Will we ever find the biggest dinosaur?

June 12, 2015

I was contacted recently by David Goldenberg (dgoldenberg@gmail.com), a journalist who’s putting together a piece on the biggest dinosaurs. He asked me a few questions, and since I’d taken the time to write answers I thought I may as well post them here.

1) Do you think that we will ever know what the largest dinosaur (by mass) was?

In principle, we can never know that we’ve found the largest dinosaur. All we can know (and we probably can’t really know even this, as we’ll see below) is that we’ve found the largest so far. If we were dealing with animals where there’s a good sample size, there would be statistical techniques that we could use to figure out the likely size-range. But most giant dinosaur species are known only a handful of specimens — sometimes only a single one. How big did Puertasaurus get? We can’t possibly say: the best we can do is estimate how big the one known specimen of Puertasaurus was.

That said, we can sort of get a feel for size classes. There are quite a few sauropods that seem to come in at around 30-40 tonnes — Brachiosaurus, Giraffatitan, Supersaurus, Dreadnoughtus — which suggests there might be some kind of a limit there. But there are bigger titanosaurs (Argentinosaurus, Puertasaurus, Futalognkosaurus) which show that if the barrier exists at all, it’s a “soft” one. And of course the tantalising hints of super-giant sauropods.

There are at least three of these: Amphicoelias fragillimus, a diplodocid known from a drawing of a vertebral arch which has since been lost or destroyed, which could well have massed 100 tonnes. Bruhathkayosaurus, a giant titanosaur known from a two-meter tibia, since destroyed, which could conceivably have massed twice that; and the Broome Sandstone track-maker, known only from footprints, which might have been somewhere in between.

Any one of those, we might write off and say it’s too good to be true — all three stories are pretty vague as to evidence and require a lot of guesswork in the inferences. But the fact that we have all three of these makes me feel pretty certain that there were indeed sauropods out there in the 100-200 tonne range (i.e. the size of big whales). I only hope we find solid, verifiable, curated evidence for them some time soon.

2) What bones do you need to have before you can make an accurate measurement?

You can’t ever make an accurate measurement. Consider even a really well represented, essentially complete specimen such as MB.R.2181 (previously known as HM S II), the giant mounted skeleton in the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin. Peer-reviewed published estimates of the mass of that one individual have varied between 13,618 and 78,258 kg — a factor of 5.75. Even if you discard these obvious outlier estimates, recent and credible estimates vary from 23,337 to 38,000 kg, which is still a factor of 1.63.

And this is not completely crazy. Two humans with essentially identical skeletons can weigh 70 and 114 kg, after all. Soft tissue is essentially impossible to predict.

3) What do you make of the fact that so many different species have been given the title? Is that the fault of the media or scientists or what?

A big part of is that it depends on what you count. That Berlin brachiosaur is the biggest dinosaur known from an essentially complete skeleton, so Giraffatitan is a legitimate holder of the crown. (Confusing matters further, it used to be thought to be a species of Brachiosaurus). But there were definitely bigger sauropods than that — just not known from such complete specimens. Argentinosaurus was certainly bigger, for example. But there’s no way to put a meaningful whole-body mass estimate on it.

But yes, there is also an understandable tendency towards sensationalism, both from scientists and the press. There have been plenty of new discoveries that can legitimately be described as “could be the biggest yet”.

8 Responses to “Will we ever find the biggest dinosaur?”

  1. Kenneth Carpenter Says:

    So what is the fixation on the “biggest dinosaur”? Anyone else notice the strong positive correlation between the “biggest dinosaur” announcements and male paleontologists? ;-)


  2. Andrew Says:

    Don’t dorget that “big” can mean at least 3 different things. If we’re talking longest, then the title of “biggest” probably goes to a diplodocid; if tallest, then probably a brachiosaur; if heaviest, then probably a titanosaur.

  3. Chase Says:

    However, that recent giant titanosaur bonebed discovered in Chubut province might shed more light on supermassive titanosaurs.
    Then there is the ichnogenus Breviparopus, which belonged to something gigantic. And as Mr. Carpenter stated above, yes, there does seem to be a correlation there…

  4. Well, from my perspective, the interest in size comes from an interest in the mechanical limits of vertebrate animals. Somewhat oddly, it may actually be more tractable to get a rough estimate of the maximum possible size for different sauropod “bauplans” than to estimate the specific mass of individual animals (for the reason that material transport was probably more limiting on size than weight support, and that depends in large part on linear dimensions).

  5. Darius Says:

    Is Futalognkosaurus really that big?
    I know the original estimate, but there have been more recent estimates in Giraffatitan territory.
    For example this: http://palaeozoologist.deviantart.com/art/Futalognkosaurus-skeletal-183472189

    The morale of another SVPOW entry was that it’s actually quite hard to figure out how large it really was based on what’s published, either way: https://svpow.com/2008/01/16/how-big-was-futalognkosaurus/

    Regarding super-giants, what about the Plagne trackmaker? Considering the estimates tentatively proposed in a previous post, wouldn’t it be deserving of a mention?

  6. […] largest dinosaurs. He brings up some very good points, and I definitely recommend you check it out here. Also check out this great post […]

  7. Andreas Johansson Says:

    Andrew wrote:
    Don’t dorget that “big” can mean at least 3 different things. If we’re talking longest, then the title of “biggest” probably goes to a diplodocid; if tallest, then probably a brachiosaur; if heaviest, then probably a titanosaur.

    I’ve at times wondered if there’s some sort of honour code forbidding journalists from specifying which they mean. Particularly annoying in conjunction with comparisons like “twice as big” – for animals of similar shape, there’s an enormous difference between “twice as long” and “twice as heavy”!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: