Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 12:01:59 GMT 5
Dreadnoughtus wasn't really that large...  I think it's mass & volume lie in the same ballpark as a ~23-24 meter Brachiosaurus altithorax, somewhat higher due to a wider body. Maybe around ~30-35 tonnes? Matt Wedel did a GDI and it came out at over 50 cubic meters. It would likely mass in at around ~36-46 tonnes. I think I may have underestimated Brachiosaurus' mass instead... |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 10, 2014 22:43:58 GMT 5
Thank you!
I already guessed something around 40 t, based on Futalognkosaurus, even though this is only what wiki said, I fail to find publications. One even said there are no estimates published in scientific literature, but it was from 2011, things may have changed.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Sept 10, 2014 23:21:22 GMT 5
About Futa's size? the only one is 38 tonnes from Benson et al. (2014) but it was made with the same equations as that of Dreadnoughtus and is based on limb bones from individuals supposedly smaller than the type specimen (I personally don't think that's the case.)
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 11, 2014 19:03:19 GMT 5
I fail to find that estimate, I know that Wikipedia cites it, but I downloaded that paper and typed in "Futalognkosaurus" in the PDF search. Nothing. Appears like it isn't even mentioned there.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Sept 11, 2014 21:39:15 GMT 5
It's in the supplemental material, the plots in the paper are based on the data in the supplemental material, they got mass estimates for 441 taxa.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 11, 2014 22:07:14 GMT 5
Thank you. My computer is too stupid to open it, but I will simply trust you.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 19, 2014 20:28:01 GMT 5
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226 
|
Post by gigadino96 on Sept 29, 2014 17:05:12 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 13, 2014 1:21:03 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 14, 2014 9:14:45 GMT 5
From my friend Bran working closely with the Lima Museum.  |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 19, 2014 11:51:43 GMT 5
From Christopher Lenin :     I know, T. rex skull is most likely slightly too long (1.5 m instead of 1.4 m) but that's still good enough. blaze coherentsheaf theropod stomatopodThe lack of postcranial skeleton limits Livyatan's weight estimates at speculations but I've been wondering if it would be possible to make a realistic mass estimation of the skull using GDU or some other program ? That would make the first solid figure of how massive was that skull. I think to have read on some paper that the skull of Sue may have weighed around 400-500 kg in life. My guess is that the skull of Livyatan would be maybe 5-7 times its weight (?). |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 19, 2014 13:16:53 GMT 5
In life the head includes a fair amount of soft-tissues, especially in cetaceans, and the mass depends on how you restore them.
What’s GDU?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 19, 2014 14:13:17 GMT 5
I meant GDI. The restoration of flesh tissues on the head of Livyatan doesn't appear difficult to do, several have been made and the differences are not great. From a discussion with Bianucci I know that the most likely he thinks to be is the head like in the comparison I've posted just earlier above. theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/18408/threadLess pointy and more spherical than Physeter, the c) option here :  It appears to me more easy to figure out, that's a small part of the body and one that is fairly known. Just knowing the density in modern odontocetes head would help. If some guys have tried this with fairly incomplete dinosaurs species, I guess that's possible for the head of Livyatan. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 19, 2014 17:28:46 GMT 5
The density in a physeteroid head depends on the aggregate phase of its spermaceti organ…
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 19, 2014 17:33:22 GMT 5
Seems fair to assume it similar than in Physeter. At least finding a range.  |
|
