Body size and body volume distribution in two sauropods from the Upper Jurassic of Tendaguru (Tanzania)

Gunga, Hanns‐Christian; Kirsch, K.; Rittweger, Jörn; Röcker, L.; Clarke, A. H.; Albertz, Jörg; Wiedemann, Albert; Mokry, Sascha; Suthau, Tim; Wehr, Aloys; Heinrich, Wolf‐Dieter; Schultze, Hans‐Peter

doi:10.1002/mmng.1999.4860020106

Cited by 21 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2 and 3). Furthermore, and this finding contrasts with what has been established for later sauropods such as B. brancai (Gunga et al 1995;Gunga et al 1999), we find that P. engelhardti Table 1 Changes of body mass, body surface, body surface area, and presumable physiological data of P. engelhardti mounted and exhibited at the Paleontological Museum of the University in Tübingen (Germany) in a slim and robust type of reconstruction For mass estimations, it was assumed, in accordance with Wedel (2005), that 1,000 cm 3 of tissue mass has a specific weight of 0.8 kg.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 54%

“…As it is based on the actual data points derived from skeletons, the methodological approach we have selected (Gunga et al 1995;Gunga et al 1999;Wiedemann et al 1999) to estimate the body mass of large dinosaurs continues to be unique. It differs distinctively from the approaches recently taken by other researchers (Henderson Motani 2001) in that the authors cited did not obtain three-dimensional data from the skeleton.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…brancai (Gunga et al 1999). It remains to be tested whether this type of negative correlation between head volume and body mass truly exists in herbivorous sauropods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the body masses of dinosaurs as presented in scientific literature differ considerably, in particular where large sauropods are concerned (Haubold 1990;Peczkis 1994), we began, in 1995, to use classical photogrammetry to assess the body mass and surface area of a large sauropod (Gunga et al 1995). The highly disparate estimates that can be found in literature are mainly due to (1) the different methods used for mass estimations, such as bone circumferences, and/or (2) the different assumptions made as to tissue density, which can range from 0.8 kg per 1,000 cm 3 tissue to 1.2 kg per 1,000 cm 3 tissue, depending on the anatomical part of the organism being investigated, such as neck, tail, or thorax (Colbert 1962;Lambert 1980;Schmidt-Nielsen 1984;Anderson et al 1985;Withers 1992;Schmidt-Nielsen 1997;Gunga et al 1999;Henderson 1999;Seebacher 2001;Motani 2001;Christiansen and Fariña 2004;Wedel 2003;Wedel 2005). The main advantages and disadvantages of some of these methods have already been subjected to intense scrutiny and discussion in previous papers (Anderson et al 1985;Alexander 1989;Gunga et al 1995;Gunga et al 1999;Henderson 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Body mass estimations for Plateosaurus engelhardti using laser scanning and 3D reconstruction methods

Gunga

Suthau²,

Bellmann³

et al. 2007

Naturwissenschaften

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both body mass and surface area are factors determining the essence of any living organism. This should also hold true for an extinct organism such as a dinosaur. The present report discusses the use of a new 3D laser scanner method to establish body masses and surface areas of an Asian elephant (Zoological Museum of Copenhagen, Denmark) and of Plateosaurus engelhardti, a prosauropod from the Upper Triassic, exhibited at the Paleontological Museum in Tübingen (Germany). This method was used to study the effect that slight changes in body shape had on body mass for P. engelhardti. It was established that body volumes varied between 0.79 m(3) (slim version) and 1.14 m(3) (robust version), resulting in a presumable body mass of 630 and 912 kg, respectively. The total body surface areas ranged between 8.8 and 10.2 m(2), of which, in both reconstructions of P. engelhardti, approximately 33% account for the thorax area alone. The main difference between the two models is in the tail and hind limb reconstruction. The tail of the slim version has a surface area of 1.98 m(2), whereas that of the robust version has a surface area of 2.73 m(2). The body volumes calculated for the slim version were as follows: head 0.006 m(3), neck 0.016 m(3), fore limbs 0.020 m(3), hind limbs 0.08 m(3), thoracic cavity 0.533 m(3), and tail 0.136 m(3). For the robust model, the following volumes were established: 0.01 m(3) head, neck 0.026 m(3), fore limbs 0.025 m(3), hind limbs 0.18 m(3), thoracic cavity 0.616 m(3), and finally, tail 0.28 m(3). Based on these body volumes, scaling equations were used to assess the size that the organs of this extinct dinosaur have.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 54%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…brancai (Gunga et al 1999). It remains to be tested whether this type of negative correlation between head volume and body mass truly exists in herbivorous sauropods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Body mass estimations for Plateosaurus engelhardti using laser scanning and 3D reconstruction methods

