|
Biggest animal on earth ever
|
1.Plesiosauria:
Shastasaurid icthyosaur *This image is copyright of its original author https://curiosity.com/topics/this-giant-...curiosity/ 2.Bruhathkayosaurus- Bruhathkayosaurus malteyi might have been between 40–44 m (131–144 ft) in length and “175–220” greater than blue whale tonnes in weight according to some estimates. Its remains found in our country India. This might also be the biggest animal ever. The skeleton lost when floods occurred and assumptions are there that some bones might be fossilized wood. The scientist who put the estimate then said that the estimates are inaccurate afterwards and weight may be somewhat less. The skeleton remains lost during floods. It’s not clear that it’s a real animal, as the few remains we had of it were washed away in a monsoon flood, leaving only some unclear line drawings which could show fragments of sauropod bones or could show petrified wood. At any rate, even if it’s a real animal, it might have been slightly longer than a blue whale but would have been a lot less massive, since a sauropod’s length is mostly long thin neck and tail. Mickey Mortimer said Bruhathkayosaurus could have been 175–220 tonnes heavy in 2001, but he later changed his opinion and said these numbers are inaccurate but didn’t provide a new mass estimate. *This image is copyright of its original author Any animals, other than these that rival blue whale friends? post your findings... :) (11-14-2018, 09:51 AM)Sanju Wrote: 1.Plesiosauria:Some comparative images of Bruhathkayosaurus malteyi  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author :max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/neuquensaurusGE-56a253d25f9b58b7d0c917df.jpg) *This image is copyright of its original author :origin()/pre00/cde8/th/pre/f/2018/249/f/0/probably_a_tree__bruhathkayosaurus_matleyi_by_rhysdylan01-dcm3au6.jpg) *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author https://www.earthtouchnews.com/discoveries/discoveries/a-short-history-of-the-biggest-dinosaurs-of-all-time/ *This image is copyright of its original author :origin()/pre00/d31f/th/pre/f/2018/232/f/d/e_d_cope_s_lost_giant__amphicoelias_fragillimus_by_rhysdylan01-dcknhbg.jpg) *This image is copyright of its original author
 (11-14-2018, 10:41 AM)Sanju Wrote:(11-14-2018, 09:51 AM)Sanju Wrote: 1.Plesiosauria:Some comparative images of Bruhathkayosaurus malteyi Looks like to be some measurements here, which aren´t confirmed at all. Or where can I find confirmation for Amphicoelias fragillimus? Not from that site, which is here as source, I think. Some other figures seems to be more or less uncertain (?). Can you give sources for these dinosaur measurements? it would be interesting to see. When you put measurements like this here, I think, that sources for anyone to check should be also there. Now you have big figures for dinosaurs and then for instance for blue whale understatement as far as I know. I mean if you put here longest possible estimations of some animal, then fair way to compare is to put same measurements for other animals too. Anyway, put some more sources, please. The one you have here seemed to just tell, that Amphicoelias fragillimus size is very questionable. That makes whole posting a bit questionable, sorry to say that.  1 - Bruhathkayosaurus matleyi is lost and there are serious dobts about IF it was a real dinosaur after all.
Check the entire article: http://paleoking.blogspot.com/2012/01/gi...-your.html Also check this: http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2011/12/bru...8906512563 2 - About Amphicoelias fragillimus, new studies suggest that was not the "big" beast reported. A new study of Dr Carpenter in 2018 shows that its morphology was not the one of a Diplodocid but just like a rebbachusaurid like Limaysaurus. Even the name changed, is now Maraapunisaurus fragillimus. Check the paper of this study (attached document). Finally, a comparative image of that document:
 *This image is copyright of its original author So, non of them are real giants, and did not surpassed Argentinosaurus and other giant sauropods.
Other two posts about how big was Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, older than the new study of Dr Carpenter, by the way:
https://www.deviantart.com/palaeozoologist/journal/Amphicoelias-fragillimus-smaller-than-you-think-424759499 - from January 4 2014.
https://www.deviantart.com/palaeozoologist/journal/Was-Amphicoelias-a-rebbachisaur-440611550 - from March 15 2014.
It seems that Maraapunisaurus fragillimus was about 30 meters long and about 80 tonnes.
About Barosaurus and Mamenchisaurus, the estimations taht I have saw are still not quite clear and are highly speculative, but will be interesting to see those results.
3 - Finally, about Shonisaurus sikanniensis, previously clasified as Shastasaurus, was probably about 21 meters long, still a giant but not near the blue whale.
Check this link:http://www.tyrrellmuseum.com/exhibits/triassic_giant.htm
 *This image is copyright of its original author There is a new specimen reported in 2018 of a new Ichthyosaurus estimated at up to 26 meters long.
Check the report: https://www.newsweek.com/giant-ichthyosa...?yptr=yaho
The original paper: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl...ne.0194742
More images of this giant:
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author A real monster and was amazingly found "in situ", which is incredible.
However the report itself had assuptions, for example: "We compared our jawbone to that of Shonisaurus sikanniensis, the largest ichthyosaur previously known, with an estimated length of up to 21 meters," Massare told Newsweek. "Our bone was about 25 percent deeper. The estimate assumes that the two animals had a similar shape for this bone, as neither specimen preserves the entire bone."
