Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 10:12 AMThis sauropod really lives up to the family name. The titanosaurs were the last of the giants, and Alamosaurus was no exception
The scientifically accepted size for this creature is enormous enough - 15 meters long and a head that towers into the sky at 8.4 meters.
Case closed right?
erhm...not really
In 1999, a string of neck vertebrate were discovered in the Big Bend region of Texas. The hillside in which it was discovered yielded partial pelvic bones and ten articulated cervical vertebrae.
A cursory glance at the fossilized remains shows that they appear to be titanosaurine in nature
Don't quote me on that one, as i don't specialize in categorizing vertebrate based on a cursory glance. For all intensive purposes, they do resemble those of Alamosaurus and the likely hood of two titanosaur species inhabiting the same area at the same time is highly unlikely.
The vertebrae were found side by side, stretching for around 8 meters. From the pictures, those ten vertebrae look like the ten largest, which should account for almost all of the neck except for the first few cervicals behind the head. 23 feet, and we find that it is almost exactly 1.5 times bigger than the one listed above. If its proportions are like the other specimens of Alamosaurus found The numbers would be astoundingly large.
Confirmed Alamosaurus sizes: "Big bend sauropod"
Lenght: 15.6 meters Length: 24 meters
Height: 8.4 meters Height: 12.6 meters
Now, let's look at some other titanosaur species for weight calculations.
Basing off of Aegyptosaurus( which was in the same length and height class)
The 52-foot 'normal' animal probably had a mass around 15 tons. now, the 79 foot "big bend" specimen would be substantially larger then that. Titanosaurus were some of the heavier sauropods, and doing the basic calculations:
The 79-footer would have been about 50 tons (1.5^3 = 3.375)
There are vague rumors floating around the internet of a hundred foot specimen, which i believe to be just an internet rumor.
For now, i believe we have confirmation of this big bend sauropod belonging to Alamosaurus, and the already giant sauropod just got a bit bigger.
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:25 AMBecause that "evidence" is scanty.
Anyways, I'll draw my own conclusions thank you.
Hiphopananomus
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:26 AMYeah, the evidence is far unreliable.
"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"
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:27 AMBut we take the toe bone and other fragmentary tyrannosaurs as evidence? and not more decently preserved remains?
You simply cannot do that.
Also, there's no need to be agitated. It's called debate for a reason ;)
@HHP how is it unreliable?
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:30 AMI for one don't use the toe bone as evidence. I use specimens like Celeste, which is somewhat complete.
Alejandro Coria Sabella
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 11:58 AMI agree with Carnosaur about Mapu being larger than 10-12 meters as there is some evidence that points to Mapu being about 14 meters at the most but I do not agree with you saying that it was larger than Giga even though evidence points to the fact that the upper estimates for both are around 14 meters, but the average estimates of most paleontologists for Giga tend to be larger than Mapu.
Huge-Ben
MemberTriceratopsAug-18-2014 1:56 PMThanks for sharing there carnosaur, great find. :)
http://hugeben.deviantart.com/ check out my gallery of Godzilla artwork! Follow me on Twitter@thebigbadben90.
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 5:17 PMCeleste is based on field guesses made by no other then Jack horner. He said something about Celeste being 10% bigger then Sue, which would put her ~ 43-45 feet long. 50 feet is an overexaggeration. That being said, a 45 foot rex would weigh close to nine tons. I haven't seen any other info regardeing "c-rex" other then the field estimates
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 5:20 PMActually, if you check my site, there is no 50 ft estimate anymore. It's now 40-46 ft and 7-10 tons.
(If Sue was 9 tons at 42 ft, then a 45 ft Rex would easily be 10 tons)
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 5:26 PMSee, i see The estimates of 9.1-10.0+ tons estimates as too high - as those models seem to have Sue being very fat. Like wise the original estimates of 7 tonnes seems to be too light, and skinny.
Scott Hartman's estimate of 8.4 tonnes, sounds very reasonable, therefore "Celeste" would be pushing 9 tons, maybe a little bit more.
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Rex Fan 684
MemberCompsognathusAug-18-2014 5:27 PMOr Sue was very muscular. Afterall, muscle weighs more than fat.
