argentinosaurus back on top

[lvdveen]

argentinosaurus, the og biggest dinosaur, dethroned by the likes of puertasaurus


or is it?

everyone remembers the newest mega titanosaur on the block, patagotitan mayorum, its said to be the biggest ever, this is however kind of weird

there is a bunch of boring phylogenetic stuff involved but tl;dr

patagotitan and argentinosaurus are eachothers closest relatives, their proportions are almost identical, but argentinosaurus' bones are 10-20% bigger than patagotitans

this means that when patagotitan is 33 meters argentinosaurus is around 38-40 meters, this might work out as a counterpart to puertasaurus

[Dimitris]

but argentinosaurus has been confirmed he can reach 50 mitres +

[Erook D Weeb]

Doesn't matter, Sauropods wont be playable, they're not functional with their size and scale.

[Red]

Argentinosaurus is basically functionally the same as Puertasaurus. Why even bother, especially when sauropods are said to not be playable.

[Doogma]

Originally posted by lvdveen:

argentinosaurus, the og biggest dinosaur, dethroned by the likes of puertasaurus


or is it?

everyone remembers the newest mega titanosaur on the block, patagotitan mayorum, its said to be the biggest ever, this is however kind of weird

there is a bunch of boring phylogenetic stuff involved but tl;dr

patagotitan and argentinosaurus are eachothers closest relatives, their proportions are almost identical, but argentinosaurus' bones are 10-20% bigger than patagotitans

this means that when patagotitan is 33 meters argentinosaurus is around 38-40 meters, this might work out as a counterpart to puertasaurus

Patagotitan, according to everything I've seen, is estimated at 37 meters long, and is considered about the same size as Argentinosaurus. Maybe I've missed something, but you seem to have made that up.

Second of all, you apparently are incapable of extrapolation, 10% more than 33 meters is 36.3 meters, not 38, and 20% larger is 39.6, which would in fact round to 40 meters. So even if everything else in your post were right, the range would be 36-40 meters, not 38-40.

Due to these discrepencies, I'm inclined to believe that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Additionally, Puertasaurus, being a Lognkosaurian, whilst Argentinosaurus was a relatively basal, would have a significantly broader chest than Argentinosaurus, meaning it would still outweigh Argentinosaurus when the two are roughly the same length.

Also, why should Puertasaurus have a counterpart? What point would there be to that? The two would would have a virtually identical gameplay experience. It would simply be a waste of money.

Lastly, Puertasaurus itself is confirmed not to be playable in survival, and neither would Argentinosaurus.

[lvdveen]

Originally posted by The Flying Spaghetti Monster:

Originally posted by lvdveen:

argentinosaurus, the og biggest dinosaur, dethroned by the likes of puertasaurus


or is it?

everyone remembers the newest mega titanosaur on the block, patagotitan mayorum, its said to be the biggest ever, this is however kind of weird

there is a bunch of boring phylogenetic stuff involved but tl;dr

patagotitan and argentinosaurus are eachothers closest relatives, their proportions are almost identical, but argentinosaurus' bones are 10-20% bigger than patagotitans

this means that when patagotitan is 33 meters argentinosaurus is around 38-40 meters, this might work out as a counterpart to puertasaurus

Patagotitan, according to everything I've seen, is estimated at 37 meters long, and is considered about the same size as Argentinosaurus. Maybe I've missed something, but you seem to have made that up.

Second of all, you apparently are incapable of extrapolation, 10% more than 33 meters is 36.3 meters, not 38, and 20% larger is 39.6, which would in fact round to 40 meters. So even if everything else in your post were right, the range would be 36-40 meters, not 38-40.

Due to these discrepencies, I'm inclined to believe that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Additionally, Puertasaurus, being a Lognkosaurian, whilst Argentinosaurus was a relatively basal, would have a significantly broader chest than Argentinosaurus, meaning it would still outweigh Argentinosaurus when the two are roughly the same length.

Also, why should Puertasaurus have a counterpart? What point would there be to that? The two would would have a virtually identical gameplay experience. It would simply be a waste of money.

Lastly, Puertasaurus itself is confirmed not to be playable in survival, and neither would Argentinosaurus.

Dont shoot the messenger, i merely read that with patagotitan and argentinosaurus being so close, some people even refer to them as sister taxa, that some bones of argentinosaurus are 10-20% bigger than patagotitans, and that people are referring to these statistics when upsizing argentinosaurus mainly randomdinos on deviantart who often works with franoys and paleoking has referred to this, besides the patagotitan paper is really weird as it puts argentinosaurus in lognkosauria

[Doogma]

Originally posted by lvdveen:

Originally posted by The Flying Spaghetti Monster:

Patagotitan, according to everything I've seen, is estimated at 37 meters long, and is considered about the same size as Argentinosaurus. Maybe I've missed something, but you seem to have made that up.

