Talk:Largest organisms

Picture of largest organism

It might be better if the picture of the largest known organism was of the actual largest known organism, rather than just another of the same species. --Oceans and oceans (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction: Insects

The "Insects" section begins by claiming that a Giant Weta is the largest recorded insect at 71g (which is substantiated), and then claiming in the "Beetles" subsection that Hercules Beetles can exceed 85g (which is not substantiated). Also, in the "Grasshopper and allies" section it claims that Giant Wetas can exceed 75g. These are obvious contradictions.

Ant and Company

As the largest yhhyyhj byhj

largest Proboscid?

The largest living land animal issue is all over the place. The article for Mammuthus sungari proports to be it, while Paraceratherium proudly decalres it, in frank terms, "(Paraceratherium) is teh largest mammal known." Then, on the actual largest mamals list, the Imperial Mammoth and Deinotherium are both given as the largest, together.

Will the real largest Proboscid please stand up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.239.225 (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Autochthony writes: The problem is these are all extinct animals; they are probably (I haven't checked the citations) known from only incomplete, even fragmentary, remains; and someone has had to restore - and estimate - the body plan, size, etc. Hey - a one inch [2,5 cm] layer of fat on a large proboscidian will probably change the weight by a quarter of - perhaps half - a tonne/ton.

All those animals you quote are very large animals. Autochthony wrote: 2212z, 20.1.09. 86.151.60.238 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

largest dinosaur

I remember reading, many moons ago, that structural engineers had calculated the maximum mass possible for a land animal is 120 metric tonnes. Has this been disproved?

I think it's easily disprovable for anyone who takes a moment to think about it. Living organisms have a habit of getting around almost any limit one can think of, and while there might be a structural upper-limit for vertebrates, arthropods, etc., that doesn't take into account that organisms could evolve stronger support materials, or that an animal could (hypothetically) evolve to a tremendous size at the cost of mobility and adapt to a plant- or fungus-like lifestyle. There's also a critter out there, though the name escapes me, that evolved from human cervical carsonoma (sp?) cell culture and began infesting other cell cultures not unlike a virus or bacterium; essentially, this organism is a single-celled human. Now imagine if it evolved the way of the slime-molds, and could form multi-celled, though structurally homogenous, humans. There would theoretically be no upper-limit for size. You could end up with a giant, gellatenous human spanning hundreds of acres of land and weighing thousands of tons. Who's to say some random mutation in some discarded but living tissue from a dinosaur couldn't do the same? Anything's possible, though whether or not it actually happens is a whole other story. --Corvun 05:32, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, but I was talking about sauropod dinosaurs. I think that the engineers said that beyond a certain mass (about 120 000 kg) the legs of a quadruped would be so massive that they could not fit under the body. If the creature has a sprawling gait, the limbs would have be more massive still. Either way, any freak mutation like this would probably not survive childhood.

However, the maximum proposed mass for Bruhathkayosaurus is 220 tons- have other engineers upped the estimate?

Stratoposiden is a German Sauropod whose bones were destroyed in World War II, it was thought to be upwards of 44 meters long, described by the famous Edward Drinker Cope —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SuperCroc (talk • contribs) 13:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree that fundamental limit(s) to size (or even reliable source merely *speculating* there is some fundamental limit to size) should be mentioned in this article.

Corvun, you're probably thinking of the HeLa cell line. Such thing pushes the limits of the definition of "human" and "animal".

If we focus on animals that move on land by lifting themselves on four legs no stronger than bone (is tooth enamel any stronger?), there is a maximum weight of the animal before the bones break -- I'm not sure if the compressive strength failure would occur first, or buckling modulus of elasticity would occur first.

There is an analogous maximum weight of animals that move by lifting themselves on six legs no stronger than chitin or keratin.

There may also be a similar maximum weight for animals that can fly.

There may be other limits that are reached even sooner -- such as the problem of breathing mentioned in the Apatosaurus and Invertebrate trachea articles.

I think all such limits should also be mentioned in this article, even if there is a clear work-around (animals with 4 legs can weigh more than the heaviest possible animal with 2 legs; sea-going animals can weigh more than the largest possible land-walking animals, which can weigh more than the largest possible flying animals; etc).

Wikipedia, you have failed me! Neither compressive strength nor modulus of elasticity numbers are mentioned in bone or articles on these other materials. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

largest reptile?

Pythons have been known to reach 20+ feet (record is something like 23 feet). That certainly deserves at least a mention...

Does anyone know what the scientific consensus is?

~ One the record length for a python is just a little over 32 feet and about 350 pounds although some sources such as books made by the Smithsonian museum say they can weigh 400 pounds.

 Two the largest crocodile measured 23 feet long and weighed 3,000 pounds.

