Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By Chucknorium
  • 1 Post By Paleoichneum
  • 1 Post By marnixR
  • 1 Post By Bad Robot
  • 1 Post By Chucknorium

Thread: Dinosaurs

  1. #1 Dinosaurs 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Whilst reading about the recent discovery of the world's largest dinosaur found in Argentina, it had me thinking....

    If there is one thing that life is good at it is filling 'niches'; these huge animals and the equally huge carnivores that hunted them became extinct 65 million years ago but in the past 65 million years evolution has not seemed to replace them in terms of their size.


    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,572
    I was wondering how a beast that size could survive. Doesn't gravity impose a limit on the size of life?

    BBC News - 'Biggest dinosaur ever' discovered


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,268
    Hollow bones and superstructural support in the bone make the size possible.

    The major atmospheric changes and climate changes that happened after the end of the Cretaceous 66 mya have made it less practical for extra large land animals, though the brontotheres and indricotheres of the Oligocene and Miocene got fairly close.

    Also as of note, they seem to be ignoring the "now lost" type specimens of Amphicoelias which indicated a species reaching up to 190ft long, 60ft longer then the new specimen.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    How does the size of this new dinosaur discovery compare to the the Blue Whale? (The buoyancy of water can of course allow a much larger animal.)

    wiki:
    A member of the order Cetacea, the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), is believed to be the largest animal ever to have lived. The maximum recorded weight was 190 tonnes[1] for a specimen measuring 30 metres (98 ft), while longer ones, up to 33.4 metres (110 ft), have been recorded but not weighed.[2]
    ETA:
    Looks like this new dinosaur is longer: approx 130 ft long versus 110 ft long for the Blue Whale.
    But not heavier: 77 tonnes versus 190 tonnes. (but then again a water-buoyed animal can be much larger)
    Last edited by Chucknorium; May 18th, 2014 at 07:54 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    I wonder if a vegetarian dinosaur like this one could be large enough to not have any predators? But I guess if predators hunted in packs then size would not be enough?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    How does the size of this new dinosaur discovery compare to the the Blue Whale? (The buoyancy of water can of course allow a much larger animal.)
    I have been wondering if these supersized dinos were aquatic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    How does the size of this new dinosaur discovery compare to the the Blue Whale? (The buoyancy of water can of course allow a much larger animal.)
    I have been wondering if these supersized dinos were aquatic.
    That's interesting. I hadn't thought of that. Sort of like hippos today:

    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,268
    The problem with that supposition is that the fossils are never found in association the depositional environment that would be associated with that type of living. And there nasal system and vertebral systems are not designed, from what we can tell, for submersion feeding.
    dan hunter likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    How does the size of this new dinosaur discovery compare to the the Blue Whale? (The buoyancy of water can of course allow a much larger animal.)
    I have been wondering if these supersized dinos were aquatic.
    That's interesting. I hadn't thought of that. Sort of like hippos today:

    absolutely No No No NO NO

    the skeleton of sauropods are clearly built for walking on land : the positioning of the legs to act as suspension bridge, the hoof-like structure of the feet, the counterbalance between long neck and tail

    besides, physics has shown that a brachiosaur standing on the bottom of a lake would not have the muscle strength to expand the lugns against the water pressure at the depth shown in the pciture

    no doubt sauropods could swim, but all available evidence is that they lived ate and bred on land
    dan hunter likes this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    They have determined that the atmosphere of about 67 million years ago was 35% O2 and it's only about 20% now. That extra 15% could very well have been why very large animals could exist at all. I do know for sure that's why insects and bugs of all types could get as big as they did.

    Bubbles in Amber: Dinosaurs Breathed an Oxgen-Rich Atmosphere
    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    How does the size of this new dinosaur discovery compare to the the Blue Whale? (The buoyancy of water can of course allow a much larger animal.)
    I have been wondering if these supersized dinos were aquatic.
    That's interesting. I hadn't thought of that. Sort of like hippos today:

    absolutely No No No NO NO

    the skeleton of sauropods are clearly built for walking on land : the positioning of the legs to act as suspension bridge, the hoof-like structure of the feet, the counterbalance between long neck and tail

    besides, physics has shown that a brachiosaur standing on the bottom of a lake would not have the muscle strength to expand the lugns against the water pressure at the depth shown in the pciture

    no doubt sauropods could swim, but all available evidence is that they lived ate and bred on land
    But I saw it on the internet so it has to be true! (Just kidding.)

    I defer to you guys who know this stuff.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Cloning Dinosaurs?
    By Sci-fi guy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: September 28th, 2014, 04:18 PM
  2. Dinosaurs
    By Alunblackwell88 in forum Biology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: September 22nd, 2013, 09:24 PM
  3. Sapient Dinosaurs
    By Paleomind in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: October 27th, 2012, 06:08 PM
  4. Dinosaurs
    By Beard Baron in forum Biology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: July 8th, 2011, 09:01 PM
  5. How many dinosaurs ever existed?
    By x3nophon in forum Biology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: April 12th, 2011, 04:05 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •