Was I wrong about the biggest land mammal to ever live?...

[@Paleo_Curious]

I have been summoned

[@t1000eg]

same 👌🏽

[@celtofcanaanesurix2245]

I wish Namadicus or Antiquus were still around, they'd be a sight to behold

[@subraxas]

And what a feast to relish and devour. 😀

[@oscarstainton]

Such an amazing titan of prehistory; Paleoloxodon namadicus was a real life Oliphaunt / Mumakil!

[@subraxas]

"Mummy-Kill"? 😀

[@VeganSanatani]

My question is, why are mammals so dense ?

[@Nenerii]

Because we're awesome

[@Aorun7]

They are normal. Only bird related dinosaurs have hollow bones for some adaptations

[@Kentuckyhunter58]

@@Aorun7 there’s more bird species than mammal species so doesn’t that make us the odd ones?

[@Aorun7]

@@Kentuckyhunter58 actually yes. Animals that lay eggs could increase their population quickly because they can lay eggs quickly and make much more chicks. While mammals often makes 1-2 babies in few months or in a year and they hardly survive. Short life of birds also makes them more advanced at keeping their population high. In 1-3 years any bird specie quickly being able to breed to make many eggs. While mammals more advanced at things like intelligence and durability

[@joeybulford5266]

Yea that was my question too. Those large dinosaurs look pretty dense lol. And as far as I know the sauropods didn’t have hollow bones.

[@thekingedofjay1142]

In my opinion paraceratherium and palaeoloxodon held hands in being the largest land mammals :)

[@mitchellskene8176]

Grass actually did exist during the Cretaceous, it just didn't become widespread untill well after the dinosaurs had gone extinct.

[@Forestguardian]

The elephants are always One-Upping the rhino's

[@LouisFryer-q5r]

BIG ELPHAT NOCKS OUT THE PARK

[@polishheavies8205]

Is there any comparison between the weight bearing bones of Paraceratherium and P. Namadicus

[@David-ni5hj]

Good point...

[@Paleo_Curious]

I love your videos Dino- gen

[@dino-gen]

Thank you! I appreciate you watching them :)

[@subraxas]

Romantically? 😀

[@Paleo_Curious]

@@subraxas 🤫

[@myleswelnetz6700]

As of September 30th, 2024, that record currently stands with Palaeoloxodon namadicus.

[@chief2379]

No thank you. Keep making these amazing videos. 😮‍💨🔥

[@dbx1233]

At 1:12 the skeletal structure of this animal looks incredibly robust. Are the bone structure of today's elephants this strong?

[@prashantsinghsisodia6709]

Obviously yes

[@dbx1233]

@@prashantsinghsisodia6709 A Wooley Mammoth has a much bigger and stronger structure than todays elephants. You goofy !d!ot.

[@subraxas]

7:21 - This statement about evolution of grasses is highly debatable.

[@dino-gen]

Yeah that is true, whilst it’s known that some grass precursors did exist, they were extraordinarily rare and might or might not have been considered ‘true grass’

[@subraxas]

Super-Babar 🙂

[@yahwea]

Some content creators say to leave a message, as that helps the algo. Interesting episode. Los Angeles

[@user-mv9um7tv4c]

Great video

[@nathangordon6568]

Thanks for the video!

[@kennethschalhoub6627]

Your videos are great. Please explain how a few bones can tell us so much,

[@TheRaptorRex]

To put it simply we can compare the discovered bones to their modern day relatives to get rough size estimates

[@dino-gen]

Thank you! Well, palaeontologists do the best they can through phylogenetic bracketing, which is basically surmising something we don't know directly through comparison of relatives. For example, we don't need preserved hair on a Smilodon to guess that it was most likely hairy. Extrememly oversimplified example, but hopefully you get the idea :)

[@joeyjo-joshabadu9636]

Its impossible to know for sure which species of land mammal was larger, because we are looking at such a small sample size

[@UncleTimTheHermit]

I'd watch a video or even a series about the development of plant life.

[@malcontender6319]

6:49 Sounds like enough to cover in a new video~

[@IwanPieterse-iwanzbiz]

Look Mr Frodo …

[@jamesasimmons]

Teeth of this animal were found in Yangyuan dating between 2000 BC and 1000BC. Also dwarf ones were found the Greek island tilos dating to 500BC.

[@themanofmemes4911]

New Dino Gen video, life may not be so bad after all. Terrible joke, i know, but hey comment for more engagement

[@TheOverseerDebates]

Pretty difficult to say for sure, but in my opinion, I think it is more reliable to have Paraceratherium over Palaeoloxodon

[@muhammadariel1295]

Bigger than Mammoth

[@Chordus_Gaius]

Isn't the contest between paraceratherium and paleoloxodon tied?

[@Thundernugget]

I think it's a lot like the modern elephant v giraffe debate. I'm sure the paraceratherium was taller but the Paleloxodon was probably heavier

[@GIGADEV690]

​@@Thundernugget There's no giraffe vs elephant debate WTF you talking about

[@Chordus_Gaius]

@@GIGADEV690 I think we missed this debate XD

[@GODEYE270115]

@@Thundernuggetthere is no debate, size is predominantly determined by overall mass. Giraffes can’t compete So Paleo is the biggest with current estimates

[@prashantsinghsisodia6709]

​@Thundernugget palaeoloxodon namadicus was not as robust as palaeoloxodon antiquus, it had longer and thinner limbs . If it had been then it was likely weighing same as paraceratherium.

[@someoneyoumightormightnotk3602]

Technically, Paraceratherium would still be the biggest land mammal. Let me cook: Palaeoloxodon namadicus, like modern Loxodonta, had extreme sexual dimorphism, the females would be much smaller, slimmer and lighter than the males (who are always the record holders for size in modern elephants and loxodonts). On average, modern populations of elephants and loxodonts are mostly female, the males are not as common, especially the biggest bulls. Plus, the ultimate record size of Palaeoloxodon isn’t the average size at all lol. Paraceratherium however, like most Perissodactyls, would have had relatively minute sexual dimorphism, the males and females are usually within the same size range although there’s still a usual trend for larger males across the board. Put two and two together, Paraceratherium would still be the largest land mammal just by its own species’ average size.🗣️

[@mhdfrb9971]

How does a land mammal that large not cook to death from its own endothermy?

[@daxbashir6232]

The answer is its large surface area which can then accommodate a larger number of sweat glands.

[@discobolos4227]

He recently answered this very question in relation to Sauropods, at the end of one of his videos.

[@JustAlex96]

So if one were to drop herbivorous dinosaurs onto modern earth, would they be unable to make use of the vast grasslands?

[@TreetheSmelt]

Idk if they’d even be able to eat grass

[@VeganSanatani]

There are a lot of modern day herbivores that do not eat grass..so I don't think it will be that different

[@mousedeer7837]

Best bet would be to drop them in swamps like everglades (triceratops) or strongholds for the last remaining Gondwanan plants like New Caledonia and Aoteroa for more primitive herbivores (stegosaurus and some sauropods)

[@AncientWildTV]

The flora of that time was quite different from today’s so they might not be well-suited to digesting or utilizing modern grasses ig

[@ExtremeMadnessX]

​@@TreetheSmeltThey find traces of grass in sauropods coprolite.

[@shibalikchakraborty5344]

I have a serious question about Purussaurus. Why was it so massive? it was reaching sizes close to deinosuchus while the animals deinosuchus lived alongside massive dinosaurs, purussaurus didn't have any such colossal prey that I could find. So why the enormous size? It is almost always the case with macropredators that whenever a predator grows to huge sizes it is to hunt a huge prey. For example, saltwater crocodiles growing huge to hunt water buffaloes, nile crocodiles growing huge to hunt zebras and cape buffaloes and so on. So why did purussaurus grow so massive? The largest land animal i could find that coexisted with purussaurus was toxodon which was a little bigger than cape buffaloes. So why the colossal size difference between purussaurus and nile crocodiles while they hunted prey about the same size? Were there smaller species of cetaceans that lived in the amazon river alongside our monster caiman? or was amazon river a nursery zone for baby whales to escape the more fierce predators in open ocean (like megalodon and leviatan whales) and purussaurus simply took advantage of those young whales. Would love to hear more about this.

[@mousedeer7837]

Crocodileans don't have to eat alot so even with smaller prey, Purusaurus could easily grow to massive sizes. Also, during those times, the Amazon was a basin filled with large swatches of wetlands so trophic productivity would have been high enough to sustain a population of super caimans.

[@shibalikchakraborty5344]

@@mousedeer7837 Then how come modern crocodiles don't grow to those sizes?

[@shibalikchakraborty5344]

@@mousedeer7837 show me one example of a macropredatory carnivore evolving into giant sizes without the presence of giant prey.

