|
|
Post by Grey on May 31, 2013 7:02:06 GMT 5
Defensible you say but still no scientifically supported backup behind this. There are tons of interpretations for it, and, in publication or discussions on SV POW, I've seen nobody even suggesting such sizes. I really start to think that it was not a troll under your pseudo on the blog but that you've quickly changed your mind viewing the critics. No offense, but I'm bored of that crap. I'm no sauropods expert but I know that in that subjects there are tons of enthusiasts all the time proposing the most extraordinary, unreasonnable sizes and scales. No wonder, when I want to learn about gigapods, I consult SV POW, but, sorry not you. A recent quote from Mike Taylor in SV POW : Question : Is there real and serious reasons to thin that A. fragillimus could have reached 200 tons in body mass and thus rivalling/exceeding the Blue whale ?Answer : I think we covered all that in some detail in the post. 200 tonnes is not beyond the realms of possibility, but not well supported by the extremely equivocal evidence we currently have.Possibility, yes. Fact, no. svpow.com/2010/02/19/how-big-was-amphicoelias-fragillimus-i-mean-really/ |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on May 31, 2013 7:12:17 GMT 5
And I'm done with your feigned superiority. It does not take much understanding. Carpenter estimated 58 meters and 122 tones based on flat isometric scaling from Diplodocus. THIS IS THE ONLY PUBLISHED ESTIMATE OF AMPHICOELIAS'S SIZE.
1. Do you agree that this is a valid method?
2. I did the exact same thing, so by example my estimates are exactly as defensible, correct?
Carpenter made a mistake.
Please respond with a yes/no answer.
And I was NOT posting those comments, someone was doing it in my name. likely Taipan.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on May 31, 2013 7:15:06 GMT 5
Defensible you say but still no scientifically supported backup behind this. There are tons of interpretations for it, and, in publication or discussions on SV POW, I've seen nobody even suggesting such sizes. I really start to think that it was not a troll under your pseudo on the blog but that you've quickly changed your mind viewing the critics. No offense, but I'm bored of that crap. I'm no sauropods expert but I know that in that subjects there are tons of enthusiasts all the time proposing the most extraordinary, unreasonnable sizes and scales. No wonder, when I want to learn about gigapods, I consult SV POW, but, sorry not you. A recent quote from Mike Taylor in SV POW : Question : Is there real and serious reasons to thin that A. fragillimus could have reached 200 tons in body mass and thus rivalling/exceeding the Blue whale ?Answer : I think we covered all that in some detail in the post. 200 tonnes is not beyond the realms of possibility, but not well supported by the extremely equivocal evidence we currently have.Possibility, yes. Fact, no. svpow.com/2010/02/19/how-big-was-amphicoelias-fragillimus-i-mean-really/You misunderstand. EVEY ESTIMATE FOR AMPHICOELIAS IS NOT WELL SUPPORTED, BUT 70 METERS IS NO WORSE THAN 40 METERS, AND BASED ON EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT SAUROPODS LOOKS MORE REALISTIC. All of this assuming that Carpenter's vert reconstruction is correct, which I feel it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 31, 2013 7:23:39 GMT 5
Calm down, we're discussing, I'm no superior, certainly not in terms of sauropods knowledge, but SV POW team are superior to you in my opinion. I've searched any real serious suggestions of sauropods in the 250 tons range. I'm still searching... The conclusion by Mike Taylor still stands.
No, I don't believe in these approaching 100 yards gigapods.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on May 31, 2013 7:25:28 GMT 5
Calm down, we're discussing, I'm no superior, certainly not in terms of sauropods knowledge, but SV POW team are superior to you in my opinion. I've searched any real serious suggestions of sauropods in the 250 tons range. I'm still searching... The conclusion by Mike Taylor still stands. No, I don't believe in these approaching 100 yards gigapods. Read the above comment. :/ |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 31, 2013 7:28:27 GMT 5
It still stands.
Please, go confront the guys on the appropriate articles and explain them that a 245 tons Amphicoelias is more plausible than a 90 tons one. This could be interesting as discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 31, 2013 16:25:18 GMT 5
Has he even suggested that? I think you are not reading his comments.
Using Carpenters method and the most conservative Diplodocus you can find, the result is 70m, 200t. You can get lower only when using different reconstructions of the vertebra and/or different sauropods. Something that is an exact duplicate of what has been published should be good enough to count as a valid figure. I would call that enough of a scientifically supported backup, about its likelyness you can discuss. And it is certainly inappropriate to call him a troll.
Taylor is of course cautious, but doesn't exclude that. And before everything else, the guys at SVPOW have always encouraged people to do things for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on May 31, 2013 20:27:17 GMT 5
I was under the impression that Carpenter simply showed Amphicoelias as a scaled up Diplodocus and had already come to his 58 meter conclusion beforehand. I don't really want to get dragged into a debate on this, as it isn't exactly what the topic is meant for, but the highest I can get is 164 tonnes and a standing length of 60 meters (axial length would be more of course) scaling up from Hartman's Diplodocus carnegii skeletal and Daren Naish's 12-tonne estimate for it. Moving back on topic...  Skeletal reconstructions by Scott Hartman. Note that Stan is not the largest T. rex specimen, in fact it is one of the smallest known adults. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on May 31, 2013 21:04:08 GMT 5
THIS IS THE ONLY PUBLISHED ESTIMATE OF AMPHICOELIAS'S SIZE. Not quiet, Paul (1994) estimated it at 40-60 m. Why Taipan? He isn't that childish, I think it was just some random troll who was bored. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 31, 2013 22:06:05 GMT 5
Taipan is that childish, he also created a fake account to have a reason to ban him. I doubt Paul's estimate is published, at least not in a paper. However if I remember right, Paul based that on different estimations for the vertebra's height, didn't he?
Stan is a decent-sized T. rex, a small one would be something in the region of B-rex, Bucky or Black Beauty. If I remember right the majority of T. rex femora are below 120cm in lenght. You most commonly see giants like sue or the already pretty big holotype, because they are the most well publicised and also often the most well-preserved. But the average size is probably well below that.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on May 31, 2013 22:25:44 GMT 5
Taipan is that childish, he also created a fake account to have a reason to ban him. I doubt Paul's estimate is published, at least not in a paper. However if I remember right, Paul based that on different estimations for the vertebra's height, didn't he? Yes on all accounts. Greg published that estimate in a pamphlet on giant sauropods, not an actual paper. And in fact his estimates don't even line up with his proposed vert heights. Furthermore he explicitly states that larger sizes are supported by the vertebra. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 31, 2013 22:36:31 GMT 5
I guess that was a rough range (well, looked like that from the beginning)
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on May 31, 2013 22:56:49 GMT 5
Taipan is that childish, he also created a fake account to have a reason to ban him. I doubt Paul's estimate is published, at least not in a paper. However if I remember right, Paul based that on different estimations for the vertebra's height, didn't he? I do not understand why Taipan should have made a fake account, his old account was suspended, and new (double) accounts are clearly disallowed. On Amphicoelias: Its neural arch nicely fits intoa ~40-45 meter Apatosaurus, which would have weighed about 80 tons. An Apatosaurus like bauplan is supported by phylogeny, a Diplodocus or Barosaurus like bauplan is not supported. (Also GSP recently said that he thinks that Amphicoelias is related to Apatosaurus. I have done similar calculatiuons supported by phylogeny and the outcome was always aroundd the same. The only whay to get those high results is to use Taxa that have a higher torso lenght/D10 height ratio. Those taxa show an torso elongation in comparision with more basal forms, and using them is not supported by phylogeny. In other words: Estimates that are in line with the phylogentic position of A. fragillimus rougly cluster around 40 meters and 80 tons, not accounting for supposed increased pheumatisation. Another note that people should finally understand: Carpenter NEVER used Diplodocus as a direct proxy for A. fragillimus. Its nowhere in his paper(I have demonstrated this on CF). He simply uses Diplodocus outline because it was the easiest choice. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 31, 2013 23:12:28 GMT 5
He wouldn't have even allowed the account to be opened had he had evidence for it being his new account.
Can you suggest me a good paper on the proportions of Apatosaurus?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 1, 2013 0:27:13 GMT 5
Taipan is that childish, he also created a fake account to have a reason to ban him. I doubt Paul's estimate is published, at least not in a paper. However if I remember right, Paul based that on different estimations for the vertebra's height, didn't he? He used a 2,4-2,6 m vertebra. Here is the name of the pamphlet: Paul GS. Terramegathermy and Cope's rule in the land of titans. Modern Geology. 1998;23:179–217. |
|
A recent quote from Mike Taylor in SV POW :
