First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Altanative Hyainailouros

Milan, Italy

#22 Oct 1, 2010
Spinodontosaurus wrote:
I though it was much heavier than that... closer too 200t...
Of course it can be much heavia, but dats not vat general mass thinks...
rex

New Delhi, India

#23 Oct 2, 2010
U r right the blue whale was near 200 t.
Altanative Hyainailouros

Milan, Italy

#24 Oct 2, 2010
rex wrote:
U r right the blue whale was near 200 t.
F**g off u stupid chink XD

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#25 Oct 28, 2010
Big Al wrote:
On top of dat, an adult giraffatitan weighted 25 t (da specimen of berlin is a subadult, not an adult)
Read this ;)
http://www.topix.com/forum/science/dinosaurs/...
I've never heard of Giraffatitan. What is it?
Altanative Stretosaurus

Milan, Italy

#26 Oct 29, 2010
Spinoraptor wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never heard of Giraffatitan. What is it?
TAYLOR, 2009
A RE-EVALUATION OF BRACHIOSAURUS ALTITHORAX RIGGS 1903 (DINOSAURIA, SAUROPODA) AND ITS GENERIC SEPARATION FROM GIRAFFATITAN BRANCAI (JANENSCH 1914)
http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/pubs/taylor...

Although the macronarian sauropod Brachiosaurus is one of the most iconic dinosaurs, its popular image
is based almost entirely on the referred African species Brachiosaurus brancai rather than the North American type
species Brachiosaurus altithorax. Reconsideration of Janensch’s referral of the African species to the American genus
shows that it was based on only four synapomorphies and would not be considered a convincing argument today. Detailed
study of the bones of both species show that they are distinguished by at least 26 characters of the dorsal and caudal
vertebrae, coracoids, humeri, ilia, and femora, with the dorsal vertebrae being particularly different between the two
species. These animals must therefore be considered generically separate, and the genus name Giraffatitan Paul 1988 must
be used for “Brachiosaurus” brancai, in the combination Giraffatitan brancai. A phylogenetic analysis treating the two
species as separate OTUs nevertheless recovers them as sister taxa in all most parsimonious trees, reaffirming a monophyletic
Brachiosauridae, although only one additional step is required for Giraffatitan to clade among somphospondylians
to the exclusion of Brachiosaurus. The American Brachiosaurus is shown to be somewhat different from Giraffatitan
in overall bodily proportions: it had a longer and deeper trunk and probably a longer and taller tail, carried a greater
proportion of its mass on the forelimbs, and may have had somewhat sprawled forelimbs. Even though it was overall a
larger animal than the Giraffatitan lectotype, the Brachiosaurus holotype was probably immature, as its coracoids were
not fused to its scapulae.

ADDITIONAL LINK
http://svpow.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/brachio...
MStar

Houston, TX

#27 Nov 4, 2010
Might as well compare a dragon to a kraken: they are simply impossible, IMO.
Diloto

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

#29 Dec 15, 2010
Hey how comes there're 2 Spinodontosaurus"es"
Spinodontosaurus

Cockermouth, UK

#30 Dec 16, 2010
There isnt. Those older comments are by me before i cretaed an actual account.
Diloto

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

#31 Jan 6, 2011
I know another size comparison,take a look at this link:
http://brianlean.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/...
Diloto

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

#32 Jan 6, 2011
Maybe this is more accurate.

“DoubleTheClaw, DoubleThePain”

Since: Aug 11

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

#33 Nov 16, 2011
Diloto wrote:
I know another size comparison,take a look at this link:
http://brianlean.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/...
Well What do you think?

“DoubleTheClaw, DoubleThePain”

Since: Aug 11

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

#34 Nov 16, 2011
Predator X wrote:
I know this may sound stupid, but anyone has a good comparison of those 2? Ampicoelias is supposed to be longer but lighter, and Bruhatkayosaurus shorter but heavier.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_P_vOYshVCYY/ScZ-ozw...
This one does not seem right to me. Ampicoelias in that picture still looks alot heavier then Bruhathkayosaurus because its body is so much longer and taller if you know what I mean. Look at how huge it is at the hips. In that picture the total body size of Amphicoelias is much bigger then that of Bruhathkaysaurus.
I know this might be stupid, but I'd like a good comparison.
Simple Amphicoelias is long mostly thanks to the tail,from head to body it's 26.5 m but the tail alone is 33.5 m but the tail is really light

“God is good, All the time”

Since: Nov 11

Singapore

#35 Nov 16, 2011
Yes and that is the great part about dinosaur bio mechanics. You are twice the length of a blue whale and 30tons lighter.
Phoezilla

Mumbai, India

#36 Apr 7, 2012
Hey the bruhathkayosauras is heavier, b'cos it is a titanosaur, max weighs to about 220 tons as far as my knowledge is concerned. On the other hand the amphicoelias, is a diplodocoid, it may seem longer but half of its bodylength is its tail. So here, the bruhathkayosauras wins in terms of mass.
Ridwan_ New York

College Point, NY

#37 Feb 12, 2013
both are big, and i am upset on how people are acting like argentinosaurs is the biggest, when there are 2 dinosaurs that clearly exceed its size, amph and bruh are big and heavy, amph is longest but not heavier than bruh, bruh is heaviest but not longer than amph
DinoRex

Honolulu, HI

#38 Feb 12, 2013
bruthakayisaurus: 240 tons

amphicoelias: 120 tons
Amphicoelias

Hanoi, Vietnam

#39 Jan 23, 2014
"both are big, and i am upset on how people are acting like argentinosaurs is the biggest, when there are 2 dinosaurs that clearly exceed its size"...

True, if they actually existed then they're bigger and exceed its size but AFAIK, the lack of convincing evidence of both make them more fantasy than real creature. Otherside, scientists has got more approved evidence for argentinosaurs (amongst scientist and academy themselves). That is reason why they don't consider bruhathkayosauras and/or amphicoelias as official approved creature at a point they condisder argentinosaurs.

“Clash of the titans!”

Since: May 13

Isla Sorna,JP

#40 Jan 26, 2014
Amphicoelias wrote:
"both are big, and i am upset on how people are acting like argentinosaurs is the biggest, when there are 2 dinosaurs that clearly exceed its size"...
True, if they actually existed then they're bigger and exceed its size but AFAIK, the lack of convincing evidence of both make them more fantasy than real creature. Otherside, scientists has got more approved evidence for argentinosaurs (amongst scientist and academy themselves). That is reason why they don't consider bruhathkayosauras and/or amphicoelias as official approved creature at a point they condisder argentinosaurs.
u call yourself ampheceoilas and ur not sure whether it exists or not lol
Tyrannosauridae

Hanoi, Vietnam

#41 Jan 26, 2014
I like the concept of Amphicoelias regardless either it exist or not. And it's not about I'm not sure but nobody would can be sure with believable evidence. And The nickname doesn't suppose to be real thing.

I can post under the nickname "Alien from Moon" and it doesn't make Alien exist in Moon or anything support meaning of that word.

The word/name exist but doesn't same about the actual creature.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Dinosaur Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kaiju Battle Arena 2 min tyrannospinus 3
kaiju arena of doom and-friendship!? 3 hr tyrannospinus 5
Spinosaurus vs. t-rex (Dec '07) 5 hr Jinfengopteryx 5,723
Jakesaurus Imperator Vs T rex 11 hr Carchar king 19
Therizinosaurus vs. Tarbosaurus 16 hr Tiborg 1
Oxalaia vs Carcharodontosaurus 17 hr Tiborg 2
Spinosaurus: Smartest and Strongest Theropod Sun Prehistory 7
•••

Dinosaur People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••