Great stuff

This is shaping up into a very nice article in double quick time. Congrats to Violet and the other contributors. Pcb21| Pete 10:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! It's growing like, umm, a honey fungus! violet/riga (t) 15:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Four years later, I must say, this is a fascinating and fun read :) 72.38.32.223 (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Honey fungus

That honey fungus is NOT proven to be a single organism, that's not how fungi grow and develop. It will be a cluster of genetically identical clones derived from a single organism, but no longer all connected as a single individual. - MPF 15:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be many sources that say it is:

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/869808.stm
• http://botit.botany.wisc.edu/toms_fungi/apr2002.html
• http://www.iisc.ernet.in/academy/resonance/Apr2005/pdf/Apr2005p04-09.pdf
• http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_828525.htm

violet/riga (t) 15:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, bad journalism and hype. To prove it is a single organism, they would have to excavate the entire area, and demonstrate that every part is all inter-connected with living tissue. All they've done is demonstrate that different parts of the colony are clonally identical. That isn't the same as proving it is a single, fully connected individual. - MPF 15:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite possible, but such claims should be noted in the article along with the reasoning behind it. It might be one individual, it's just not proven, and we should make that clear in the article. Explicitly stating that "The General Sherman tree is the largest living organism" is a dangerous thing. violet/riga (t) 15:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It might is rather stretching possibilities - it is highly improbable that it is all interconnected; fungi just don't grow like that, as they don't have long-term perennial living parts. As the front edge of the mycelium grows, the older portions die out, leaving the sections unconnected. Mycelium encountering other mycelium from the same origin can re-join onto itself, so interconnecting (strictly, reconnecting) can occur, but the probability of it involving the whole area is absolutely minuscule. - MPF 15:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Just curious, wasn't that giant fungus in MI supposed to be the largest in the world?

How far are we going to go??

With the largest example of each order of mammals cited, are we also going to list e.g. the largest example of each order of plants? (53 orders of flowering plants alone, not counting conifers, ferns, mosses, etc . . ) Insects?? (30 orders) Fishes? The Largest "Smallest Thing"?? Methinks this is getting a bit too large! - MPF 15:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

If we could present that in a concise list then it wouldn't be too bad. Having a summary for each type and then a broken-down list of orders might work. I also briefly thought about having "the largest pet cat" (etc.), but that would be too Guinness Book / pop culture. violet/riga (t) 15:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

What about a subarticle: Largest mammal species? Neutrality^talk 15:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

That could work, with this article being a summary of all of the subarticles and of the largest organisms in general. Would be a good featured topic! violet/riga (t) 15:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with violet... Idleguy 07:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Whale comparison

Nice as it is, the whale comparison diagram is clearly a copyvio and should be deleted forthwith. Soo 10:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Largest lagomorph

I've no idea what's been documented, but jack rabbits get to be pretty huge, especially in the American Southwest. I've seen some that looked as big as springer spaniels (around 30 lbs, give or take) — to see a jack rabbit sitting with it's ears laid down, one might, at first glance, mistake it for a dog. I don't know if any lagomorphs get bigger than this, but it's something to look into. --Corvun 06:52, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Monotreme

In living animals section, the largest monotreme is listed as an extinct echidna. An extinct animal is not living.

Since nobody addressed this, I took the liberty of removing the monotreme section because it was really bugging me. I'll try to find the largest extant monotreme and put it back in.Alex Klotz 17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

bloop ?

I think this is a little too speculative to keep in the opening paragraph. - SimonLyall 07:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Flying Things

Added a bit about the largest birds that could fly, even if they're extinct. Having the largest bird alive today that can fly would be good.

Revisit decision to exclude Armillaria ostoyae

I'd like to revisit the decision not to list the Armillaria ostoyae in Oregon as the largest organism in the world.

As shown in the Talk page above, there are numerous secondary sources that list it as the largest organism in the world. The points that MPF bring up would be considered original research under WP rules, yes? .. and therefore, we should not override the secondary sources.

Are there primary or secondary sources that deprecate the Oregon fungus and list the General Sherman tree instead? The reference to the U.S. National Park Service lists it as the largest tree, not the largest organism.

Thanks! hike395 04:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image removal

I replaced Image:Jurassic Park screenshot 2.jpg as it's a screenshot and therefore only appropriate for "critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television" (WP:FU). Ziggurat 02:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Largest protozoan

I think that Xenophyophores would count as considerably larger than forams, as stated. -- Liam Proven 12:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Gromia sphaerica might be the largest. Ericl (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Largest bony fish

MADEA IZ FUNNYY

On the to-do list it says the largest bony fish is the giant grouper. Shouldn't this be the ocean sunfish? Jerkov 12:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've edited it. Dora Nichov 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The ocean sunfish article specifically mentions "its skeleton actually contains largely cartilaginous tissues, which are lighter than bone, allowing it to grow to sizes impractical for other bony fishes." Although those wacky biologists insist on putting the ocean sunfish in the bony fish group, it still leaves me wondering: What is the largest fish that has bones? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Autochthony writes: I seem to recall sturgeons reavching pretty substantial sizes - 8 m or 26 feet - but how 'bony' they are I do not know. I thought that - like the sunfish - they were included amonst the Bony Fishes. Autochthony wrote - 2219z 20.11.09 86.151.60.238 (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Largest crocodile

The largest authenticated crocodiles were only about 6m and a bit over 1000kg in weight, there is NO physical evidence of any 8m specimens. This should be edited and the largest authenticated crocodile taken as record.

