Talk:Bruhathkayosaurus

This article was just copied from this site: http://www.answers.com/topic/bruhathkayosaurus

Is that allowed, without any references on the page? --Madchester 22:15, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here

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)

The fossils were destroyed

Ayyasami has recently clarified what happened to the Bruhathkaysaurus material, if somebody wants to update the article. In short, the fossils were never actually collected and no longer exist, with the description and drawings based on in situ photos. It is now impossible to confirm the dimensions and taxonomic identity of the animal (or plant) =

"With reference to the Kallamedu Formation (Upper Cretaceous, Maastrichtian) near Kallamedu, Tiruchirapalli district in the Cauvery Basin of southern India, Blanford (1864: 139) noted that the beds consisted of a mass of white sands and grey sandy clays and “imbedded in the deposits large bones are numerous, but so saturated with water and so very friable, that it is impossible, even with the greatest care, to extract them in anything like a recognizable condition.” Matley (1929) noted that this was the situation during the monsoon season whereas during the dry season desiccation, with expansion by day and contraction at night, results in the bones being split into fragments. Consequently, the bones are poorly preserved and the photographs used for Bruhathkayosaurus by Yadagari & Ayyasami (1987) were taken while the bones were still exposed in situ. The bones started to disintegrate in the field jackets even before reaching the GSIH and no longer exist."

Source = Galton, P. M., & Ayyasami, K. (2017). Purported latest bone of a plated dinosaur (Ornithischia: Stegosauria), a “dermal plate” from the Maastrichtian (Upper Cretaceous) of southern India. Neues Jahrbuch Für Geologie Und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen, 285(1), 91–96. doi:10.1127/njgpa/2017/0671

Ozraptor4 (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

Good point. But I think it is down to the fact that the Argintinasaurus was 34m in lenght and the other contendors were over 30m too and the Supersaurus was not quite as big. AtheWeatherman (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Seismosaurus is actually a large diplodocus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.111.130.160 (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

This is O.R., but I say definitely Amphicoeliass. The femur of A. fragillimus is estimated to be well over 4m long (Carpenter 2006). I've estimated Bruhathkayosaurus's femur length to be just a hair over 3m, under 75% the size of Amphicoelias. I think Amphicoelias would end up both longer and heavier. Ashorocetus (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

no necesariamente, ya que los rebechisauridos poseian un torso proporcionalmente mucho mas delgado que el de los titanosauridos 2803:C600:7114:8FC5:A932:6F0C:CCA4:4226 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Such an absolute land vertebrate mass limit would also be in conflict with the published peer reviewed weight estimates for another better documented large sauropod, Amphicoelias, although the idea of a vertebrate consisting entirely "of bones" is ... let's just say ... entertaining! Orbitalforam (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

Well it's not in the Bonitasaura paper, and it would have been caught if it were in Dinosauria II. That leaves Sereno 2004 and Gonzales 2003, which I don't have access to. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It is in Dinosauria II as a sauropod: [4]. Ashorocetus (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you lose a vertebra the size of a closet? I work in Archaeology and there are times when we "lose" stuff, but I am talking about small stuff, nothing like that thing! (Mihai Bica) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.7.121 (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sauropod vertebrae are fragile things with much empty space, so it probably disintegrated to fragments. J. Spencer (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about Amphicoelias, one theory is that it didn't necessarily turn to dust, but degraded enough so as to be useless, and was thrown away. Or maybe one of Marsh's moles dissapeared the evidence ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Current location?

Is there any documentation or any hint as to where the collected bones ended up? I'm trying to locate the original paper. (is there a mirror or an abstract available online?) Its frustrating, though not terribly unreasonable, that the original publication may have been sketchy on detail. Its only more so, that the authors haven't published any follow up - in the 20+ years since. After this much time it seems likely that the originals could be lost or buried in a university or museum archive- and at that site completely forgotten. Have there been any successful contacts with Yadagiri or Ayyasami since? Ziazel (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

WRT Amphicoelias, that too was a fascinating discovery, and photographs or detailed descriptions (from multiple observers) would have rendered it more useful, even without the bones. But hardly anyone wants to cite Amphicoelias or even speculate about it much, as the evidence supporting it is limited and unverifiable. It would be a shame if the same were to happen to Bruhathkayosaurus (assuming Y&A's initial report was accurate, and there's anything of substance to it) Ziazel (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Bruhathkayosaurus: Another name for a prehistoric tree

A lot of websites seem to hint that Bruhathkayosaurus was just a fossilized tree. This would explain a lot in the size department. But is this true, because the same was once thought of Sauroposeidon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.121.225 (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You are right, I saw that too. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

112.134.121.225, please link some websites here so other users would know where you heard about that. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw that here: [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaur Fan (talk • contribs) 00:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Has there been any actual research done to suggest Bruhathkayosaurus was a tree and not a sauropod?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Dunno, I'm not a source expert. I had only came to Wikipedia for 5 months. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, from what I've been able to look through, there have been no formal suggestion by researchers that Bruhathkayosaurus is a fossilized tree.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the original material of this animal has been lost, like is detailed in this blog: [6] but I guess that is not a valid reference to cite here.--Rextron (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

While blogs are not preferred as a valid reference, there might be exceptions to this rule. I can ask around.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, blogs written by researchers can be valid sources, but as far as I know, Paleoking is "just" an artist. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that is worth to note that the recent paper about Dravidosaurus (Peter M. Galton; Krishnan Ayyasami (2017). "Purported latest bone of a plated dinosaur (Ornithischia: Stegosauria), a "dermal plate" from the Maastrichtian (Upper Cretaceous) of southern India". Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen. 285 (1): 91–96. doi:10.1127/njgpa/2017/0671.) mentions briefly to Bruhatkayaosaurus and says that effectively the fossil material is lost.--Rextron (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Theropod

Shouldn't the length when it was considered as a theropod be listed here? I think it was 18–20 m (59–66 ft) and 11–14 t (12–15 short tons) but that's just my opinion. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And 60–65 ft (18–20 m), 12–15 short tons (11–14 t). Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ooops, the same. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Bruhathkayosaurus drawings.webp (discussion)
• Bruhathkayosaurus holotype.png (discussion)
• Bruhathkayosaurus ilium dorsal view.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

A theropod?

The 2022 Bruhathkayosaurus paper claims that the ilium (which is the holotype specimen) likely belonged to a theropod. Because of that, Bruhathkayosaurus itself is a theropod as well and the latrge referred material isn't Bruhathkayosaurus. Diamantinasaurus (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)