri and Dos Santos (eds.). Paleontología y dinosarios desde América Latina (PDF). pp. 143–152.

[dinosauria101]

Here are some mass figures I have obtained for the titanosaur Notocolossus based on scaling from relatives. It's known from relatively scant remains, so its true size is hard to infer without relatives to fill in the gaps. All of these are scaled to a 176 cm humerus, as per Gonzales Riga (2016).
For base sauropods, I am using lognkosaurs (such as Ruyangosaurus, Futalognkosaurus, and Patagotitan) and derived lithostrotians (such as Saltasaurus, Mansourasaurus, and Dreadnoughtus) because they have ended up close to Notocolossus in several phylogenetic analyses (such as Gonzales Riga 2016, Carballido 2017, and Gonzales Riga 2019), in addition to antarctosaurids like Bonitasaura, Antarctosaurus wichmannianus, and Antarctosaurus brasiliensis because they have ended very close to the aforementioned dinosaurs in the aforementioned analyses as well.

Based on a 30-33 meter, 53-69 tonne Patagotitan with a 167 cm humerus (Carballido and randomdinos), I get ~31.61-34.77 meters and ~62-80.76 tonnes.
Based on a 26 meter, 48.45 tonne Dreadnoughtus with a 160 cm humerus (Lacovara, SVPOW and SpinoInWonderland, note that this is only one possible reconstruction for the animal and other estimates for it, such as Bates et al. 2015 will get differing results; I used the skeletal from Lacovara, which was found on SVPOW to have a volume of 57 cubic meters and thus 48.45 tonnes with the proper density of 0.85), I get 28.6 meters and ~64.48 tonnes.
Based on a 31 meter, 60 tonne Ruyangosaurus with a 189 cm humerus (Paleo King), I get ~28.88 meters and ~48.53 tonnes.
Based on a 26 meter, 40+ tonne Futalognkosaurus with a 156 cm humerus (Benson 2014 and Paleo King), I get ~29.33 meters and ~57.44+ tonnes.
Based on a 10 meter, 5 tonne Bonitasaura with a ~77.77 cm humerus (Paul 2010, Paul 2016 and GetAwayTrike), I get ~30.39 meters and ~65.71 tonnes (when factoring in elongation of the neck and tail).
Based on an 8 meter, 2.5 tonne Saltasaurus with a 60.2 cm humerus (Paul 2010, Paul 2016), I get ~31.52 meters and ~71 tonnes (when factoring in elongation of the neck and tail).
Based on a 15.3 meter, 10 tonne Antarctosaurus brasiliensis with an estimated 95 cm humerus (Arid and Vizzotto 1971, randomdinos), I get ~28.34 meters and ~63.58 tonnes.
Based on an 18 meter, 15 tonne Antarctosaurus wichmannianus with a ~104 cm humerus (Ornithopsis), I get ~30.46 meters and 72.69 tonnes.
Based on a 10.5 meter, ~2.8 tonne (from eyeballing several times with other titanosaurs and scaling from relatives) Mansourasaurus (Sallam 2018, Paleo King) with a 70 cm humerus, I get ~30.8 meters and ~70.67 tonnes 

Overall, this has a range of ~45.6-80.76 tonnes and a mean mass of about 63.88 tonnes, which is relatively close to the range of 45-76 tonnes and mean of 60.4 tonnes that the holotype was estimated to weigh via the circumference of the humerus in Gonzales Riga (2016). The estimated length, going by these, is ~28 to ~35.19 meters with a mean of ~30.13 meters.