Second of all, you apparently are incapable of extrapolation, 10% more than 33 meters is 36.3 meters, not 38, and 20% larger is 39.6, which would in fact round to 40 meters. So even if everything else in your post were right, the range would be 36-40 meters, not 38-40.

Due to these discrepencies, I'm inclined to believe that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Additionally, Puertasaurus, being a Lognkosaurian, whilst Argentinosaurus was a relatively basal, would have a significantly broader chest than Argentinosaurus, meaning it would still outweigh Argentinosaurus when the two are roughly the same length.

Also, why should Puertasaurus have a counterpart? What point would there be to that? The two would would have a virtually identical gameplay experience. It would simply be a waste of money.

Lastly, Puertasaurus itself is confirmed not to be playable in survival, and neither would Argentinosaurus.

Dont shoot the messenger, i merely read that with patagotitan and argentinosaurus being so close, some people even refer to them as sister taxa, that some bones of argentinosaurus are 10-20% bigger than patagotitans, and that people are referring to these statistics when upsizing argentinosaurus mainly randomdinos on deviantart who often works with franoys and paleoking has referred to this, besides the patagotitan paper is really weird as it puts argentinosaurus in lognkosauria

Could you link to these? I haven't seen anyone else make these claims.

Additionally, Argentinosaurus has pretty poor remains, last I heard it was compared to Dreadnoughtus [en.wikipedia.org], which is why it's considered to be a basal Titanosaur. It could be a case that its remains are to poor to accurately identify its full-body proportions based on other genera (which would apply even moreso to Puertasaurus).

[lvdveen]

Originally posted by The Flying Spaghetti Monster:

Originally posted by lvdveen:

Dont shoot the messenger, i merely read that with patagotitan and argentinosaurus being so close, some people even refer to them as sister taxa, that some bones of argentinosaurus are 10-20% bigger than patagotitans, and that people are referring to these statistics when upsizing argentinosaurus mainly randomdinos on deviantart who often works with franoys and paleoking has referred to this, besides the patagotitan paper is really weird as it puts argentinosaurus in lognkosauria

Could you link to these? I haven't seen anyone else make these claims.

Additionally, Argentinosaurus has pretty poor remains, last I heard it was compared to Dreadnoughtus [en.wikipedia.org], which is why it's considered to be a basal Titanosaur. It could be a case that its remains are to poor to accurately identify its full-body proportions based on other genera (which would apply even moreso to Puertasaurus). [/quote
Cant find the bloody paper anymore, but the phylogenetic section of it is so weird, they put argentinosaurus who now looks to have been more derived than previously thought in a more derived spot than dreadnoughtus, who lived at least 30 million years later,
At least the giant dinosaur category has become interesting again, with diplodocids and titanosaurs vying for the title, its currently a competition between


Puertasaurus
Patagotitan
Maybe antarctosaurus
Argentinosaurus
Ruyangosaurus and
Alamosaurus
For the titanosaurs


And
Barosaurus lentus
(Byu 9024)

Apatosaurus ajax
(Isometrically scaled from omnh 1670 who was 80% full size and around 52 tons)

[Doogma]

Am I the only one who wouldn't really be surprised if there's no real significant difference in size between all these creatures? It seems to be that there was a maximum size, and sauropods look to have hit it a lot. Sure, differences in environment would have allowed one to become a tad bigger than the rest, but it would be such a small difference (proportionately speaking) that we'd probably never know for sure with the piss poor remains that giant sauropods usually have.

[lvdveen]

Originally posted by The Flying Spaghetti Monster:

Am I the only one who wouldn't really be surprised if there's no real significant difference in size between all these creatures? It seems to be that there was a maximum size, and sauropods look to have hit it a lot. Sure, differences in environment would have allowed one to become a tad bigger than the rest, but it would be such a small difference (proportionately speaking) that we'd probably never know for sure with the piss poor remains that giant sauropods usually have.

Between the big titanosaurs the biggest diffrence is around 3~4 meters, barosaurus currently dwarfs all of them though (the byu 9024 specimen)

[Doogma]

"At the Wyoming Dinosaur Center I was fortunate enough to work on the most complete specimen of Supersaurus, which had much better representation of the neck. As a result I feel confident in estimating the neck of the WDC specimen as almost 11 and a half meters long. Of course the type specimen from BYU is larger yet. In our 2007 paper we diagnosed "The Spaceship" specimen, BYU 9024 as being either the 10th or 11th vertebrae of the neck, which makes it roughly 6.5% longer than the equivalent vertebrae in the WDC specimen. So to the best of my abilities I would estimate that the neck of the BYU Supersaurus is 12.14 meters in length, a bit smaller than the 13.3 meters Mat come up with in the SV-POW blog."

- Scott Hartman comparing Supersaurus to other sauropods.[www.skeletaldrawing.com] The new 12.14 meter estimate is substantially smaller than the original 17 meter specimen, meaning even assuming identical proportions to Barosaurus (which Scott addresses) it would be about 37 meters, not the previously estimated 50+. Even the higher estimate of 13.3 meters only puts it at 41 meters. It may have been longer than the large Titanosaurs, but given that Diplodocoids are typically pretty lightly built, it would not "dwarf them all" by weight.

[lvdveen]

Originally posted by The Flying Spaghetti Monster:

"At the Wyoming Dinosaur Center I was fortunate enough to work on the most complete specimen of Supersaurus, which had much better representation of the neck. As a result I feel confident in estimating the neck of the WDC specimen as almost 11 and a half meters long. Of course the type specimen from BYU is larger yet. In our 2007 paper we diagnosed "The Spaceship" specimen, BYU 9024 as being either the 10th or 11th vertebrae of the neck, which makes it roughly 6.5% longer than the equivalent vertebrae in the WDC specimen. So to the best of my abilities I would estimate that the neck of the BYU Supersaurus is 12.14 meters in length, a bit smaller than the 13.3 meters Mat come up with in the SV-POW blog."

- Scott Hartman comparing Supersaurus to other sauropods.[www.skeletaldrawing.com] The new 12.14 meter estimate is substantially smaller than the original 17 meter specimen, meaning even assuming identical proportions to Barosaurus (which Scott addresses) it would be about 37 meters, not the previously estimated 50+. Even the higher estimate of 13.3 meters only puts it at 41 meters. It may have been longer than the large Titanosaurs, but given that Diplodocoids are typically pretty lightly built, it would not "dwarf them all" by weight.

https://svpow.com/2016/09/16/how-horrifying-was-the-neck-of-barosaurus/

That is an interesting point you have, but according to svpow byu9024 is a c9
http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/pubs/svpca2016/abstract.html#gsc.tab=0


Barosaurus c9
https://svpow.com/papers-by-sv-powsketeers/taylor-and-wedel-2013-on-the-neck-of-barosaurus/
(Figure 10)

Byu 9024
https://www.google.nl/amp/s/svpow.com/2013/02/17/terrifying-actual-cervical-vertebrae-of-the-morrison-formation/amp/

If you use a c9 barosaurus does reach the colossal estimates given, besides we still have the isometrically scaled 37 meter long ~80 ton apatosaurus ajax ( based off of omnh 1670, around 52 tons and 29 meters long whilst being around 80% full size)

[Doogma]

"Why the difference? Since Matt is working from a single neckbone he was understandably looking for an entire sauropod neck series that can be scaled up or down based on the BYU cervical. But the WDC specimen shows that as you get closer to the head the individual neck vertebrae get disproportionately smaller than in other diplodocids.* So while Supersaurus had a heck of a neck, I can't see it stretching out quite as long as some previous estimates (which put it up in the 15 meter range)."

- Same blog

[lvdveen]

Originally posted by The Flying Spaghetti Monster:

"Why the difference? Since Matt is working from a single neckbone he was understandably looking for an entire sauropod neck series that can be scaled up or down based on the BYU cervical. But the WDC specimen shows that as you get closer to the head the individual neck vertebrae get disproportionately smaller than in other diplodocids.* So while Supersaurus had a heck of a neck, I can't see it stretching out quite as long as some previous estimates (which put it up in the 15 meter range)."

- Same blog

Disproportionally smaller, does it refer back to supersaurus or barosaurus, bc i am talking sbout barosaurus here

[Doogma]

Supersaurus. But the BYU specimen is also referred to as Supersaurus (now), it was just originally referred to Barosaurus due to the one vertebra being fairly similar. The new WDC specimen of Supersaurus (a bit smaller than the BYU, but still pretty big) helps fill in the gaps as to what Supersaurus was actually like.

[T-REX-KNIGHT]

So who wins in lengh on sauropods..
Because everyone here seems to be talking about how long it is why not go for height too?