stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Jun 2, 2013 1:55:37 GMT 5
But he never mentions the vertebral height of Diplodocus. He only uses a ratio of vertebral height/femur height, using the correct vertbral height.
So claiming or insisting that Carpenter scaled from the D10 are rather baseless and purely subjective.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 2, 2013 2:31:29 GMT 5
Unfortunately there only is this vertebra to scale from. What else could he have used?
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 2, 2013 4:01:41 GMT 5
Well, the lenght estimate obviously is not based on scaling Diplodocus vertebrae, it is mentioned nowhere in the paper. He also writes shortly before mentioning the size: "Should A. fragillimus be viewed as a scaled up version of Diplodocus, Barosaurus, or Apatosaurus?" He also never wites that he scaled the given total lenght at all. This makes me wonder if the number he gives just is a guesstimate based on the various data he has given beforehand. Go back and read my post SLOWLY. Add up the numbers from the section where he said, THESE NUMBERS ARE BASED ON FREAKING DIPLODOCUS, they add up to 58 meters, which is exactly the same as his total length estimate. And also, the image is 58 meters long, which is what the length estimate is, BASED ON DIPLODOCUS. |
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Jun 2, 2013 5:22:05 GMT 5
No need for shouting, were are neither in kindergarten nor on an Iron-Age battlefield.
Also please tell me the part where he derivates the lenght estimate from Diplodocus, and also where he uses vertebral height.
And it is also not quite hard to see that "those numbers which add up to his total lenght estimate" are a derivates of it, it is only logical that they add up to it.
For theropod: Other vertebral features, some of his earlier calculations in the paper. Also, have you measure the vertebrae in the reconstruction? Maybe he did not even his restoration after A. altus but Paul´s estimate? (also noting that the vert looks plainly strange in the illustration.)BTW, I think it is quite funny that one has to use the vertebrae of A. Altus for reconstruction and then to use Diplodocus for scaling. I hope one day one of the SVPOW skeeters make some quality photos of remains of altus.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 2, 2013 7:39:34 GMT 5
No need for shouting, were are neither in kindergarten nor on an Iron-Age battlefield. Also please tell me the part where he derivates the lenght estimate from Diplodocus, and also where he uses vertebral height. And it is also not quite hard to see that "those numbers which add up to his total lenght estimate" are a derivates of it, it is only logical that they add up to it. For theropod: Other vertebral features, some of his earlier calculations in the paper. Also, have you measure the vertebrae in the reconstruction? Maybe he did not even his restoration after A. altus but Paul´s estimate? (also noting that the vert looks plainly strange in the illustration.)BTW, I think it is quite funny that one has to use the vertebrae of A. Altus for reconstruction and then to use Diplodocus for scaling. I hope one day one of the SVPOW skeeters make some quality photos of remains of altus. Sorry, it just seems so obvious to me!  The vert in the reconstruction is 2.7 meters tall as well, and it is based off of A. altus. Also, A altus is basically the exact same thing as Diplodocus, except that it has larger front legs, and was probably a couple meters longer. There are some decent pics of A. altus floating around... here's one for you!  Basically your standard diplodocid vert. |
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Jun 2, 2013 17:10:51 GMT 5
Have you measured it in the diagramm with the scalebar?
And where does your information A. altus having the features you assign to it come from? A. altus is known from two very fragmentary specimens.
I know that picture from SVPOW, one of the authors even writes that he should have inquired further into that specimen.
Also, this is the only photo that I know of, can you give links to thos other quality pics floating around?
On another note, I cannot see how can say that much of a vert based on a single picture in lateral view, but I ain´t DP.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 3, 2013 3:35:15 GMT 5
Have you measured it in the diagramm with the scalebar? And where does your information A. altus having the features you assign to it come from? A. altus is known from two very fragmentary specimens. I know that picture from SVPOW, one of the authors even writes that he should have inquired further into that specimen. Also, this is the only photo that I know of, can you give links to thos other quality pics floating around? On another note, I cannot see how can say that much of a vert based on a single picture in lateral view, but I ain´t DP. Yes, I have measured it, and it is exactly 270cm tall. Cope says it was pretty similar to diplodocus, and Greg Paul both expressed their similarities, and drew one as basically a Diplodocus, with a bigger front end, and a smidge bigger. The only other pics I know of are different pics from the same angle of that bone, and the drawings from Cope and Mook. Verts are some of the most informative and distinctive bones in the sauropod skeleton! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2013 21:39:18 GMT 5
On Amphicoelias: Its neural arch nicely fits intoa ~40-45 meter Apatosaurus, which would have weighed about 80 tons. A 40-45 meter long Apatosaurus would have had a mass of way more than just 80 tonnes. Assuming ~18-20 tonnes for a ~21-meter specimen, we would have a mass range of ~124.4-196.8 tonnes. I went by the figures for Apatosaurus that Nima told me(I trust him on most sauropods) _______________________________ Here are some of my size comparisons:   |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jun 19, 2013 22:18:52 GMT 5
So did an update on my size comparison with kronosaurus. My last one had a too short neck and a too long body. Also included Pliosaurus kevani. Given that P. kevani was very similar in size to P.fukei and the latter has comparable vertebral size very large Kronosaurus I reasoned that they would have comparable body size. Interestingly scaling from this size independently leads to almost the same body size for P.macromerus as predicted by MC Henry. Here coherentsheaf.deviantart.com/art/Giant-Pliosaurs-379138756 |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 19, 2013 22:23:17 GMT 5
Excellent work as ever from you.
Aren't the paddles in macromerus a bit too large ?
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jun 19, 2013 22:33:52 GMT 5
Excellent work as ever from you. Aren't the paddles in macromerus a bit too large ? We don't know much about them. I chose to reconstruct them similar to those of P.funkei, but this is more an educated guess. P.funkei had extremely long paddles, and the very large propodial remains of Megalneusaurus and the Monster of Aramberi suggest that late jurassic giant pliosaurs generally had very large flippers. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 19, 2013 22:40:17 GMT 5
Fair enough, it anycase, your depiction clearly demonstrate a 20 tonnes beast.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 20, 2013 23:40:08 GMT 5
The problem with Puertasaurus When I released my Thunder Lizards size comparison I was asked why a few of the largest animals were rendered in gray, and when I would be making the actual skeletal available. Using gray silhouettes solved an aesthetic concern (the image was threatening to get too busy), but it turns out that those critters have another problem: they are not known from very incomplete remains. So here is the skeletal of Puertasaurus in all its "glory". I have a fully restored version as well, but it's not going to be making a public appearance, as frankly I don't want it to be separated from the rigorous version, as that could give off the impression that the animal is better known. In fact even this version is somewhat misleading, as the two tail vertebrae were reported but not figured or described - I don't actually know how big they were! That's not to say the reconstruction is a fantasy - it's status as a lognkosaur seems secure, and we have very good remains of some of its relatives. And the neck and back vertebrae actually provide a pretty reasonable basis for scaling the largest parts of Puertasaurus. That said, I feel it's important for scientists (and scientific illustrators) not to inadvertently mislead people about the level of inference involved. So enjoy the skeletal, but please do so responsibly! www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/2013/6/20/the-problem-with-puertasaurus
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 21, 2013 2:42:13 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 21, 2013 15:08:59 GMT 5
|
|
