New fossils in Argentina have been discovered for the most complete giant sauropod ever, with 70% of the key bones recovered. Called Dreadnoughtus, it was longer than two London buses parked end to end; 26m from head to tail.
Here we describe a new and gigantic titanosaur, Dreadnoughtus schrani, from Upper Cretaceous sediments in southern Patagonia, Argentina. Represented by approximately 70% of the postcranial skeleton, plus craniodental remains, Dreadnoughtus is the most complete giant titanosaur yet discovered, and provides new insight into the morphology and evolutionary history of these colossal animals.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Largest Sauropod Discovered With 70% of Key Bones
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 6 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 05 2014, @05:06AM
Key bones? Is this about the skeleton key [wikipedia.org]?
(I should RTFA, before asking, isn't it?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by SlimmPickens on Friday September 05 2014, @05:36AM
Cool name. The herald [smh.com.au] has a nice collection of stats and superlatives
- 59 tonnes
- had not finished growing when it died
- astoundingly huge
- weighed as much as a dozen African elephants or more than seven T-rex,
- a thigh bone that stood just under two metres and neck vertebrae that were almost a metre wide
- With a body the size of a house, the weight of a herd of elephants, and a weaponised tail, Dreadnoughtus would have feared nothing
- the most complete giant titanosaur yet discovered
- not the longest...not the tallest... but they're the most massive
- heavier than an empty 737-900
(Score: 2) by Kell on Friday September 05 2014, @05:55AM
I'm rather curious as to why the largest dinosaurs are so prone to incompleteness - many are known only by the existence of a single femur or segments. Obviously, the smaller the animal the more likely it is to all be preserved 'in one go', rather than having bits and pieces effected by scavengers or erosion or whatnot. However, is it possible that something about the structure or nature of large dinosaur skeletal construction makes them less amenable to the process of fossilisation?
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 05 2014, @06:56AM
Being so large, they would have been easier to be noticed by the even large dinosaurs, thus get eaten in a larger proportion.
No, serious, you know it makes sense.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:40PM
And I've wondered if some of these "unique" fossils were in fact one-off freaks, rather than a distinct species, especially since this was a period of wild-assed mutations compared to what we see in variants today.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday September 05 2014, @08:31AM
A nice selection of artist's impressions on TFA too. I'm always a sucker forn artisits rendering on stories where we can't see the real thing (dinosaurs, exoplanets...)
I'm probably going to spend the rest of the day now daydreaming about strapping a house to a dreadnoughtus' back and riding it around as the most awesome mobile home ever.