Thread: Dinosaurs

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.

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

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.

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)

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?

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

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.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

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:

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.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

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

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

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

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.