Your right about there being no 8m specimens although skulls are also strong evidence of crocodile size and specimens 7m long which may not have been caught have be confirmed using the 1:9 skull ratio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Liopleurodon was not the largest pliosaur

Liopleurodon was (despite the BBC-Documentation which used false estimations) not the largest plesiosaur. Fossils of a still undescribed species whose holotype was discovered some years ago in Aramberri was still larger and reached in contrast to Liopleurodon actually lengths of more than 20m.

Walking With Dinosaurs DOES have some evidence. They deduced that the fossil which you described belonged to Liopleurodon. And they've found six-meter long animals bittenn in half by some sort of giant predator. But you're right that they have no evidence that it actually belongs to Liopleurodon. Dora Nichov 08:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, at this time the Monster of Aramberri was still unknown. They just estimated (on relics which didn´t belong to Liopleurodon at all) how large the largest ever living liopleurodon probably was, and came to the widespread 25m.

Cymbospondylus was not the largest ichthyosaur

Cymbospondylus reached only lengths of about 10m, but Shonisaurus was about 15m, but there were even much larger ichthyosaurs, a recent find from Canada belonged to a 23m long ichthyosaur and isolated vertebras were found which belonged to ichthyosaurs of nearly 30m.

Largest carnivore

Why is this listed as an elephant seal and not the sperm whale, which reaches 3 times that length and 10 times the weight? --70.70.143.237 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The term "carnivore" doesn´t only mean meat-eating animals in general, but the family of carnivores to which for example cats, dogs, martens or in this case seals belong. Sperm whales are carnivorous but they don´t belong to the true carnivores.

True. If pennipeds belong in the order Carnivora (this is controversal), then the elephant seal is the biggest. If not, the polar bear is. If we're not referring to the "carnivore" in classification systems, then the sperm whale certainly IS the biggest alive. (But it's certainly referring to the order Carnivora in this article). Dora Nichov 08:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Blue whales are carnivores too (krill are animals, after all). So they're the biggest carnivores ever, not Sperm Whales. No edit is needed, though, as others have pointed out. - Atarr 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct. But sperm whales are the biggest supercarnivores (a carnivore that eats red meat/fish/non-small invertebrates in general for 90% of its diet) ever. Dora Nichov 12:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not what "supercarnivore" means - supercarnivore is synonymous with apex predator, i.e. anything at the top of the food chain. Nothing preys on adult Blue Whales, so they are at the top of the food chain, so they are just as much of a superpredator as sperm whales. There's no distinction between eating shrimp and eating sardines... - Atarr 14:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Close, but the apex term is superPREDATOR, I think... Dora Nichov 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Autochthony writes:

We need to agree on terms.  Carnivore, predator, even reptile . . . .

Autochony wrote - without any new definitions - 2223z 20.11.09 86.151.60.238 (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't sea the elephant seal anywhere in the article. It's got to be the biggest of something though. If not carnivores, than pinnipeds. Scarabaeoid (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Many things

First of all why are dinosaurs in the catagory with reptiles? Most recent evidence sugests they are closer to birds why not clasify them on their own.

Sharks, there used to be HUGE sharks where is that on this page?

Arthropods (Arthropoda) there used to be 6 foot long plant eating things in this catogory!

Not to nit pick but I'm puting tags on this page, sorry, to who ever put the time in, but your wrong. John Doe or Jane Doe 11:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

phylogenetically speaking, dinosaurs are reptiles, as are birds (that is, birds are also a subset of reptilia). Everything else you've mentioned here is up now. - Atarr 23:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

phylogenetically speaking means they are RELATED not the same, you are not your grandparents, today animals are clasiffied into families based purely by what they have evolved INTO, not what they evolved FROM, yes they have a common ancester but now they are birds and reptiles, I would like to keep dionsaurs seperate from both catagories!

You don't appear to be familiar with cladistic classifications. These schemes, which are replacing classical Linnaean taxonomic schemes, define organisms by what they evolved from. To seperately list reptiles, dinosaurs, and birds would be a paraphyletic classification scheme, and cladistic taxonomy avoids such schemes (although they are not as frowned upon as polyphyletic schemes.

To put it in layman's terms: birds are a well-defined clade - they're just everything that descended from Archaeopteryx. No problems there. But you seem to want to define dinosaurs as everything descending from primitive dinosaurs - say, eoraptor, or just whatever was the first archosaur that diverged from crocodilians - EXCEPT birds. That "except" makes this definition sort of ad-hoc, just as any morphological definition would be. You're trying to base the classifications on some subjective idea of how animals "should" be divided, as oppose to some objective biological criteria.

The same can be said of any definition of reptiles that leaves out dinosaurs (or really, by extension, birds). I haven't heard of anyone trying to argue scientifically that dinosaurs aren't reptiles - you're sort of on your own there. There's no good argument for seperating dinosaurs out, unless you want to scrap reptilia altogether and list scaly reptiles, turtles, and crocodilians seperately from one another, as well.

