|
Post by Griffin on Mar 20, 2011 17:54:42 GMT
I find your avatar text interesting, lio99 - by top predator do you mean most efficient and best at surviving? Because the lineages of all three (liopleurodon, megalodon, and "mosasaurus") were all alive at the same time, and which one died out first...? I know, not really relating to the subject at hand; but looking at the thread title and then the text in his avatar made me have to say something! If its top predator in its environment than the reptiles like mosasaurs and pliosaurs (well the biggest ones at least) would take the "top predator" title from the sharks. Sure sharks lived on but their ancestors were lower on the food chain in the Mesazoic. I guess Megalodon was top predator in its environment. Today I think that honor goes to Orcas.
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Mar 23, 2011 23:13:41 GMT
Hello there.
Liopleurodon ferox : pliosaur of Tethys Sea, about 7,5 m long. But if we admit that the Monster of Aramberri was a Liopleurodon type, and that the assertation about it are valid (a 15-18 metres juvenile killed ine one bite by a much larger pliosaur, possibly adult, with 40-50 cm long fangs, only the crown), Liopleurodon will be definitely the largest and mightiest marine predator of all time, measuring between 25 and 30 m long (according to the paleontologists who found Aramberri), weighing more than 100 tons, with almost 5 metres jaws.
Shonisaurus sikanniensis is stated at 21 metres but there are evidences of vertebras from even larger individuals, perhaps up to 27 metres long.
Megalodon is the largest shark and predatory fish ever. From the latest studies, it seems that the largest reached more than 18-19 metres and weighed more than 65 tonnes. Its bite force is belived to be between 12 and 20 tonnes. Megalodon lived during more than 20 millions years.
The largest Mosasaurs were possibly up to 18 metres and were slender, vicious lizards. They would have weighed less than Megalodon but are considered as extremly successfull giant superpredators, even better than pliosaurs.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Mar 23, 2011 23:31:27 GMT
What does "better than pliosaurs" mean? In what respect? I also have doubts that the undescribed pliosaur you talk of will be designated to Liopleurodon; all existing Liopleurodon species are much smaller. But I guess we'll have to wait and see with that one.
|
|
|
Post by simon on Mar 24, 2011 2:54:00 GMT
Hello there. Liopleurodon ferox : pliosaur of Tethys Sea, about 7,5 m long. But if we admit that the Monster of Aramberri was a Liopleurodon type, and that the assertation about it are valid (a 15-18 metres juvenile killed ine one bite by a much larger pliosaur, possibly adult, with 40-50 cm long fangs, only the crown), Liopleurodon will be definitely the largest and mightiest marine predator of all time, measuring between 25 and 30 m long (according to the paleontologists who found Aramberri), weighing more than 100 tons, with almost 5 metres jaws. Shonisaurus sikanniensis is stated at 21 metres but there are evidences of vertebras from even larger individuals, perhaps up to 27 metres long. Megalodon is the largest shark and predatory fish ever. From the latest studies, it seems that the largest reached more than 18-19 metres and weighed more than 65 tonnes. Its bite force is belived to be between 12 and 20 tonnes. Megalodon lived during more than 20 millions years. The largest Mosasaurs were possibly up to 18 metres and were slender, vicious lizards. They would have weighed less than Megalodon but are considered as extremly successfull giant superpredators, even better than pliosaurs. Do you have any links to the above Aramberi details? This is the first I've heard anything about it being killed by a big bite? It sounds very interesting. BTW I seriously doubt that even an 27 meter Pliosaur would have weighed anything close to 100 tons. It wasn't built like a Blue Whale....
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Mar 24, 2011 12:05:02 GMT
I'll provide you later many sources, some in german about the Monster of Aramberri and its possible agressor.
You seem to have a bad view about pliosaurs weight figure.
100 tons for a 25 m typical pliosaur is realistic, since Kronosaurus at 10 m is estimated to have weighed 10-11 tons. If you scale up a 25 m kronosaur, you have easily a more than 100 tons pliosaur using the cubic formula.
Even if a 15 m pliosaur would weigh 25 tons, slightly less than a 15 m baleen whale, you've got a 25 m, you have a more than 115 tons pliosaur.
Pliosaur were heavily built, even having no blubber and keep in mind that Blue Whales are relatively elongated creatures. Most of them are in 27 m range and not all weighs more than 120 tons.
The BBC figure of an hypothetical 25 m, 100-150 tons pliosaur is credible, since much smaller pliosaurs have been calculated in mass. And the possibility of Aramberri being killed in one bite by a pliosaur with at least 40 cm teeth is a hint. 100 tons is even a very conservative estimate for a 25-30 m pliosaur. Yet, we have to wait the publication of the Aramberri pliosaur but having contatec the paleontologists involved (Frey, Buchy, Stinnesbeck) their statement are still valid : a 15-18 m juvenile pliosaur, killed by a much bigger one, possibly of the same species.
It seems also that this species could be related to the Cretaceous kronosaurids.
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Mar 24, 2011 12:11:13 GMT
Liopleurodon ferox : pliosaur of Tethys Sea, about 7,5 m long. But if we admit that the Monster of Aramberri was a Liopleurodon type, It's certainly not. Please stop spreading this nonsense. Predator X, Monster of Aramberri, etc. are NOT Liopleurodon any more than they're Kronosaurus. One might be Pliosaurus but that's still very dubious right now. They're probably new species. Highly questionable until the bones are actually studied.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 24, 2011 14:53:34 GMT
Hello there. Liopleurodon ferox : pliosaur of Tethys Sea, about 7,5 m long. But if we admit that the Monster of Aramberri was a Liopleurodon type, and that the assertation about it are valid (a 15-18 metres juvenile killed ine one bite by a much larger pliosaur, possibly adult, with 40-50 cm long fangs, only the crown), Liopleurodon will be definitely the largest and mightiest marine predator of all time, measuring between 25 and 30 m long (according to the paleontologists who found Aramberri), weighing more than 100 tons, with almost 5 metres jaws. Shonisaurus sikanniensis is stated at 21 metres but there are evidences of vertebras from even larger individuals, perhaps up to 27 metres long. Megalodon is the largest shark and predatory fish ever. From the latest studies, it seems that the largest reached more than 18-19 metres and weighed more than 65 tonnes. Its bite force is belived to be between 12 and 20 tonnes. Megalodon lived during more than 20 millions years. The largest Mosasaurs were possibly up to 18 metres and were slender, vicious lizards. They would have weighed less than Megalodon but are considered as extremly successfull giant superpredators, even better than pliosaurs. You must have got your information about the Aramberri Monster from a Cryptozoology site. First off how could they tell it died from a single bite when post-cranial anatomy is close to non-existant. Also according to Leslie Noe the lower jaw is definitely not Liopleurodon. And the jaw is only 2.4 meters long. No pliosaur has been found that has been estimated at more them 15 or 16 meters (50 feet). It probably didn't weigh more then 12 tonnes. www.plesiosaur.com/plesiosaurs/aramberri.phpShonisaurus sikanniensis Measuring 21 metres in length, this ichthyosaur dates back to the Triassic, over 220 million years ago. Dr. Nicholls' research concluded that it was 30% larger than its nearest relative, and was indeed the world's largest-known marine reptile. Lacking teeth, they also determined it was the earliest-known example of a giant filter-feeding vertebrate. Only the young juveniles had teeth, the adults were edentulous. There is no evidence of 27 meter individuals. The largest mosasaur was Tylosaurus which reached 17.5 meters.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Mar 24, 2011 20:51:53 GMT
Adult Ophthalmosaurus also lacked teeth, but weren't especially big. I don't know if they were filter-feeding, or just didn't need them.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 24, 2011 21:22:23 GMT
Adult Ophthalmosaurus also lacked teeth, but weren't especially big. I don't know if they were filter-feeding, or just didn't need them. It was almost toothless. It did have some small teeth, which it used to eat soft-bodied species like squid. At 6 meters it was almost as long as Liopleurodon ferox.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Mar 24, 2011 21:47:05 GMT
At 6 meters it was almost as long as Liopleurodon ferox. A point worth making
|
|
|
Post by brontozaurus on Mar 24, 2011 22:01:23 GMT
I'll provide you later many sources, some in german about the Monster of Aramberri and its possible agressor. Why give us sources later, unless you don't actually have any? Anyway, on the subject of Liopleurodon, Walking with Dinosaurs: The Evidence (by Dave Martill and Darren Naish) has a section on the size of Liopleurodon. The most relevant points: -The several complete skeletons of Liopleurodon that have been found reach between five and ten metres in length. -The giant sizes stem from estimates done on less complete remains found in the Oxford Clay (which also yielded Liopleurodon). -Whether these incomplete remains actually belong to Liopleurodon is uncertain. -Using whale weights to estimate the weight of Liopleurodon has problems. For one, experts disagree on whale weights, as we cannot simply put them on scales-estimates range from 200 tonnes for the largest blue whales to not even 100 tonnes. -There is also the matter that a lot of a whale's bulk is blubber, which doubles as insulation from the cold waters they often live in, as well as being an energy store for migration. Liopleurodon lived in warm subtropical seas, and so would not have had such blubber. -"We therefore estimate that even the biggest pliosaurs would not have weighed half as much as the biggest whales."
|
|
|
Post by simon on Mar 24, 2011 23:24:23 GMT
I'll provide you later many sources, some in german about the Monster of Aramberri and its possible agressor. Why give us sources later, unless you don't actually have any? Anyway, on the subject of Liopleurodon, Walking with Dinosaurs: The Evidence (by Dave Martill and Darren Naish) has a section on the size of Liopleurodon. The most relevant points: -The several complete skeletons of Liopleurodon that have been found reach between five and ten metres in length. -The giant sizes stem from estimates done on less complete remains found in the Oxford Clay (which also yielded Liopleurodon). -Whether these incomplete remains actually belong to Liopleurodon is uncertain. -Using whale weights to estimate the weight of Liopleurodon has problems. For one, experts disagree on whale weights, as we cannot simply put them on scales-estimates range from 200 tonnes for the largest blue whales to not even 100 tonnes. -There is also the matter that a lot of a whale's bulk is blubber, which doubles as insulation from the cold waters they often live in, as well as being an energy store for migration. Liopleurodon lived in warm subtropical seas, and so would not have had such blubber. -"We therefore estimate that even the biggest pliosaurs would not have weighed half as much as the biggest whales." All quite right, subject to one minor point - the heaviest Blue Whales that were actually weighed in one piece tallied up to 180-190 tons. The heaviest Blue Whales weighed "in pieces" - which traditionally UNDERestimates total weight - came in at about 210 tons. There is no doubt at all that the largest Blue Whales tip the scales at 200 tons. Its a scientifically documented fact. I doubt that ANY Pliosaur or Mosasaur ever got to ONE-THIRD of that, myself, for the reasons you cite above ...
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Mar 25, 2011 13:22:47 GMT
Liopleurodon ferox : pliosaur of Tethys Sea, about 7,5 m long. But if we admit that the Monster of Aramberri was a Liopleurodon type, It's certainly not. Please stop spreading this nonsense. Predator X, Monster of Aramberri, etc. are NOT Liopleurodon any more than they're Kronosaurus. One might be Pliosaurus but that's still very dubious right now. They're probably new species. Highly questionable until the bones are actually studied. The Aramberri pliosaur isn't a Liopleurodon but populary and thanks to WWD it will be designed as a kind of Liopleurodon species. Aramberri is unamed for now and as I said, it could be more related to the kronosaurids.
