Alejandro Coria Sabella
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 9:24 AMHey guys, I've always had a little trouble with the topic of gigantic sauropods, like Amphicoelias and Bruhathkayosaurus, that don't have a lot of evidence to back them up and I was wondering if you guys could help me out. So did these sauropods exist or were they just other sauropod genus' that were just exaggerated? All opinions are welcome.
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:02 AMAmphicoelias did exist. It's fossils are now lost. Most estmates run anywhere between 100-200 ft long and 100-200 tons. Bruhathkayosaurus is in the same range, though it's fossils may be those of trees.
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:04 AMBruhathkayosaurus and amphicoelias are troublesome, really. We don't have physical remains for either.
Also, i would steer clear of the sauropods only known by footprints. They are probably distorted by erosion, and other factors. But there are giants off of those, i just wouldn't take their estimates seriously.
For the largest sauropods we know, argentinosaurus, alamosaurus and another big one from china i can't quite put my finger on...they are the largest we know from any decent remains
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Allotitan
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:10 AMAmphicoelias is a real dinosaur dinosaur described from one gigantic bone. The only problem with amphicoelias is that the only bone has been lost to science. It just disappeared, so scientist only work with the drawings left of it.
As for Bruhathkayosaurus, it may or may not have existed. It's only remains have been lost due to monsoon flooding. Also speculation may be that it was actually petrified wood.
When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Tell life I don't want you're damn lemons, and then squeeze them into life's eyes!
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:10 AMAlejandro Coria Sabella
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:11 AMHey guys thanks for your imput im writing a paper on sauropods and I appreciate your help.
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:14 AMNo problem. Feel free to ask more questions. Happy to help :)
Hiphopananomus
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:17 AMEvreything said before this is Definetly true. Good luck on your paper!
"Somewhere on this island is the greatest predator that ever lived. Second greatest predator must take him down."Roland Tembo"
"Jurassic park: The Lost World"
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:20 AMIs it focussing on one species of sauropod in particular or the whole group?
Alejandro Coria Sabella
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:26 AMThanks Hiphopananomous.
And Rex Fan, thanks for asking, my paper is mainly focusing on the eating habits of sauropods, but I also have a section on the largest sauropods and I was wondering whether or not there is enough proof for me to include sauropods like Bruhathkayosaurus and Amphicoelias in my paper
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:28 AMOk, cool. I'd say you could mention them, but mention the evidence is scanty at best ;)
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:33 AMAlso, Carnosaur mentioned footprints being a bad thing to estimate size with. He's right. I did a post about it a while back...
http://www.jurassicworld-movie.com/community/forums/topic/29170
Alejandro Coria Sabella
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:41 AMI totally agree with you and Carnosaur, there are so many factors that could have distorted a footprint, like erosion as Carnosaur mentioned.
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:44 AMIndeed.