References:
González Riga, Bernardo J.; Lamanna, Matthew C.; Ortiz David, Leonardo D.; Calvo, Jorge O.; Coria, Juan P. (2016). "A gigantic new dinosaur from Argentina and the evolution of the sauropod hind foot"
Carballido, J.L.; Pol, D.; Otero, A.; Cerda, I.A.; Salgado, L.; Garrido, A.C.; Ramezani, J.; Cúneo, N.R.; Krause, J.M. (2017). "A new giant titanosaur sheds light on body mass evolution among sauropod dinosaurs"
www.museocivico.rovereto.tn.it/UploadDocs/3325_Arid_Vizotto_1971.pdf
www.deviantart.com/randomdinos/art/Patagotitan-mayorum-skeletal-reconstruction-762150985
journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001853
www.deviantart.com/randomdinos/art/Sauropodomorphs-of-Brazil-692949806
www.deviantart.com/paleo-king/art/Ruyangosaurus-giganteus-Mk-II-712420775
www.deviantart.com/ornithopsis/art/Antarctosaurus-wichmannianus-716495860
www.deviantart.com/paleo-king/art/Futalognkosaurus-dukei-Mk-IX-694212525
www.deviantart.com/paleo-king/art/Futalognkosaurus-dukei-Mk-X-Calvo-edition-696697321
Paul, G.S. 2010. The Princeton field guide to dinosaurs. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Paul, G.S. 2016. The Princeton field guide to dinosaurs. 2nd Ed.. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Sallam, H.; Gorscak, E.; O'Connor, P.; El-Dawoudi, I.; El-Sayed, S.; Saber, S. (2017-06-26). "New Egyptian sauropod reveals Late Cretaceous dinosaur dispersal between Europe and Africa". Nature. 2 (3): 445–451.
www.deviantart.com/paleo-king/journal/The-Egyptian-Keystone-Mansourasaurus-shahinae-730257088

[creature386]

I'm not sure if isometric scaling meets the "profile quality" criterion outlined in the OP. I'd never put a personal estimated based on isometric scaling in a profile.

[dinosauria101]

Pooey. I was just typing up yet another post with isometric scaling instead.

Should we move the posts to the sauropod/ornithischian threads?

[dinosauria101]

theropod
Would you consider the isometric scaling viable for these posts?

[theropod]

Hmm, it is borderline. I was actually gonna let it slide because I have to acknowledge that you have at least given references, which is definitely an improvement (although it would be good if you would actually say what reference is cited for which information), but not add it to the directory.

Generally speaking though, of course creature is right. Isometric scaling is often a vital part of estimates, but wherever possible a post here should go into greater detail than just be a list of isometric scalings. If you have nothing more to work with (e.g. because the animal is very fragmentary), then maybe consider that you should use the space to explain the basis for the estimates of the animals you are scaling from, because many of those are also uncertain. For example it is far from clear that Dreadnoughtus is 48.45 t (see results of volumetric study by Bates et al. I posted on this thread). If you want to use that figure, maybe explain why, or better still, also use alternatives. Just for future reference.

[dinosauria101]

Oh, so I should cite WHICH sources are for WHICH bases/scalings and explain why the bases/scalings were used? Sure, that's not an issue.

As for the Dreadnoughtus? I believe one of the sources (though I do not remember which and will have to dig it up) I cited in my posts GDI'd the paper's skeletal of it and got 57 cubic meters (which is 48.45 tonnes with the proper density of 0.85), but you are correct, there are quite a few skeletals for it that get varying mass estimations. Maybe if I use something as a base for which there are multiple different estimations (such as the Dreadnoughtus), I could put a disclaimer along the lines of (NOTE: This is only one estimate for this animal. Estimates vary with the authors such as (author, author, etc), so depending on what you prefer to use as a base you may get a varying result).

[dinosauria101]

I just fixed up my post on the size of Antarctosaurus giganteus to include all that stuff. Would that be any better?

[dinosauria101]

theropod , so I just fixed up my post on Antarctosaurus giganteus as much as I could (again). Is it any good now, and is there anything else you think I should do with it?

[Ceratodromeus]

Life history trait overview for Somali rock pythons
(Source material)








Take aways from the above

• The ~9.8m figure often quoted as the largest reliable animal(See O'shea) is apparently hinged on anecdotal evidence
• A 7.8m figure has been(apparently) accepted by the authors as a reliable measurement, one of the larger authenticated snakes on records if it stands
• Mean total body length measurements are reported at 3m "estimations, but i hold reservations on the validity of this, as eye witness testimony and estimations are not independently reliable. However it should be noted if these do hold true, that this is around the size most animals attain sexual maturity(this will be shown later), so while they are adult animals, they are not very aged animals; you can expect a more aged animal to measure 4-5m, typically. A large animal would appear to be in the range of 5-6m, with the absolute largest measuring in excess of 7m. This of course is the size(closer to 4m mark) that they begin to focus on large bodied herbivores as a staple in their diet, as will be seen in the following.

[/ul]
Diet




Growth rates & sexual maturity


Take aways
   1. As noted by the author of the article abundance of food and environmental factors will greatly affect the growth rates of young pythons, and of course size and age at maturity will vary between localities; those reported in McCurley & Glasgow showing sooner reproductive activity than those reported from Cameroon. Age at maturity and reproductive activity is very variable in sauropsida, and can vary between smaller than expected sizes or greater than expected sizes(Crocodilians pop to mind as a great example of this). It is an interesting prospect for studies.
Somali Boidae & pythonidae (Clickable)

[dinosauria101]

Feb 8, 2020 21:25:08 GMT 5 Infinity Blade said:

I may be asking for a bit much here, but would anyone be able to perform a GDI on Mansourasaurus? I want to get an idea of how much certain body parts weigh. Lateral view is from Sallam et al. (2018). I don't know what you'd use for dorsal view, though.

I know this is late, but I could use a Mansourasaurus GDI for some of my scalings too, so........

I did find a decent top view (Palaeozoologist's Alamosaurus), and it seems to fit the lateral view from Sallam quite well:

So I agree; if someone would be able to do a GDI of this, that would be great.

[Infinity Blade]

On the first page I had requested information on the mass of the tail of Giraffatitan.

A recent study that created a musculoskeletal reconstruction of the tail in this genus has actually come out with its own answer to this.

Taylor (2009) calculated a volume of 1520 liters (∼1216 kg, although bone and muscle densities cannot be separated from these calculations) for the tail of Giraffatitan, after a modified reconstruction of Paul (1988). Most of the mass of the tail was probably located at its base, where the largest parts of the muscles are placed together with the heaviest bones. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that in Giraffatitan at least half of the weight of the tail would have been placed in the first 20 caudal vertebrae. When following our reconstruction and results, the tail of Giraffatitan could have weighted ca. 2500 kg (not including the pelvis and sacrum), doubling Taylor’s calculations.

It is noted that although Giraffatitan had a shorter tail than diplodocids and other macronarians, it was well-developed, robust, and powerful.

We created a detailed three-dimensional musculoskeletal reconstruction of approximately the anterior half of the tail of the Late Jurassic sauropod Giraffatitan brancai, based on comparative anatomy, primarily with crocodilians, and digital techniques, such as photogrammetry and an innovative three-dimensional modeling approach. Using this reconstruction we were able to calculate the mass of the individual elements and hypothesize a total mass of ca. 2500 kg for the complete tail. We further suggest, based on our assessment of the musculoskeletal reconstruction, that Giraffatitan had a powerful tail that assisted in its stabilization, and propulsion, but also as counterweight for the presacral part of the body. The suite of hypaxial and epaxial muscles fulfills an important role in stabilizing the tail and hold it over the ground by synchronous bilateral contraction to optimize the moment arms for the main hindlimb retractor muscles, the M. caudofemoralis longus. Although Giraffatitan had a short tail (compared to other concurrent taxa, e.g., diplodocids and other coexisting macronarians), it was well-developed and robust.

www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2020.00160/full

For anyone wondering, although two different caudal series were analyzed (a third was only used for comparative purposes), only MB.R.2921 was used for the actual musculoskeletal model.

I'm surprised at the mass of the tail; it was much more than I was expecting. Just look at it.

[all]

I would like to ask a question if I may which i'm aware in this thread one usually states the size not asks about it but I wish to ask a question i hope that's alright.

What is the size of Crocodylus robustus. Wikipedia states that it is about the same as Nile crocodile. But its been my experience that wikipedia is very conservative in their  statements simply because if they made statement that is not 100% conservative that could be used against them. For example they state that maximum size of Titanoboa is 10-12 meters,  but 12 meters is the average size of titanoboa while largest ones are about 14 meters. The larges colossal squid was supposed to be 8 meters according to them as new information came in they changed it to 9-10 meters. However according to documentaries the largest colossal squid is up to 16 meters. So what is the right answer. 

In a book I read. And yes it was a cryptozoolgy book which most of you consider pseudoscience. And yes I probably already  know what the answer will be. However according to this book skull of the C.robustus  was about 80 cm. From other article, Pdf this time not a criptozoology book. It was stated that C.robustus had relatively short snout in comparison to its body length. Would that not suggest that it was closer in size to salt water crock than to Nile crock?

I know I will be ridiculed for suggesting that but I rather keep the open mind and all though I don't know if its true I'am willing to entertain the notion.