If there were differences between the new species and the Shonisaurus sikanniensis, the estimation will be invalid, but even then the animal was huge.
So, for the moment, it seems that the largest sauropods are still about 30 or maybe up to 40 meters long but still don't surpass the 90 tons. Whales are still on the top and the blue whale is still the biggest animal ever, or not???
We can't talk about the largest animals ever without mention the true king of beast (by size and weight), the blue whale!
1 - Carwardine, 2013:  *This image is copyright of its original author 2 - Wood, 1977:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author 3 - Wood, 1982:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Enjoy this data. 
Some time in the past, I watched a documentary on dinosaurs which told of water displacement to receive very near-accurate weights of animals. According to this documentary, if a person can create an accurate model of the animal made perfectly to scale, he can then use water displacement to acquire its weight. You have a container with a precise amount of water in it right up to the rim. then, when you submerge the model, the displaced water can be weighed. Of course, this requires a mathematician.
The siphonophore threatens the blue whale in the largest animal on earth position.
(09-30-2020, 07:09 PM)cheetah Wrote: The siphonophore threatens the blue whale in the largest animal on earth position. These animals are the longest, but not even near the largest/heaviest on Earth, as in Biology the body mass is the true value of size, not length. In this case, even the longest of the siphonophorae is not bigger than an average cow, in body mass terms. On April 6, 2020 the Schmidt Ocean Institute announced the discovery of a giant Apolemia siphonophore in submarine canyons near Ningaloo Coast, measuring 15 m (49 ft) diameter with a ring approximately 47 m (154 ft) long, possibly the largest siphonophore ever recorded. However also Wikipedia article says about Siphonophorae: "Although a siphonophore may appear to be an individual organism, each specimen is in fact a colonial organism composed of medusoid and polypoid zooids that are morphologically and functionally specialized. Zooids are multicellular units that develop from a single fertilized egg and combine to create functional colonies able to reproduce, digest, float, maintain body positioning, and use jet propulsion to move. Most colonies are long, thin, transparent floaters living in the pelagic zone." That means that these animals are in fact colonies of several organisms, not a single one, like the blue whale. Sadly, the news reports in the web exagerate the data and missinform the people. (10-02-2020, 12:48 AM)cheetah Wrote: @Shadow I am posting this seriously As @GuateGojira posted, there is no contest, blue whale is so much larger animal. You can have a snake longer than an elephant, but no-one would call snake larger. If you are going to post seriously, then I suggest, that use a bit more time to think what you are trying to say. When term is large, I dare to say that 99,9999% of people think about overall size, not length alone.  These animals below aren't "close" to the blue whale 34 meters and 190 tons.
They might be longer. But look at the mass lost by the much smaller proportion of the body being large. A blue whale is enormous everywhere on it's body whereas sauropsids aren't (neck, head and tail are "small")
Take a look at this size comparaison done by KoprX
Comparison of selected giant sauropods Several giant length estimates have been proposed for different taxa, with varying degrees of accuracy. This diagram uses more rigorous estimates to avoid inaccuracy Sizes based on: Supersaurus : Lovelace, David M.; Hartman, Scott A.; Wahl, William R. (2007). "Morphology of a specimen of Supersaurus (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Morrison Formation of Wyoming, and a re-evaluation of diplodocid phylogeny" Arquivos do Museu Nacional. 65 (4): 527–544. Argentinosaurus : Paul, Gregory S. (Autumn 1994)"Big Sauropods - Really, Really Big Sauropods" (PDF). The Dinosaur Report: 12–13. Retrieved November 14, 2011. Argentinosaurus huinculensis schematic. Retrieved April 29, 2019. Diplodocus : Carpenter, K. (2006). "Biggest of the big: a critical re-evaluation of the mega-sauropod Amphicoelias fragillimus." In Foster, J.R. and Lucas, S.G., eds., 2006, Paleontology and Geology of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 36: 131–138. "The biggest of the big". Skeletaldrawing.com. June 14, 2013. Retrieved April 29, 2019 Alamosaurus : Fowler, D. W.; Sullivan, R. M. (2011). "The First Giant Titanosaurian Sauropod from the Upper Cretaceous of North America". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 56 (4): 685. "The first giant titanosaurian sauropod from the Upper Cretaceous of North America" "The biggest of the big". Skeletaldrawing.com. June 14, 2013. Retrieved April 29, 2019 Xinjiangtitan : Wu, Wen-hao; Zhou, Chang-Fu; Wings, Oliver; Toru, Sekiya; Dong, Zhi-ming (2013)."A new gigantic sauropod dinosaur from the Middle Jurassic of Shanshan, Xinjiang" (PDF). Sauroposeidon : Wedel, Mathew J.; Cifelli, Richard L. (Summer 2005). "Sauroposeidon: Oklahoma's Native Giant" (PDF). Credits to: Scott A. Hartman - (http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/) randomdinos - (https://www.deviantart.com/randomdinos) Steveoc 86 User:Steveoc_86 Human silhouette from File:Silhouette of man standing and facing forward.svg.
*This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |