Sauropods over 60-70,000kg: Realistic or not?

[Deleted]

I wonder what people like Hardcastle think about land animals possibly surpassing 70,000kg. Would you consider this an over-estimate?

[Hardcastle]

I'll typically always lean towards upper-estimates of extinct animals PROBABLY being over-estimates. But I'm open minded and willing to listen to case-by-case basis arguments for different animals. So for example hypothetically there may be an estimate for a large extinct animal where you have evidence they speculated based on a juvenile without realising, and actually the estimate is an under-estimate. Entirely plausible and possible. That could happen and no doubt has happened from the fragmentary limited fossil record.
BUT there's also a very real phenomenon of EVEN scientists (sorry) kind of excitedly WANTING to over-estimate extinct behemoth animals. Think about it. They are so fascinated and mesmerised by the idea of massive giant monster animals that they actually went to the trouble of becoming a specialised expert on them complete with qualifications. That doesn't come easily. That's requires real feverish passion. They WANT to believe in T-rex (for example) being incredibly massive and huge and devastating and awesome and that was the whole motivation for their whole career. There's always flexibility when it comes to interpreting data, and these mega nerds obsessed with some super massive extinct animal are of course naturally motivated to interpret data as favourably for inflating their iconic hero as much as possible. They are still humans at the end of the day. If they were experts on something less sensational (say "Sandpipers" for example) I'd be more compelled to trust they have no interest in inflating the size or formidability of their favourite animal. Clearly if you're a mega fan and expert on sandpipers it's not about that. But if you're a mega super geek scientist expert focussed on sauropods, I think probably their size being huge IS a big draw to you, and that makes me hesitant to fully trust your estimates. You're only human. It's not as crazy as it sounds at face value to "doubt scientists". "Doubting scientists" btw isn't the same as "doubting science". Easy mistake to make, it's not the same. Scientists give their take based on the data and it absolutely can be wrong, it often is. The data isn't wrong, but their interpretation of the data absolutely can be. They're just guys. The data is sacred, the interpretation never is. No matter whose it is. Doesn't matter.

[Deleted]

Feb 11, 2023 12:37:17 GMT Hardcastle said:

I'll typically always lean towards upper-estimates of extinct animals PROBABLY being over-estimates. But I'm open minded and willing to listen to case-by-case basis arguments for different animals. So for example hypothetically there may be an estimate for a large extinct animal where you have evidence they speculated based on a juvenile without realising, and actually the estimate is an under-estimate. Entirely plausible and possible. That could happen and no doubt has happened from the fragmentary limited fossil record.
BUT there's also a very real phenomenon of EVEN scientists (sorry) kind of excitedly WANTING to over-estimate extinct behemoth animals. Think about it. They are so fascinated and mesmerised by the idea of massive giant monster animals that they actually went to the trouble of becoming a specialised expert on them complete with qualifications. That doesn't come easily. That's requires real feverish passion. They WANT to believe in T-rex (for example) being incredibly massive and huge and devastating and awesome and that was the whole motivation for their whole career. There's always flexibility when it comes to interpreting data, and these mega nerds obsessed with some super massive extinct animal are of course naturally motivated to interpret data as favourably for inflating their iconic hero as much as possible. They are still humans at the end of the day. If they were experts on something less sensational (say "Sandpipers" for example) I'd be more compelled to trust they have no interest in inflating the size or formidability of their favourite animal. Clearly if you're a mega fan and expert on sandpipers it's not about that. But if you're a mega super geek scientist expert focussed on sauropods, I think probably their size being huge IS a big draw to you, and that makes me hesitant to fully trust your estimates. You're only human. It's not as crazy as it sounds at face value to "doubt scientists". "Doubting scientists" btw isn't the same as "doubting science". Easy mistake to make, it's not the same. Scientists give their take based on the data and it absolutely can be wrong, it often is. The data isn't wrong, but their interpretation of the data absolutely can be. They're just guys. The data is sacred, the interpretation never is. No matter whose it is. Doesn't matter.

Yes good post. Argentinosaurus has always been thought to have weighed around 75 tonnes. For 28 years actually:

"Paul estimated a body mass of 80–100 tonnes (88–110 short tons) for Argentinosaurus in 1994.[10] In 2004, Mazzetta and colleagues provided a range of 60–88 tonnes (66–97 short tons) and considered 73 tonnes (80 short tons) to be the most likely mass, making it the heaviest sauropod known from good material.[5] In 2013, Sellers and colleagues estimated a mass of 83.2 tonnes (91.7 short tons) by calculating the volume of the aforementioned Museo Carmen Funes skeleton.[14] In 2014 and 2018, Roger Benson and colleagues estimated the mass of Argentinosaurus at 90 and 95 tonnes (99 and 105 short tons),[17][18] but these estimates were questioned due to a very large error range and lack of precision.[19] In 2016, using equations that estimate body mass based on the circumference of the humerus and femur of quadrupedal animals, Bernardo Gonzáles Riga and colleagues estimated a mass of 96.4 tonnes (106.3 short tons) based on an isolated femur; the identity of this femur is uncertain whether it actually belongs to Argentinosaurus.[20] In the same year, Paul moderated his earlier estimate from 1994 and listed the body mass of Argentinosaurus at more than 50 tonnes (55 short tons).[16] In 2017, José Carballido and colleagues estimated its mass at over 60 tonnes (66 short tons).[8] In 2019, Paul moderated his 2016 estimate and gave a mass estimate of 65–75 tonnes (72–83 short tons) based on his skeletal reconstructions (diagrams illustrating the bones and shape of an animal) of Argentinosaurus in dorsal and lateral view.[7] In 2020, Campione and Evans also yielded a body mass estimate of approximately 75 tonnes (83 short tons).[19]"

[Hardcastle]

I can't say I've put much, if any, thought into what the heaviest sauropods could possibly be. So by that it sounds like the fanboy over-estimates were 80-100 tonnes, and 75 tonnes are what the more moderate and reserved estimates are coming back with. In that case I'd be compelled to think the people saying 75 tonnes are probably correct. Not with confidence, just saying that would be my speculation.