From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dinosaurs (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gravityless image is pure fantasy![edit]

I contest the included picture in the article. Is there any solid proof these argentosaruide giants could roam dry lands like biological versions of the AT-AT imperial walker? Common mechanical wisdom suggests a 100+ tons body would collapse the legs under its own weight! The fact that their nose openings were on top of the head indicates they lived in waters and their body was always submerged to support the vast weight with buoyancy. Only the top of their heads were above water ever. 21:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Water pressure would have crushed their lungs. Sauropods instead appear to have preferred drier areas, where their large digestive systems would have been an advantage for dealing with low-quality food. J. Spencer 22:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus "common mechanical wisdom" is generally bollocks. -- John.Conway 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, why don't you actually do a little research on sauropod anatomy before you run around all whilly-nilly babbling about ideas known to be false since the 1950s. And as for your statement "is there any solid proof these Argentinosaurus (not "argentinosaruide") giants could roam dry land", my answer is, Lord yes, beyond doubt. In fact, a better question would be is there any solid evidence against terrestrial sauropods? Some sauropod skeletons show fossilized remnants of terrestrial plants in their rib cages, there are sauropod trackways found in areas believed to have been far from water at the time the prints were made, not to mention the fact that water pressure would crush their lungs, and most sauropods could barely raise their necks above their shoulders, making it impossible to assume the vertical position the animal would need in order to breathe underwater. You obviously don't know anything about actual sauropod anatomy, so shut up and take your time machine home to the 1930s, where people might actually endorse your idiotic views on dinosaurs!-- (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Please add this info to the article instead of just leaving it here. I've made a section for it: Argentinosaurus#Theories_of_aquatic_lifestyle. Gronky (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Questionable statement[edit]

"(...) after all of its more familiar Laurasian Jurassic kin — like Apatosaurus — had long disappeared"

What is this supposed to mean? Did sauropods go extinct in Laurasia at the start of the Cretaceous? Why Apatosaurus, given that it's not closely related? I think the sentence is misleading at best. -- John.Conway 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Titanosaurs survived in Laurasia into the LK. Maybe something more along the lines of "after the diplodocid sauropods had gone extinct", or simply remove it as irrelevent. Dinoguy2 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Arigintinasaurus aquatic??? you have to be kidding! Everyone knows that was imposssible! Either you are someone who was somehow transported through time from the 1930s or you are a creationist. mechanical knowledge says ortherwise. T.Neo 12:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no implication in the article that it might have been aquatic? Circeus 00:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think, he was refering to the anonymous comment on this page above ("gravityless ..."). ArthurWeasley 05:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was refering to the comment above on that page. The idea that sauropods were aquatic is outdated. "Common mechanical knowledge" actually points otherwise. At that depth the lungs would have collapsed. and the sauropds couldn't lift their necks into a vertical position.T.Neo 11:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please add this info to the article instead of just leaving it here. I've made a section for it: Argentinosaurus#Theories_of_aquatic_lifestyle. Gronky (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
For the record, we don't know the position of the nostrils on the head in this species because we have never found the head, but modern research shows the actual nostril opening was at the tip of the snout anyway [1]. Additionally, submerging the body in water would be impossible because sauropods were filled with air sacs like birds and, also like birds, would have floated on the top of the water without special adaptations for diving deeper [2]. The only thing worse than hundred-year old argument is debunking them with 50 year old counter-arguments. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you add any of this to the article? This isn't one of my areas of interest or expertise, but I got involved because it seems a waste to have such things documented only on the Talk page. Gronky (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
As I mentioned on my talk page, such info is not relevant here, old theories like that were suggested for sauropods in general and discredited again long before Argentinosaurus was even found. It only makes sense on the general sauropod article, and it is indeed already there. FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
From the most recent edit: "n the first half of the twentieth century, some experts suggested that Argentinosaurus was in fact aquatic." Given that Argentinosaurus was discovered in the 1990s, I hope you can understand why this statement is ridiculous... MMartyniuk (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
For a topic that has been the feature of hour-long documentaries and numerous scientific papers, the article is very short and vague. Meanwhile, here on the talk page there are editors who seem pretty confident about their knowledge. But the article is left in its poor state. That's what's ridiculous. Gronky (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
It is not ridiculous to add irrelevant material to an article just to make it longer? Seriously? Did you even read the arguments? How can we say a theory was proposed for the lifestyle of this specific animal, when it was deemed inaccurate a century before the animal was even discovered? Over a century ago, pterosaurs were proposed to be flying marsupials. Do you want us to add this "fact" to the, say, Eoazhdarcho page (named in 2005), just to make it longer? FunkMonk (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
" has been the feature of hour-long documentaries" So what? Documentaries focus on this animal for one reason only - it's big. That's about all we know about it, and that fact is talked about in the article. The skeleton is extremely incomplete and we don't have interesting things like behavioral traces, nesting sites, pathologies, etc. to write about. Argentinosaurus is simply an animal whose fame exceeds its scientific importance. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the exact length and weight of Argentinosaurus?[edit]

Hello, I'm zh:User:Hoseumou from zh.wikipedia. I have some question about the length and weight of Argentinosaurus.

  • The DinoData say Argentinosaurus is 30 metres in length.
  • Thomas R. Holtz's paper say Argentinosaurus is 36.6 (120 ft) metres in length.
  • DinoRuss say Argentinosaurus is 40-45 metres in length, 80-100 tonnes in weight.

And there are many different internet websites showing different datas, such as: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], even the en.wikipedia & es.wikipedia have different data.

I know Argentinosaurus fossils is very fragmentry, but I ask for the exact length and weight of Argentinosaurus. User:hoseumou 15:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, we don't know sadly, Argentinosaurus is very fragmentry, the reason the sizes vary is because they are all estimates. It's only known from a few vertebra, some femurs and a tibia. :( Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The DinoRuss estimate is the oldest, so that one can be discounted. DinoData is probably going from Ken Carpenter's 2006 paper on giant sauropods. It can be downloaded here. I'm not sure which estimate Holtz used.
It's okay to use a range of estimates, especially since there would have been a range in the real animal. I would write it something like: Argentinosaurus was first estimated at X meters long and weighing Y tonnes.<reference> Later estimates have downsized it to a range of W meters<reference> to V meters<reference> long, with a weight of T tonnes<reference> to U tonnes.<reference>.
This is the best option. It should be made clear that we don't know how big it actually was, because without little details like complete neck and tail, it's impossible to know its relative proportions to other sauropods for comparison. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I've another question. The DinoData said maximum width of 1st dorsal vertebra is 129 cm, height is in 159cm; height of 2nd dorsal vertebra is 115cm. This article said one of Argentinosaurus's vertebra had a length of 1.3 meters, what is the length talking about? Dorsoventral, anteroposterior, or left-right? Finally, I still hope that both of you can find out more papers about Argentinosaurus, thank you. User talk:hoseumou 01:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dinosaur sexuality and blind young needs a reference[edit]

I would say the following section needs a reference or two:

'The Argentinosaurus was the most sexually active dinosaur living on Earth, they would generally lay up too 10000 eggs in a life time. The newborn were born blind and only developed full sight within 2 years. This would allow the dinosaur to fully develop their hearing first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Largest dinosaur ever.[edit]

I think the sentence stating there were larger species of dinosaurs should be removed. It's a strong statement without merit and sentences like this chip away at wikipedias status as a credible source of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's not the biggest, what is?[edit]

The intro seems overly vague about its size:

It is among the largest known dinosaurs.

What does that mean? It's in the top 100?

I'm no expert on this topic, but would it not be fair to say "Many experts believe argentinosaurus to be the largest known dinosaur"? (Or should that be "land-based dinosaur"?) Or "After XYZosaur, argentinosaurus is possibly the largest (land-based) dinosaur"? Gronky (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


Why there are no sources for that estimate? And if you have sources, that information would be useful to me. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is in the article (footnote 6) Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with User Dinoguy2.!--AlfaRocket (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Biomechanics and speed[edit]

Is there any published critique on the inaccuracies of the Museo Carmen Funes mount? the conclusions of the analysis done by Sellers et al (2013) in some form rests on the accuracy of the mount and that is something they acknowledge: "The model relies heavily on the full body skeletal reconstruction and more work needs to be done on other, more complete sauropod specimens to confirm any findings." Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Mass estimate[edit]

Sellers et. al give 3 different values for their mass estimate: 83,230.29 kg (Table 5), 83,230 kg (below Table 3), and 83 tonnes (3 times, in the Abstract, Discussion and Conclusion). All values other than the 83,230.29 kg value are rounded off. Next to the 83,230 kg value they state: "However it must be remembered that these values are necessarily estimates", meaning that they understand that the value displays false precision, which is why they use the 2-digit value elsewhere. If they can round the value off appropriately, surely we can too. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Argentinosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)