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Mar 25, 2011 13:24:52 GMT
Hello there. Liopleurodon ferox : pliosaur of Tethys Sea, about 7,5 m long. But if we admit that the Monster of Aramberri was a Liopleurodon type, and that the assertation about it are valid (a 15-18 metres juvenile killed ine one bite by a much larger pliosaur, possibly adult, with 40-50 cm long fangs, only the crown), Liopleurodon will be definitely the largest and mightiest marine predator of all time, measuring between 25 and 30 m long (according to the paleontologists who found Aramberri), weighing more than 100 tons, with almost 5 metres jaws. Shonisaurus sikanniensis is stated at 21 metres but there are evidences of vertebras from even larger individuals, perhaps up to 27 metres long. Megalodon is the largest shark and predatory fish ever. From the latest studies, it seems that the largest reached more than 18-19 metres and weighed more than 65 tonnes. Its bite force is belived to be between 12 and 20 tonnes. Megalodon lived during more than 20 millions years. The largest Mosasaurs were possibly up to 18 metres and were slender, vicious lizards. They would have weighed less than Megalodon but are considered as extremly successfull giant superpredators, even better than pliosaurs. You must have got your information about the Aramberri Monster from a Cryptozoology site. First off how could they tell it died from a single bite when post-cranial anatomy is close to non-existant. Also according to Leslie Noe the lower jaw is definitely not Liopleurodon. And the jaw is only 2.4 meters long. No pliosaur has been found that has been estimated at more them 15 or 16 meters (50 feet). It probably didn't weigh more then 12 tonnes. www.plesiosaur.com/plesiosaurs/aramberri.phpShonisaurus sikanniensis Measuring 21 metres in length, this ichthyosaur dates back to the Triassic, over 220 million years ago. Dr. Nicholls' research concluded that it was 30% larger than its nearest relative, and was indeed the world's largest-known marine reptile. Lacking teeth, they also determined it was the earliest-known example of a giant filter-feeding vertebrate. Only the young juveniles had teeth, the adults were edentulous. There is no evidence of 27 meter individuals. The largest mosasaur was Tylosaurus which reached 17.5 meters. No post cranial anatomy in pliosaurs Even if the largest are surely incomplete, there are several specimen of pliosaurs of all types in the world with very complete and preserved skeletons. The Aramberri skeleton had a 35 cm pterygoid which wears the imprint of an enormous tooth. the weight estimate for the Weymouth Bay pliosaur is completely flawed. How a marine massive animal would be just slightly heavier than a terrestrial very large theropod (Spinosaurus...) at the same lenght ? The proportions aren't correct, since the calcul from smaller and more complete pliosaurs don't indicate this. Richard Forrest indicate a 25 tonnes weight for a 15 m pliosaur. At 15 m, Predator X is estimated at 45 tons. Even if the estimate will decrease, even a 30-35 tons is more realistic from the morpholgy of these animals. Leslie Noé estimate a 30 tons mass for the his Pliosaurus macromerus. The weymouth Bay was surely much heavier than this. Can you assume that the pliosaur in your image is only 10-15 tons compared to the larger Blue Whale ? Surely not, the reptile is smaller but seems to weigh a third of the Whale, which gives still a very large predator. As for sikanniensis, take you sources more precisely. You could know that Nichols and her team found isolated vertebras from shonisaurs on the same site, but 30 % larger than in the actual large skeleton found. Now you can do some calculations.
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Mar 25, 2011 13:47:43 GMT
I'll provide you later many sources, some in german about the Monster of Aramberri and its possible agressor. Why give us sources later, unless you don't actually have any? Anyway, on the subject of Liopleurodon, Walking with Dinosaurs: The Evidence (by Dave Martill and Darren Naish) has a section on the size of Liopleurodon. The most relevant points: -The several complete skeletons of Liopleurodon that have been found reach between five and ten metres in length. -The giant sizes stem from estimates done on less complete remains found in the Oxford Clay (which also yielded Liopleurodon). -Whether these incomplete remains actually belong to Liopleurodon is uncertain. -Using whale weights to estimate the weight of Liopleurodon has problems. For one, experts disagree on whale weights, as we cannot simply put them on scales-estimates range from 200 tonnes for the largest blue whales to not even 100 tonnes. -There is also the matter that a lot of a whale's bulk is blubber, which doubles as insulation from the cold waters they often live in, as well as being an energy store for migration. Liopleurodon lived in warm subtropical seas, and so would not have had such blubber. -"We therefore estimate that even the biggest pliosaurs would not have weighed half as much as the biggest whales." I have no sources ? Some of them are from 2003 or 2004 but other are from 2009 to currently. Translate from the german, several informations