I did leave birds seperate from reptiles, as you see. My reasoning was simply that there are a lot of birds, there is a lot of interest in that subject, and it is considered a seperate class in standard Linnaean taxonomy that used to be in all the textbooks (and still is in a lot of them). If I wanted to make the article perfectly consistent with the latest thinking in the biological community, I would make the entire bird section a subset of theropods, which in turn is a subset of dinosaurs, which in turn is a subset of reptilia. In stead of doing this, I just made a note at the start of the dinosaur and bird sections that explains the reasoning of the current layout. I think this is a fair compromise between the old and new systems. - Atarr 23:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your rational is sound: Simple compromise, Dinosaurs now have a seperate section, noone should have a problem with that...212.158.133.194 12:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Again, dinosaurs are considered reptiles BOTH in classical Linnean Taxonomy (see here, for instance) AND in cladistics. There's no conflict that would lead to us putting dinosaurs seperate. Birds are a case where cladistics and Linnean taxonomy differ, hence the need for a compromise handling of it. - Atarr 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaurs are reptiles, birds are dinosaurs, which makes them in cladistic classification reptiles. Still, let's have "==reptiles==", "===dinosaurs===" and "====birds====" or "==birds==" because Linnean taxonomy differs... Dora Nichov 11:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that has been done though. Dora Nichov 11:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Gross inaccuracy

Fascinating: almost every reported measurement for the listed animals is wrong, mostly on the large size. Listing errors of articles is nothing new to me, but if I were to do so here, the list would be about the same length as the article. It's that bad. And not worth the effort. The greatest inaccuracies that were spotted by my eye were Giant Anteater at 65 kg (143 lb, up to 39 kg/86 lb in reality), Giant Armadillo at 60 kg (132 lb, actually 32 kg/71 lb – this is understandable though: many books have got it wrong) and Great Blue Turaco at 1.2 m and 1.7 kg (4 ft and 3.8 lb, actually 75 cm/29½ in and 950 g/33.5 oz). Also, some of the categories have the wrong species. --Anshelm '77 13:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I tagged the page again and will continue to do so if this page is not corrected befor it is removed.John Doe or Jane Doe 15:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Feel free to remove anything not sourced. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I checked the anteater reference (from the giant anteater page) and it is accurately reflected here. If you have another source, then cite it, and make the fix. Likewise for Armadillo. I fixed the Turaco, although I found a larger mass citation than you.

There are still some citation issues here that need to be resolved, but a lot of the citations are just on the specific pages of that organism, which should be fine. In the meantime, I'm removing the "factual dispute" tag, since there's no dispute between seperate cited sources here. If you have any further factual objections, then be specific about them. - Atarr 16:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok sorry, You win, I will let you work on this page after a bit more reserch I see I was wrong, please accept my appology. There are factual disputes, see below "Fish Stories" I see now I miss read the aves section and was also mistaken! I will nolonger hastaly edit.John Doe or Jane Doe 20:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Many big-fish-stories and mistakes

I´ve seen that many of the "records" in the list of the biggest fishes are only big-fish-stories, many of them already easy to identify by completely false dimensions. There are false sizes of the wels catfish, the beluga sturgeon, the Arapaima, the giant morray (which is in fact heavier) and some more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.224.119.207 (talk • contribs)

Largest primate ever-Robert Wadlow?

I'm just wondering in terms of the largest primate subject ever found, in comparison to the case of the largest living elephant ever documented. would Robert Wadlow be considred the largest primate ever documented? he was 8'11" and weighed more than 400 pounds. has there ever been a cotemporary individual primate larger than this that has been found? Duhon 05:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. He may well have been the tallest (verified). Gigantopithecus says: "Gigantopithecus was likely about 3 metres tall and weighed from 300 to 500 kg..." (660 to 1,100 lbs). These height/weight numbers are rough estimates. My guess is that the weight is likely more accurate than the height, as we don't have a very good idea of the overall appearance of Gigantopithecus. 8'11' ' = 2.72 meters. 400 lbs = 180 kg. -- 201.51.231.176 12:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

True but the gigantopithecus is an extinct species. i was reffering more to primate species currently existing.Duhon 18:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Carol Yager weighed as much as a bull moose. PenguinJockey 07:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the current way the article handles this. We make mention in passing of the exceptional humans, but these are exceptions, and moreover they are exceptions that, if humans lived in a wild state, would probably not survive. I'm not familiar with any really healthy humans, not afflicted with a pituitary disorder or morbid obesity, who have weighed over 400 pounds. A few competitors in the World's Strongest Man have been near 400 pounds, and I suppose Akebono Taro, while clearly obsese, was in some sense healthy at 500+ pounds. Still, Lowland gorillas can be healthy and non-obese at 500 pounds, and captive ones have weighed much more.