Gunga

Suthau²,

Bellmann³

et al. 2007

Naturwissenschaften

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cranial volume estimates in sauropods range from ca. 0.05 m 3 in Dicraeosaurus [50] to 0.2 m 3 in Brachiosaurus [51], compared to to ca. 0.3 m 3 in the hadrosaur Edmontosaurus [52].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Inferences of Diplodocoid (Sauropoda: Dinosauria) Feeding Behavior from Snout Shape and Microwear Analyses

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAs gigantic herbivores, sauropod dinosaurs were among the most important members of Mesozoic communities. Understanding their ecology is fundamental to developing a complete picture of Jurassic and Cretaceous food webs. One group of sauropods in particular, Diplodocoidea, has long been a source of debate with regard to what and how they ate. Because of their long lineage duration (Late Jurassic-Late Cretaceous) and cosmopolitan distribution, diplodocoids formed important parts of multiple ecosystems. Additionally, fortuitous preservation of a large proportion of cranial elements makes them an ideal clade in which to examine feeding behavior.Methodology/Principal FindingsHypotheses of various browsing behaviors (selective and nonselective browsing at ground-height, mid-height, or in the upper canopy) were examined using snout shape (square vs. round) and dental microwear. The square snouts, large proportion of pits, and fine subparallel scratches in Apatosaurus, Diplodocus, Nigersaurus, and Rebbachisaurus suggest ground-height nonselective browsing; the narrow snouts of Dicraeosaurus, Suuwassea, and Tornieria and the coarse scratches and gouges on the teeth of Dicraeosaurus suggest mid-height selective browsing in those taxa. Comparison with outgroups (Camarasaurus and Brachiosaurus) reinforces the inferences of ground- and mid-height browsing and the existence of both non-selective and selective browsing behaviors in diplodocoids.Conclusions/SignificanceThese results reaffirm previous work suggesting the presence of diverse feeding strategies in sauropods and provide solid evidence for two different feeding behaviors in Diplodocoidea. These feeding behaviors can subsequently be tied to paleoecology, such that non-selective, ground-height behaviors are restricted to open, savanna-type environments. Selective browsing behaviors are known from multiple sauropod clades and were practiced in multiple environments.

show abstract

Body mass estimate of Anancus arvernensis (Croizet and Jobert 1828): comparison of the regression and volumetric methods

Romano

Bellucci²,

Antonelli

et al. 2023

J Quaternary Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this contribution, we estimate the possible living body mass (BM) of the anancine gomphotheriid Anancus arvernensis, by testing a recently proposed volumetric method based on hyper‐realistic in vivo 3D reconstructions and comparing the results with the BM obtained by using regression formulas. The analysis, conducted starting from two articulated skeletons, showed that the performance of regression formulas varies considerably from taxon to taxon, with plausible estimates obtained only when the mean of all the formulas on the individual bones is available and considered. Differently, formulas applied to single bones can lead to underestimations or overestimations of up to 300%, with BM ranging from 54 kg to 26 metric tonnes. By using the volumetric method, the in vivo reconstruction of Anancus arvernensis made it possible to estimate a BM between 5.2 and 6 t, a figure close to that of an extant adult male African elephant. The obtained results show that estimating BM in terrestrial tetrapods from single or fragmented bones might lead to highly improbable and misleading conclusions. Thus, in the presence of adequately complete mounted skeletons, it is always preferable and recommended to estimate the BM using the volumetric approach, which is based on an in vivo 3D reconstruction.

show abstract

Body size and body volume distribution in two sauropods from the Upper Jurassic of Tendaguru (Tanzania)

Cited by 21 publications

References 24 publications

Body mass estimations for Plateosaurus engelhardti using laser scanning and 3D reconstruction methods

Body mass estimations for Plateosaurus engelhardti using laser scanning and 3D reconstruction methods

Inferences of Diplodocoid (Sauropoda: Dinosauria) Feeding Behavior from Snout Shape and Microwear Analyses

Body mass estimate of Anancus arvernensis (Croizet and Jobert 1828): comparison of the regression and volumetric methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About