about it : translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.focus.de/wissen/wissenschaft/saurier-das-monster-von-aramberri_aid_202001.html&ei=f6sbTOzMN8v24Ab-_OCuCg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCcQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmonster%2Bvon%2Baramberri%26hl%3Den%26prmd%3DiAbout a possible juvenile : www.smnk.de/SMNK/02-Forsch-I/02-03-Geo-Pal/2-3-2-1/2-3-2-1-Inhalt.htmlThe material clearly belongs to the individual housed in Linares and is still under preparation. It indicates a pliosaur reaching at least 15 m in length. Bone structure and state of co-ossification also confirm that this “Monster of Aramberri” was a juvenile. An unhealed bite mark in a skull bone proves that the animal died as a result of the attack of another much larger pliosaur. Complete article page 6 : docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:kekCoU1VXEIJ:www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_magazin/wissenschaft_oeffentlichkeit/forschung_magazin/german_research_3_05_en_.pdf+monster+of+aramberri+german+scientist&hl=fr&gl=fr&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgD1q26Yqh1T02woWhSnWzlG_97mSwIEX_bGT0xnm5ngELtUSrMNRmggVyEeDqASuEjxvHTxSFSbQbL6cJxlC_xFdJNPEw7B8yG5C8OuhUUthE99SH5mPR2KzxNZxH5zdx0xQ3v&sig=AHIEtbRf8uW-pdepPsrEMdA2vQrnDN-IwQFrom a Discussion with Dino Frey, the team leader of the excavations on his blog from late 2008 : "Well there is a bite mark with a diameter of 60 mm in the horizontal branch of a 350 mm pteroid. The tooth penetrated from dorsally meaning that the crown alone must have had a length of about 400 mm. Then comes a root which is normally about two thirds the length of a pliosaur tooth and then you just must find the bones to accommodate the ting and do a bit of calculation. So much for the possible five metres. Concerning a pedomorphy I see no evidence from the material. The Svalbard pliosaur is also a huge thing, but our preparation is in progress, but we have contact to the Svalbard group and thus we must wait until rock is separated from bone…." "Well, since we had in in the media it was referred to as Liopleurodon mostly. Kronosaurus is new. I will put up a post soon with detailed data about what we know and for the moment we know only a little because about 75% of the 14 tons are still unprepared, and that what is out of the matrix is in Linares and not here. So I cannot even provide the lateset immages of the thing. I would like to be cautious with any taxonomy for the moment. Each block yields more huge bones. So much is sure, however, there was a kronosaurid around in Mexico during Late Jurassic times. The problem is that the specimen with the best skull of Kronosaurus ever in the Queensland Museum in Australia is pending description since several years – and the claim is still blocked. Concerning the size and the traces and signs we have, the largest pliosaurs probably exceeded 25 metres in length. Their jaws were powerful enough to bite through a complete skull of another pliosaur and their huge temporal openings indicate a tremendous muscle mass to power the jaws. Thus, the Mesozoic was not the time to invent boats. Ichthyosaurs and crocs come up with predators, which reached a length between 15 an 20 metres, and, finally, Zeuglodon and the sperm whale are known to exceed 20 metres in length. Mosasaurs come up to 15 metres, which is also not bad. The follows the shark Carcharias megalodon, Dunkleosteus etc." Translate in english from a German article : www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-26024554.htmlA 2004 interview with Doctors Wolfgang Stinnesbeck, Marie Céline Buchy and Dino Frey, again translate in english : translate.google.fr/translate?hl=fr&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdb.swr.de%2Fupload%2Fmanuskriptdienst%2Fwissen%2Fwi20040601_2581.rtfHere's three articles from november 2009 of Dino Frey about the Monster of Aramberri. You can traduce the pages in english. I put here the approximative traduction from google : What was the pliosaur, which was found in Mexico? (11/09/2009)
Because, imagine a body like a barrel before. Ein fassförmiger, großer Körper, an dem vier gleich große Flügel hängen. A barrel-shaped, large body, the four equal wings hang on. Jeder dieser Flügel war knapp vier Meter lang. Each of these wings was nearly four meters long. Hinten war ein kleines Schwänzchen, das nicht so lang war wie der Körper. Back was a little tail that was not as long as the body. Vorne am Körper war so eine Art Baumstamm, ein mächtiger, kurzer, kräftiger Hals. Front of the body was a kind of tree trunk, a powerful, short, strong neck. Und auf diesem Hals saß ein Schädel, der etwa 3,50 Meter lang war – also so lang wie eine Limousine. And in this neck sat a skull, which was about 3.50 meters long - so as long as a limousine.
Only the skull? Ja, nur der Schädel. Yes, only the skull. Und damit ist der Schädel schon fast doppelt so lang wie der Schädel von dem großen Landraubsaurier. And so the skull is almost twice as long as the skull of the large land predators. Das macht diese riesigen Pliosaurier zu den größten Beutegreifern aller Zeiten. This makes these huge pliosaur of the largest predators of all time.
