1
$\begingroup$

In most books the size of long-necked sauropod Mamenchisaurus is stated as about 26 meters. Recently, a huge specimen of Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum was discovered. However, Gregory S. Paul estimates its size in length of 35 meters and weight of more than 65,000 kg, rivaling Argentinosaurus and Patagotitan, the largest known dinosaurs. However, many doubt these estimates and say they are exaggerated. What are the current and most reliable esimates of the size of Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The holotype specimen originally discovered in 1993 is described as being 26m in length:

An articulated neck of a large, mature sauropod, with enormously elongated cervical ribs, was discovered in strata of Late Jurassic age in the eastern Junggar Basin, Xinjiang, People's Republic of China. The animal is estimated to have originally measured 26 m in length, but was lightly proportioned relative to Brachiosaurus and Apatosaurus.

...

In the present specimen, one rib from the midregion of the neck was seen to be at least 3540 mm long in the field, and after preparation measures 4100 mm in length.

The larger measurements come from additional remains attributed to this species, but not yet formally described. Here is the relevant section from Paul's book:

enter image description here

Paul's figures are echoed in the following papers:

2006 年,中科院古脊椎所在新疆昌吉奇台(原中加马门溪龙标本发现地附近)发 掘出一具巨型蜥脚类恐龙,经初步鉴定应归入马门溪龙。从发现的部分颈椎长度推测, 这具马门溪龙长度可达 35 m 以上,成为了中国乃至亚洲目前发现的个体最大的恐龙。


[Google Translate]

In the year, the ancient spine of the Chinese Academy of Sciences was located in Changjiqitai, Xinjiang (near the original site of the discovery of the Jiamamen brook specimen).

A giant sauropod dinosaur was excavated and the initial identification should be attributed to Mamenchisaurus. From the length of the cervical spine found, This [Mamenchisaurid] can reach a length of more than 35 m, becoming the largest individual dinosaur ever discovered in China and Asia.


Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum (体长26~35 m)

Though the first paper does not cite a source, and the second paper cites only Russel and Zheng's original paper describing the 26m specimen.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is known. The question is if there is other estimation other than Paul's who is known to be unorthodox in dinosaurs taxonomy and size estimations? $\endgroup$ – Dr. Evenor Jun 29 '18 at 10:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Dr.Evenor As I said, the specimen is "not yet formally described", so as of yet there are no other figures to compare with. Nonetheless I've found another couple of papers which quote the same figure as Paul, but haven't been able to locate the source of this "35m". $\endgroup$ – ukemi Jun 29 '18 at 11:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.