Humans really are the tallest living primates, though, as there are healthy humans who do not have any sort of pituitary disorder who have reached 7'7" and even 7'9"; I've never heard of another primate that tall. If we want to make note of that, that would be fine. - Atarr 19:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Pig

I have removed this section:

• Pig. The world record for the heaviest pig so far is held by Big Bill, owned by Elias Buford Butler of Jackson, Tennessee. It was a Poland China breed of hog that tipped the scales at 2,552 lb. (1,157 kg.) in 1933. Bill was due to be exhibited at the Chicago World Fair when he broke a leg and had to be put down. At about this point in time, the trend in hog production began to shift to hogs that were much trimmer and very lean. For other pigs of notable size see List of pigs over 1000 pounds.

I did this because a pig is part of the order Artiodactyla & even the "monster hogs" are smaller than, say, a Hippo, Giraffe or a even a large bovid. Perhaps some of this pig text could be incorporated into the Artiodactyla section.

Dinosaur weight (tons vs kg)

The measures of dinosaurs' weights both in kilograms and tons will certainly confuse at least European readers of this article. Do these numbers refer by any chance to the long ton? I believe that a large majority of readers will assume that the unit used is in fact the metrical ton (= 1000 kg), and then wonder about the inacurracy of the kg/ton equation. As I am not familiar with this "larger" ton unit, I am not going to interfer with this, but I suggest that those kilogram indications be omitted (as, commonly, weights in excess of 10.000 kg are not indicated in kg anymore, but in tons) and replaced by indications in metrical tons. I hope this doesn't offend the English or American contributors to this article; the idea is just for greater clarity. Trigaranus 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the Great Barrier Reef a superorganism?

The opening paragraph currently contains the statement: "The Great Barrier Reef, the world's largest coral reef (stretching 2,000 km) has been shown to be a collection of many organisms and is the largest known superorganism." I'm no expert in this stuff, but I followed the link to the Wikipedia article on superorganisms, and it seemed to me that the reef would not qualify. The "superorganism" was defined as a collection of organisms with a strongly cohesive social behavior, such that individuals could not effectively live outside of the society. An ant colony was the paradigmatic example. I question whether a coral colony fits that description, and invite anyone with expertise on this to weigh in. (I put a "citation needed" tag on the statement in the article.) Thanks. The article is otherwise very informative and well-written. --TomChatt (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you take a visit to the GBR, one of the first things that should strike you is that it is not one continuous structure. It consists of thousands of smaller, individual reefs occurring in clusters that can be separated from one another by several km. I fail to understand how this constitutes an "organism" of any type, even a "super"-organism. Each has their own distinct ecologies etc.--81.156.63.97 (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether the GBR is a superorganism or not, it is not so important to mention it in this article, since it is not about superorganisms. I have removed this sentence from the introductory paragraph: "(The Great Barrier Reef, the world's largest coral reef, stretching 2,000 km, is a collection of many organisms.)" --Oceans and oceans (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Split

At about 83 kB, the article is vey large. Roughly 70 kB deal with animals, around 47 kB of which is specific to vertebrates. The article could be split into two or even three. The obvious thing to do would be to split out animals leaving a summary on the current page giving us perhaps about 20 kB (a decent size). Next, we could possibly do the same with the new Largest animals page splitting vertebrates out (again leaving about 20 kB after a summary is written). JЇѦρ 07:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it too big? It's fine the way it is. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't really put a exact figure on it but 80 kB is on the large side ... or for a more full answer take a look at WP:SIZE. It is a fine article to be sure. Largest animals would make a fine article too though I feel. In fact it just might be that this is the term that people would more likely search for (so it should be created as a redirect at least). JЇѦρ 15:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you think I get here and even found this page? Largest Animals does already redirect to this page. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And on quick look this page doesn't even make the top 500 longest pages on wikipedia. I say don't fix something that isn't broken it's good the way it is. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There are 6,896,292 articles on WP. Thus "not in the top 500" is equivalent to "not in the top ~0.007%". Wikipedia is good the way it is ... not broken ... but people still keep trying to make it better. JЇѦρ 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying it's not high on priority so why try to fix this article when it's fine I think we should be worrying about the other's first. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So you don't actually oppose its being split, it's just that there are other things in more urgent need of attention. Yes, there are higher priorities but one of these days someone might as well get around to doing this. JЇѦρ 01:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if it is split it needs to be done correctly and should be more of a convienience than inconvienience. But I am opposed because I like it the way it is, it groups together all the animals quite well and you can find pretty much evrything you want to know about the largest animals in the one spot, and it also includes things which you might not have learnt otherwise such as the largest trees, largest superorganism, etc. Things I would not have bothered reading or looking up if it wern't for this article. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent sawfish

The linked specific page for the sawfish "Pristis perotteti" doesn't back up the claim of more than 2.4 tonnes, but says only 591 kg. I explored this issue a bit, but only got confused. There seems to be some single exceptional measurement. All the other sawfish maximum weights are in the 500 kg range. It doesn't help that both Wikipedia and Fishbase have one species "Large-tooth sawfish" versus one other species "Largetooth sawfish" and one of them is scientifically named "Pristis microdon" meaning "Small-tooth Sawfish" in Greek. Of course, "Small-tooth sawfish" is a completely different species. Maybe some pristiological expert can make sense of it. Stupid girl (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Giant kelp not a "plant"

