Talk:Bruhathkayosaurus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
 |
Bruhathkayosaurus is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs. |
- No it wasn't. If you look at the bottom of page you linked, you'll see: "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article 'Bruhathkayosaurus'." It's a mirror of this article, which I wrote. You'll even find answers.com listed as a known mirror at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc. See Wikipedia:Copyrights if you're interested in knowing more about the Wikipedia policy. 68.81.231.127 14:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Longest ever?
Look at
Seismosaurus it is even longer--408.965.879.065.765.216.519.296.848.4 13:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, early estimates for a 140 ft Seismosaurus were wrong, and a new paper in press shows it was only 110 ft long.Dinoguy2 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why no mention of the Supersaurus as a contender? Livingston 15:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Amphicoelias
So which was larger? Amphicoelias or Bruhathkayosaurus?
It depends which way you look at it really. If the estimated figures are correct, then Bruhathkayosaurus was around 50 feet shorter in length than Amphicoelias but was a much heavier set animal making it around 60 tonnes heavier (also, much of Amphicoelias extra length would probably have been it's tail). --Greebo cat 14:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Excessive precision
Given the uncertainty of estimating lengths of dinosaurs from fragments, we should be careful how much precision we attribute to our numbers. It's true that an assumed length of exactly 170 ft converts to 51.8 m. But the 170 ft estimate, even if it's correct, isn't exact, certainly not to three significant digits. It's best not to imply that we can estimate these lengths to the tenth of a meter, so I reverted the number to 52 m. Cephal-odd 02:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] details of Largest Ever
Is it necessary to have so many details about the length and mass estimates of other dinosaurs in this article? They seem redundant because we'd have to list the same statistics in the articles for other contenders for "largest dinosaur ever". Maybe it would be better to briefly list the other "largest ever" candidates and direct people seeking further details to a section in the dinosaur size article. Cephal-odd 02:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you're right, the article seems far too focussed on putting forward facts and figures to convince the reader that Bruhathkayosaurus *was* the largest ever. There could maybe be a little more about how the animal actually lived/it's environment etc? (I'm new to this so i may be talking rubbish-and feel free to tell me if i am!) It just seems that, as someone who is not an expert in the field, i don't actually learn a great deal about the animal from this article-meaning no offence to whoever wrote it of course! Greebo cat 14:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV?
I'm not sure that the POV tag was applied for legitimate reasons, given that the editor had only one edit prior to adding it, which was either a test or vandalism. J. Spencer 04:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Removed, as it was definitely the wrong tag. There are appropriate POV tags, but this one is for someone who has written the article, but feels there may be a point of view missing. Any editor is free to add a more appropriate tag, naturally. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Photo
I think the photo comparing it to a human is way off. Just compare it with the photo comparing the human to the Sauroposeidon. From the photo the Bruhathkayosaurus does not look 2000+ times heavier than that man.
- hi, The drawing is speculative, however the measurments are based of the imited material and the measurments suggested by the paleaontologists at the Dinosaur Mailing lists and other titanosaurs. The weight estimates are always changing and don't know how accurate they are, some older weight estimates are often much heaver than they are now. Also Sauroposiden is only based of 4 neck vertebra and the rest is speculative, based of other brachiosaurs. So ether way there only gesses. I think your right to question the pic, however its probably to do with the weight estimates being based of a porly described tibia. thanksSteveoc 86 14:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Weight
"weighed from 175 to 220 t". Sorry, but it is marasmus. A terrestial vertebrate can not weigh a more than 120 tons, because then it would consist only of bones --AS sa 11:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- What does marasmus have to do with Bruhathkayosaurus? All weight measurements of Bruhathkayosaurus are based on extrapolations of other sauropods, as the article states. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- (sorry for my English) It must be written here, that Bruhathkayosaurus could not so much weigh --AS sa 15:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cite? I seem to recall similar statements made about giant sauropods in the past. Then they find bigger ones. Same for pterosaurs. It's always, "becasue of biomechanical limits, Pteranodon is the largest possible flying animal." Oops, There's Quetzalcoatlus. Oops, there's Hatzegopteryx. Etc. Dinoguy2 00:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please create a foot-note, that Bruhathkayosaurus could not so much weigh :) --AS sa 15:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- First you must provide a published referecne saying it could not weigh so much. Dinoguy2 02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, on hand I have only a short article in book called "On land and on the sea" (Russian "На суше и на море"), 1988, Moscow, publishing house "Мысль". There writes that terrestial vertebrate can not weigh a more than 100 tons and if it weighed 140 tone it would consist only of bones. If you want I can translate main in this article --AS sa 13:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's a pretty old (almost 20 years) ref and sounds like a popular book rather than a science article. It would be good to find the real research this author was referring to (is there a bibliography to the book?), and also if more recent studies have continued to support this. Dinoguy2 05:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, on hand I have only a short article in book called "On land and on the sea" (Russian "На суше и на море"), 1988, Moscow, publishing house "Мысль". There writes that terrestial vertebrate can not weigh a more than 100 tons and if it weighed 140 tone it would consist only of bones. If you want I can translate main in this article --AS sa 13:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- First you must provide a published referecne saying it could not weigh so much. Dinoguy2 02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please create a foot-note, that Bruhathkayosaurus could not so much weigh :) --AS sa 15:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cite? I seem to recall similar statements made about giant sauropods in the past. Then they find bigger ones. Same for pterosaurs. It's always, "becasue of biomechanical limits, Pteranodon is the largest possible flying animal." Oops, There's Quetzalcoatlus. Oops, there's Hatzegopteryx. Etc. Dinoguy2 00:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- (sorry for my English) It must be written here, that Bruhathkayosaurus could not so much weigh --AS sa 15:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chatterjee 1995
Check out the comments on sv pow [1]. The wiki artical claims that Chatterjee 1995 reclassified Bruhathkayosaurus as a sauropod, but aparently Chatterjee has never written anything about it?? Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mortimer's response traces this back to pers cor. relayed via DML posts. Good enough to use here, or should we knock Bruha back to Saurichia incertae sedis? Maybe more importantly, does everybody think it's a sauropod and not a theropod or a gymnosperm only because of second-hand hearsay from Sankar Chatterjee?? Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently nothing has been published on Bruha since the original description. Everything, including its identity as a sauropod, is internet speculation. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Once when I was searching the net for any info I stumbled upon a PDF of LATE CRETACEOUS TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES FROM MADAGASCAR: IMPLICATIONS FOR LATIN AMERICAN BIOGEOGRAPHY.link [2] It seems to be free here[3] It lists Bruhathkayosaurus once. It has it listed as sauropoda and credits Yadagiri & Ayyasami. But there is no further discussion. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good find, Steve. So it's more than just internet speculation: actual published papers have indicated it's a sauropod. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- No probs. It says the the list was compiled form several other papers. It would be interesting if any one could get there hands on these to see if there's any further mention of this animal. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good find, Steve. So it's more than just internet speculation: actual published papers have indicated it's a sauropod. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Once when I was searching the net for any info I stumbled upon a PDF of LATE CRETACEOUS TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES FROM MADAGASCAR: IMPLICATIONS FOR LATIN AMERICAN BIOGEOGRAPHY.link [2] It seems to be free here[3] It lists Bruhathkayosaurus once. It has it listed as sauropoda and credits Yadagiri & Ayyasami. But there is no further discussion. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently nothing has been published on Bruha since the original description. Everything, including its identity as a sauropod, is internet speculation. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