And what have eaten? Alles, was sie zwischen die Kiefer bekommen haben. All they have to get jaw between. Die haben sofort zugebissen. They have immediately bit down. “Das Monster von Aramberri” hat zum Beispiel vermutlich die Überreste eines Ichtiosauriers im Bauch, die angedaut sind. "The Monster of Aramberri", for example, probably the remains of a Ichtiosauriers in the abdomen, which are digested. Ein anderer Pliosaurier aus Australien, Chronosaurus, der zehn Meter lang ist, hat einen 3,5 Meter langen Plesiosaurier, also einen Langhalskollegen, im Bauch. Another pliosaur from Australia, Chronosaurus, which is ten meters long, has a 3.5-meter-long plesiosaur, a long neck so colleagues in the abdomen. Und der wiederum hat Tintenfischhäkchen im Bauch. And in turn, squid has hooks in the abdomen.
But how does one do that?
Indem man das Stück aufbricht. By breaking up the pieces. Dann sieht man plötzlich innerhalb des Brustkorbs noch eine Wirbelsäule. Then you suddenly see inside the chest or a spine. Wenn das kein Baby dieses Tieres ist – Babys kennt man übrigens von denen nicht – dann kann es nur ein anderer Meeressaurier sein. When the baby of that animal is not a - you know the way of babies that do not - then there can be only one other marine dinosaurs.
Aus England sind Plesiosaurier und Ichtiosaurier mit bösen Beißmarken bekannt. From England Ichtiosaurier are plesiosaurs and evil Beißmarken known. Die haben zum Teil den Tieren die Flossen abgerissen und haben dann die Flosse fallen lassen und den Rest verfolgt, der dann nicht mehr so gut geradeaus schwimmen konnte. The animals are part of the fins demolished and then have to drop the fin and the rest followed, which then could not swim straight good. Da ging's schon zu. As we went to so. Ich hätte in der Zeit keine Boote erfunden. I had the time no boats invented.
How far are you now with the investigation of this animal? Das werde ich mir nächste Woche einmal anschauen, denn ich fliege am Samstag nach Mexiko. I'm going to watch next week once, because I fly on Saturday to Mexico. Als ich das letzte Mal da war, war die Präparation dieses Stücks wieder ein Stückchen weiter. As the last time I was there, the piece was the preparation of this again a little further. Es handelt sich um einen Gesteinsblock, der 14 Tonnen wiegt. It is a stone block that weighs tons 14th Von diesen 14 Tonnen werden wir wahrscheinlich 12 Tonnen Gestein entfernen müssen. Of these 14 tons, we will probably need 12 tons of rock removed. Und dann beim Saubermachen noch mal einiges mehr. And then again when cleaning some more. Erst, wenn alle Knochen präpariert sind, können wir konkrete Aussagen über dieses Tier machen. Only when all the bones are prepared, we can make concrete statements about this animal. Auf jeden Fall ist es einfach riesig! In any case, it's just huge!
Was the pliosaur that you have been excavated in Mexico, in fact the largest?
So far it is the largest single skeleton of a pliosaur. Aus Norwegen habe ich jetzt gehört, dass dort auch ein großes Tier gefunden worden ist, das etwa gleich groß ist wie das „Monster von Aramberri“ und ebenfalls ziemlich komplett. From Norway, I have heard now that there is also a large animal has been found, which is about the same as the "Monster of Aramberri" and also quite complete.
How big was the pliosaur, you have dug up in Mexico?
Monstrous, so it is indeed "The Monster of Aramberri. Wir schätzen, dass es eine Körperlänge zwischen 15 und 18 Metern hatte, dabei noch nicht ausgewachsen war und von einem viel größeren Pliosaurier tot gebissen wurde. We estimate that it had a body length between 15 and 18 meters, had grown still present and was bitten by a much larger pliosaur dead. Das wissen wir sogar. We even know.
If you once the relationship is in - say 15 to 18 meters. Das ist etwa so hoch wie ein fünf- oder sechsstöckiges Gebäude. This is about as tall as a five-or six-story building.
Exactly. Also etwa so lang wie ein Sattelschlepper. So, about as long as a semi-tractor.
And it was a not yet fully grown juvenile. Was schätzt man, wie groß die Ausgewachsenen waren? What it is estimated the size of the adults were?
The tooth had to size the animal that has bitten the pliosaur, a head width of 1.20 meters. So lang ist ein Tyrannosaurier-Schädel. As long as a tyrannosaur skull. Und über die Länge sage ich lieber nichts. And over the length I would rather say nothing. Das wissen wir nämlich nicht. The fact we do not know.
Was that because immediately clear when you were in Mexico found that bone that it is a marine dinosaur involved?
Yes, that was easy to see because we were led into a lecture hall, where stood a monument, consisting of vertebrae. Und meine Kollegin, die dabei war, hat das gesehen und gesagt: Das ist keinesfalls ein Dinosaurier! And my colleague who was present, has seen that and said that was not a dinosaur! – als das war es nämlich beschrieben. - Than it was in fact described. Das ist ein Pliosaurier, weil die Wirbel scheibenförmig sind und zwei Löcher haben. This is a pliosaur, because the vortices are disk-shaped and have two holes. Und dann war klar: Bei einem Wirbelkörperdurchmesser von über 20 cm, so groß wie ein Suppenteller, konnte das kein Zwerg sein. And then it was clear: In a vertebral body diameter of about 20 cm, the size of a soup plate, could not a dwarf. Das war einer der größten, der bis dahin bekannt war. That was one of the largest, was known by then.
When lived the pliosaur, found in the Mexico you lived?
He has lived in the late Jurassic period. Das war eine Zeit, als Europa und Mexiko durch ein Meer verbunden waren und wo sich nördlich und südlich davon Landmassen befanden. This was a time when Europe and Mexico were joined by a sea and where the north and south of this land masses were located. Es war also ein eingeschlossenes Meer im Äquatorialbereich, das war schön warm. So it was an enclosed sea in the equatorial region, which was nice and warm. Und da im Westende lebte zur späten Jurazeit dieser Pliosaurier. And there in the west end lived in the late Jurassic period this pliosaur.A mail from Wolfgang Stinnesbeck, one of the paleobiologists involved in the excavations of the beast. " most of our assertations from the 2004 interview are still valid. By now, our excavations at Aramberri are completed and about 60 to 70% of the fossil were recovered. The fossil-bearing concretions were transported to the Museo del Desierto, at Saltillo, Mexico, where preparation is still on-going. Unfortunately we found no new parts of the skull and the generic assignation is thus pending.But we still believe that the length of the Aramberri pliosaur was between 15 and 18 meters, that it was a juvenile and bitten to death by a larger individual, probably from the same species. The agressor would thus have to be considerably larger than our specimen. The tip of the tooth imprint is approximately 5 cm in diameter and the tooth must have penetrated at least 40 cm of soft tissue. That would point to a length of this tooth of at least 40 to 50 cm. " Another mail "Yes the Aramberri pliosaur was larger than Kronosaurus and more into the 15 to 18m size class.Both Marie and Dino are sure that the attacking animal was larger than the Aramberri specimen.At present, however, there is no direct evidence for these larger individuals.We can only conclude on their existence, taking into account the tooth impression and osteological features that would indicate that the Aramberri specimen was a juvenile." "it is difficult to measure the exact size of teeth and skull of our animal because one bits and pieces of the latter are left due to erosion. However, judging from the size of the body, 3.5 meters would be a safe guess. The tooth length of the animal which bit the Aramberri specimen must have had a minimum length of 40-50 cm to cut through the cranial tissue.Our specimen would thus have been larger than Liopleurodon from England, but the size of the adult animal must have been larger by may be a third, or even more." You can yourself contact these paleontologists which may deliver some update in a few times... So much for somebody who comes on a forum without sources.... I can provide other. As I said, Aramberri isn't published yet but the updates about it from the scientists involved yet indicate these informations. So this creature is possible the biggest pliosaur, plesiosaur and marine predator ever. I say possibly, because strong suggestions, no direct evidence.