The giant kelp is mentioned both under Plants and Protists. According to the article on plants (and everything I've learned myself), only green algae are grouped in Kindgom Plantae. Macrocystis is a brown alga, and thus not a true "plant" ("algae" are not a natural class). While "protist" is basically a meaningless grab bag of taxa, brown algae are traditionally thrown into it. Macrocystis should be removed from the plant category in this article. If there is a "largest" green alga, it could be mentioned within the plant category. Emmastaffron (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger completed

Heaviest land animals has now been merged with this article. You may access the old talk page here: Talk:Heaviest land animals.  LinguistAtLarge  22:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Riftia Tubeworm Larger Than Any Earthworm

oh snap Giant tube worm

Keith Ellington (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Seismosaurus

Isn't Seismosaurus the longest dinosaur? Or is this a new discovery? Just asking. Isna 'Kasamee (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dinosaurs

Dinosaurs are not reptiles they are warm blooded like birds —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montana's Defender (talk • contribs) 00:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Being warm-blooded (which is still a matter of debate) does not mean that Dinosaurs aren't reptiles. The definition of a Dinosaur is not morphological, but based on descent, or phylogenics. This is covered in an earlier discussion on this very page.

For goodness sake, look at the Dinosaur page! In the right side box, they are clearly defined as being part of Reptilia. - Atarr (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Aw, what's in a name? In the Linnaean morphological classification system in the 1960s, reptiles were tetrapods who laid eggs and were not birds. That excluded amphibians, mammals and birds, but included dinosaurs (and even earlier included amphibians - what do you think of that?) It is an example of a paraphyletic class, since not all descendants of included animals are included, most obviously mammals. The Linnaean morphologies (including those fixed Phylum, Order, Class and Genus categories, as well as all the fru-fru that was tacked on - super-, infra-, etc)are being replace with phylogenetic systematics, in which genetics plays the major role in deciding classifications. Also, this new classification system generally requires the use of monophyletic names, in which all descendants are members of the group. By this definition, then Homo sap is not only a human and an ape, but also a monkey, a primate, a mammal, a reptile, an amphibian, a fish, a vertebrate, a chordate, an animal, and a member of perhaps 30 other inclusive, so-far named clades. So, this question of dinosaurs depends on whether they came from amphibious or reptilian ancestors, and on which classification system you are using. The correct answer is that both dinosaur and reptile are terms used before cladistics, and so should be scrapped (along with several thousands of other such terms); but more likely their definitions will simply change as time goes on and more evidence is accumulated. Another voice says that rather tahn being fired, these words should rather be kicked upstairs an become "Category", so that their popular but inaccurate state of affairs can continue)That being the case, you can expect the definition of what is or is not a reptile to change for a while longer (for example, whether birds are really dinosaurs or are actually a sister clade to dinosaurs is still a topic), and some use of paraphyletic names to continue. After all, who wants to be an amphibian, even if you ancestor was?

The tree of life web (tolweb.org) says: vertabrata-> tetrapoda-> reptiliomorpha-> amniota-> reptilia-> romeriidae-> diapsida-> archosauromorpha-> archosauria-> dinosauria-> ...-> Aves. Which one is the Linnaean "Class" is just a guess on anyone's part. So, birds are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are reptiles, and we're all animals. See also http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Taxon_types.htm for perhaps a pithier discussion. SkoreKeep (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Worlds largest elephant

Wikipedia is saying this elephant was shot in the 70's but other sources including these two http://www.nnf.org.na/RARESPECIES/InfoSys/elephant/biology/La_PhysDescription.htm http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1069744/7/index.htm cite an animal with similar physical dimensions but that it was shot in the 50's. 41.213.126.5 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC) i concur that there is a discrepancy with the shooting dates of the Angola bull; I viewed the specimen in the museum foyer and recall on the plaque that it was shot much earlier than the purported 1974 date. also, i believe that the reported weight of the animal. at 27,000 pounds plus to be highly over stated and that of the museum, @ 8 tons is clearly more plausible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobolinq (talk • contribs) 02:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Largest Therapod cannot be officially confirmed

I don't think Spinosaurus could be the largest therapod to exist. The only fossil found was destroyed way back in WWII and it was still incomplete. For all we know the recorded length could possibly be innacurate. I think Giganotosaurus or one of the other large carnosaurs such as Mapusaurus or even Carcharodontosaurus should remain the largest therapod untill more evidence of Spinosaurus is found to further prove this theory 68.9.247.42 (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

First, there are extant specimens of Spinosaurus, even larger than the original type. Second, you'd need evidence that the type is not as large as described, especially hard given that we have actual photographs of it mounted. Third, the upper estimated of Giganotosaurus are based on a fragment of jaw, less complete than any Spinosaurus specimen on which size estimates are based. If you wish to limit size estimates only to complete skeletons, than T. rex is the longest theropod at 42ft and Diplodocus is the longest sauropod at 80ft. Size estimates of fragmentary finds are always based on proportions/comparing bone to bone with complete relatives, and there's no reason to single out Spinosaurus as dubious in this regard and not Giganotosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, Supersaurus, Argentinosaurus, etc., which are all known only from incomplete remains that can't simply be measured tip to tail for length data. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

True. But I think a 60 foot biped seems a bit ridiculous. The largest it got was probably between 40-50 feet at most and weighed between no more than 5-10 tons, the average weight of a large 40+ foot therapod. Considering that Spinosaurus' diet relied mainly on fish and live prey such as ouranosaurus, I doubt it would need to evolve to such a size like the one I stated earlier. Has there been any recent discoveries of this creature at all in this decade? I haven't been so up-to-date on my paleontology.

Actually Spinosaurus reached a length of 59 feet 1 inch but if you convert it it is roughly 60 feet. Listen though if you think 60 feet sounds a bit ridiculous then you won't believe this. Scientist use to think that megalosaurus reached lengths in excess of 197ft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The more I look at Giganotosaurus, the more it looks like it is definetley the larger therapod. It might not be the longest but it definetly looks like the heaviest. Just for a bit of extra information about myself, I'm not one of those "SPINO SUCKS T.REX IS BETTER" people lol but I was dissapointed with the trash heap that was Jurassic Park 3. 68.9.247.42 (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, estimates based on "eyeballing it" are not valid sources ;) The bone structure of Spinosaurus is rediculously heavy (same for other spinosauruids--they're just unusually heavily built animals). What specimen of Giganotosaurus are you looking at? If it's mounted, how much is a fabricated cast to fill in missing pieces, or scaled up from smaller specimens? No complete skeletons of the largest giganotosaurs are known. Why do you think 60 ft for Spinosaurus is unreasonable but 50ft is ok? Taking into account different vertebrae lengths, varying estimates for amount of collagen in between verts, length of neck and tail when complete, etc. can add more than 10ft to an animal that large to begin with. Basically, even if you're right, no scientists agree with you at the moment, so changing it would be original research. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The bones aren't bones anymore, overtime they're replaced by minerals and stone which I'm sure you know already lol so really wouldn't the fossils be heavier than the actual bones they used to be some 90,000,000 years ago? Especially in therapods since their bones are hollow? Thats something I never understood exactly.

Honestly if Spinosaurus' diet relied on fish there would be no competition in that area (only other Spinosaurs), even from other large therapods like Carcharodontosaurus. Evolution would see no need for it to grow to such a size.

The more I think of it you are correct. Maybe the animal is around 60 feet and most of it would be the tail, I'm certain from snout-to-pelvis it probably was around the same size as a giganotosaurus, BTW I was referencing the Giga-fossil at the museum in Australia, the one on the giganotosaurus article. I'm not sure how many giganotos have been found, but I think one of them was over 50% complete, the other percentage was just some post-cranial material that was misplaced by erosion. 68.9.247.42 (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

When I say heavily built, I don't mean the actual weight of the bones, I mean their overall proportions. In terms of shape and size, the bones of spinosaurs are wider, taller, and bulkier than other theropods. Obviously, weighing the actual fossils (which are rock) would not give an accurate weight estimate.

There are two known specimens of Giganotosaurus. One is 50% complete inlcuding a nearly omplete back and most of the tail, and is 12.2 meters long, about the same size as Sue.[2] The second specimen is known only from a partial lower jaw bone. By comparing this single bone to the smaller specimen, an estimated skull length was found. Based on that, a total length estimate of around 13 or 14 meters was found. If this specimen had a slightly fatter lower jaw, it could have been much smaller, proportionally. Note that this is far less to go on than Spinosaurus, which we have photos of a 30% complete skeleton (jaws, neck, back: destroyed) and several nearly complete skulls. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. Thankyou for answering my question Dinoguy2. God I hope one day someone will find a complete Spinosaurus fossil.Damn do I want a tooth of this animal lol http://cgi.ebay.com/Dinosaur-Fossil-Tooth-3-4-Spinosaurus-from-Morocco_W0QQitemZ280399930405QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item4149236425&_trksid=p3286.c0.m1 Though when you think about it, it's kind of skeptical to determine the largest therapod. Scientists hypothesized we've found less than 30% of dinosaur species. There could be another large therapod, or even a fossil of a larger T.Rex or Giganotosaurus. 68.9.247.42 (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you could always write 'largest known, but I think that would go without saying for any animal. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Including the reference to Sue in the article is fair, but we should still lead the Theropod section with Spinosaurus, since the consensus is that Spinosaurus was in fact larger. - Atarr (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but the sauropod section starts out by discussing Diplodocus and Giraffatitan, the largest knwon from complete specimens, so why not Tyrannosaurus? Otherwise, the sauropod section should lead with Amphicoelias. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction with Arctodus Simus

This article claims 600-800 kg for Arctodus simus, which is smaller than a Polar Bear (with a citation), but the Arctodus simus page gives a larger value (1183 kg). Who is right? --213.31.11.107 (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The real problem here is is that neither value is accompanied by a citation of an authoritative source. There are several possible reasons for the discrepancy; different experts using different methods or assumptions or based on different fossil remains may come up with different estimates; one value may be an average, while another may be an estimated maximum. Realistically, when dealing with extinct organisms where limited information is available, you can't expect all sources to agree. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

How much of this is really needed?

I've been looking over this page, and frankly, it's becoming a bit ridiculous. Do we *really* need an entry for which of the tiny handful of colugo species is largest? Or the largest Hyrax? About 80% of this belongs only on the page of the relevant taxa, not here. Any objections? Mokele (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are objections. The information may not be interesting to you, but it is interesting to others, and it belongs here since the title of teh article is "largest organisms". —Lowellian (reply) 22:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So where do we draw the line? Do we need an entry on this page of every non-monotypic genus of organism? Because that's going to become one long-ass page. That's my issue - if we don't actually draw a line about what should be included and what shouldn't, the page will continuously accumulate information, 99% of which nobody cares about, which makes it more difficult for users to find the answer to the most common sorts of questions that direct here. Another alternative is to split the page into two sections: "Prominent examples" which includes stuff like largest land animal, largest dinosaur, largest fish, largest tree, etc. and "additional examples" which includes stuff like largest colugo, largest hyrax, largest priapulid worm, largest moss, etc. Information doesn't just need to present, it needs to be coherently organized and accessible. Whether that's the "prominent/additional examples" divide, or just letting someone find the largest whatever by going to that taxon's page. Mokele (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

largest bird of prey Haast's Eagle s extinct

Largest bird of prey Haast's Eagle is long extinct so why do we still put it on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.178.205 (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Table of heaviest terrestrial animals

The length of the walrus in meters seems to be wrong (not just a comma error). Also, the length in feet behind the dot for all animals... is it in inches or in something else? Scarabaeoid (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

giraffe vs. Gaur

The fact that gaurs outweigh giraffes has been challenged at the article Gaur! Go to the discussion page there and defend the assertion in this article if you wish, because if the editor has better citations than this article, this article will be changed. Chrisrus (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Largest Turtles

The information presented in this article is incorrect. Archelon was NOT the largest turtle of all time; see here: http://cameronmccormick.blogspot.com/2010/03/stupendemys-giant-amongst-mega-turtles.html

Additionally, this article makes absolutely no mention of Colossochelys atlas, which was overall larger than Meiolania. I made an edit regarding these issues, but it was reverted due to having no source. This is painfully hypocritical, as practically everything else in that section is unsourced aside from the dinosaurs. 67.170.217.51 (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Theoretical upper limit to size

What is the the limiting factor that prevents mammals from evolving larger? Does anyone know? I came to this article curious about this, and i think if some one knows it should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.207.8 (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Top Ten Biggest Animals!

You know what would be really helpful!?! If you had a list of the top ten biggest animals that ever existed! Of course when I say the "top ten biggest animals to ever exist," I don't mean the top ten biggest that exist today. Nor what the biggest creature in its own specie is. No I mean the biggest animals that science has ever known to exist. It doesn't necessary have to be a perfect list. You could mention for instance that number seven is debatable as the biggest or something of that nature. Just as long as in your article you make a list of the biggest animals ever. This would be so cool! I've looked everywhere on the internet for this and still haven't been able to find it. Please don't just do it for me do it for the world. To inform others of what science has considered to be the biggest animals ever found. Please oh please do this!!!-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.18.254 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory Jellyfish

This article contradicts one it links to about the size of the jellyfish that washed up in MA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion%27s_mane_jellyfish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.237.30.2 (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Giant Barrel Sponge

Where are the citations for the Giant Barrel Sponge? It doesn't sound wrong so I won't tag it, my reason for asking is that they would come in handy in expanding the Giant barrel sponge article. Such a wierd and giagantic creature should get something better than a measley stub. Chrisrus (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Desperately needs table of contents

Seriously, some people are going to want to skim directly to the largest cephalopods or the largest mushrooms or whatever, we should have a table of contents. Especially if there are also sections they want to avoid (like this arachnophobe and chilopodophobe would rather not have to see the spider and centipede pics to get to the later sections). Does anyone know where there isn't one? I thought after articles reached a certain length they automatically generated a table of contents. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ivantosaurus is NOT a pelycosaur

Ivantasaurus is a Biarmosuchian (it's listed as such on your own page). No one (to the best of my knowledge) has ever said Biarmosuchians are pelycosaurs. Pelycosaurs are non-Therapsid synapsids, and Biarmosuchians are definitly Therapsids (Gauthier et al 1988, Liu et al 2009, Amson & Laurin 2011, Kemp 2009, Rubidge & Sidor 2001). The largest predetory pelycosaur is boring old Dimetrodon, I'm afraid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.100.83 (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Rhino

The One-horned rhinoceros iss larger than the White rhinoceros.