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Mar 25, 2011 14:11:47 GMT
Anyway, on the subject of Liopleurodon, Walking with Dinosaurs: The Evidence (by Dave Martill and Darren Naish) has a section on the size of Liopleurodon. The most relevant points: This book was interesting but somewhat outdated since the discovery of larger pliosaurs. "The several complete skeletons of Liopleurodon that have been found reach between five and ten metres in length. " Exactly, as it's said above, Liopleurodon is actually just slightly smaller than a modern Bull Orca. -The giant sizes stem from estimates done on less complete remains found in the Oxford Clay (which also yielded Liopleurodon). " From the Cumnor Monster and some isolated fragments. These remains didn't indicate a 25 m possible pliosaur at the time, more a 15 to 18, maybe 20 m long pliosaur, but the Liopleurodon in WWD was described as the largest of its own king, so being an extremly large one, not an average individual. But the show spread that Lio was currently able to reach 25 m, since even these isolated remains of 18 m behemoth probably not belonged to a species of Liopleurodon. "Whether these incomplete remains actually belong to Liopleurodon is uncertain. " As I said above yeah. "Using whale weights to estimate the weight of Liopleurodon has problems. For one, experts disagree on whale weights, as we cannot simply put them on scales-estimates range from 200 tonnes for the largest blue whales to not even 100 tonnes. " It was a bad example, the Blue Whale is an elongated creature with relatively smaller fins and a great proportion of blubber. Keep in mind that +150 tons Blue aren't current individual, but really old and big females. The Blue Whale is actually more around 110-120 tons being full grown. "There is also the matter that a lot of a whale's bulk is blubber, which doubles as insulation from the cold waters they often live in, as well as being an energy store for migration. Liopleurodon lived in warm subtropical seas, and so would not have had such blubber. -"We therefore estimate that even the biggest pliosaurs would not have weighed half as much as the biggest whales." " If you compare the 4 m liopleurodon skeleton from Tubingen in germany with a 4 m long typical cetacean, the Liopleurodon isn't slimmer or less massive, not that all. Pliosaurs were at most slightly less heavy than whales, and again... You have just to compare the estimate of Predator X, which is comparable to a modern sperm whale or the Monster of Aramberri (calcul made in comparison with the tubingen liopleurodon skeleton indicate a 50 tons or so weight for the possible 18 m long Aramberri pliosaur). Pliosaurs are actually bulky animals, even without blubber. A reliable and simple method to see this is to estimate the weight of a giant animal with the cubic method. Take the size and weight of a smaller similar animal, like the 10 m, 10 tons kronosaur and use it on a 15, 18 or possibly more than 25 m pliosaur. They reach very wickly Blue Whale weights. Pliosaurs are actually bulky animals, even without blubber.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Mar 25, 2011 14:15:34 GMT
As a Mod, This is officially getting ridiculous.
We do not need giant essays about whose (sea monster) is bigger.
And 4 posts in a row by one person borders on ludicrous when they all could be nicely summarized into one post worth reading.
This is getting as bad as a Tyrannosaurus vs. (name a predator) discussion.
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Mar 25, 2011 14:26:16 GMT
Excuse me for the row of posts but I cannot write and quote all from my PC.
As for the thead, I just answer to the speculations, with my argumentation and my links about the possibility and viability of giants plesiosaurs-pliosaurs.
The 25 m, 150 tons Liopleurodon ferox myth has long been debunked.
However the beast that killed the Aramberri could have measured 25 to 30 m in lenght, with 5 m jaws and 40 cm teeth, that's what I say.
And a such large pliosaur could hardly weigh less than 100 tons, even being especially slender for a pliosaur.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 25, 2011 21:59:06 GMT
;D I never said there is no post cranial anatomy in pliosaurs but there is very little with regard to Liopleurodon. Size is generally determined by skull length. Dino Frey said: "Well there is a bite mark with a diameter of 60 mm in the horizontal branch of a 350 mm pteroid. The tooth penetrated from dorsally meaning that the crown alone must have had a length of about 400 mm. Then comes a root which is normally about two thirds the length of a pliosaur tooth and then you just must find the bones to accommodate the ting and do a bit of calculation. So much for the possible five metres." So is this a pterosaur? The pteroid is a rod-like bone found only in pterosaurs, the flying reptile of the Mesozoic. The so called bite mark has a diameter of only 2.3622 inches Dino also says " I will put up a post soon with detailed data about what we know and for the moment we know only a little because about 75% of the 14 tons are still unprepared, and that what is out of the matrix is in Linares and not here. So I cannot even provide the lateset immages of the thing. I would like to be cautious with any taxonomy for the moment. Each block yields more huge bones." This was 2 1/2 years ago and there is nothing new. There are no images, and he hadn't even seen most of the pieces. Notice that the most complete pliosaur ever which has a skull estimated at 3 meters is not much more then 8 meters long. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1714208/postsDarren Naish pretty well sums things up when he said" As we all know, pliosaurs had super-powers and were capable of biting chunks out of granite and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Mar 26, 2011 0:26:24 GMT
Maybe he meant pterygoid, which is a bone in the palate?
|
|