[@mousedeer7837]

@@shibalikchakraborty5344 Saltwater Crocodile.

[@mousedeer7837]

@@shibalikchakraborty5344 Lower ecological productivity, so less abundance of food.

[@AhmadIImaduddin]

4:22 by Asier Illaramendi, as in football player Illaramendi?

[@David-ni5hj]

It's: Larramendi

[@LS-um3zq]

I wonder if the fossil record supports the Pangia supercontinent theory.

[@globin3477]

Do you mean Pangea? If so, then yes- the palentologist and geologist communities almost univerally agree that Nearly all land was combined into a supercontinent at the very start of the dinosaur age, and that it broke up over the course of the mesozoic. This had huge influences on life, as different dinosaurs evolved on different continents.

[@AncientWildTV]

@@globin3477 you’re right-Pangaea used to describe the supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras. But how did the breakup of Pangaea specifically influence the evolution of different dinosaur species??

[@globin3477]

@@AncientWildTV When a population of animals is separated such that they can no longer interbreed (for a very long period of time), they will inevitably start to change in different ways until they become two species- and that's not even beginning to factor in the different environments on the two landmasses that might push the animals in two different directions. There are also lots of types of dinosaurs that evolved after the continents broke up- for example, Abelisaurs, if I am correct, only ever lived in south America, while Tyrannosaurs and Ceratopsians evolved in Asia and eventually managed to colonize the Americas through a land bridge. Islands, too, impact evolution: In Europe, which was mostly underwater in the age of the dinosaurs, Many small islands hosted species of dinosaurs much smaller than their mainland relatives (as there was less food to go around on an island, making it harder to support large body sizes: This is called the island dwarf effect, and it resulted in many small species of elephants (which are sadly all extinct now) during the cenezoic).

[@AncientWildTV]

@@globin3477 amazing. The island dwarf effect is a well-documented phenomenon where species on islands evolve smaller sizes due to limited resources. BTW given the impact of geographical isolation and environmental factors on evolution, how might modern climate change and human-induced habitat fragmentation influence the future trajectories of species evolution?

[@globin3477]

@@AncientWildTV Mostly by killing off the most powerful apex predators and charismatic megafauna, who are least able to adapt to a human dominated world. Smaller, more adaptable mesopredators might start to get a little bigger in response, though that would be difficult to measure on human timescales. Some of the roles taken by apex predators in the past may need to be taken up by human hunters and culling teams. Regarding climate change specifically, I predict that most animals specialized towards very cold habitats will die out, and animals and plants from warmer biomes will move in to take their place. There will also be a spread of superdeserts where even desert plants like cacti struggle to survive.

[@nickrider5220]

The two mammal behemoths have to be linked as the largest land mammals to ever have lived, they are too close to separate with our fossil knowledge. Was this gigantism for protection against carnivores, I believe it often is - being huge is a massive disadvantage during times of shortage, so the size had to be worth the trouble.

[@CraigGibbons-p4d]

They believe they still survive in India in certain wild parts. They call them the Rajaguard Elephants. They are massive with giant chrom domes too.

[@kennethschalhoub6627]

I am tired of seeing three pices of bones and project what they were.

[@GreenPoint_one]

Yeah, assumptions arent good ideas. Science should stay with facts. Only physicists should play with guessing :3 And sci fi entertainment 😇

[@joaorodrigues4494]

My dissertation touched on Paraceratherium and Paleoloxodon weights among other topics, Paraceratherium is smaller

[@erichtomanek4739]

Wrong! The largest mammal to ever live is: Gigantolizzo twerkyensis I've read that the call resembles the trilling of a flute.

[@SPIOoner]

you made that creature up

[@daxbashir6232]

@@SPIOoner Lol!

[@indyreno2933]

Actually, Paraceratherium bugtiense was the largest land mammal that ever lived, the Indian Straight-Tusked Elephant (Palaeoloxodon namadicus) is actually only the fourth largest land mammal that ever lived as the Steppe Mammoth (Mammuthus trogontherii) and Deinotherium giganteum are all larger than the indian straight-tusked elephant too, thus making Deinotherium giganteum the largest proboscidean that ever lived and the Steppe Mammoth (Mammuthus trogontherii) the largest elephant that ever lived Paraceratherium bugtiense weighs over 30-36 tonnes Deinotherium giganteum weighs over 22 tonnes The Steppe Mammoth (Mammuthus trogontherii) weighs over 18 tonnes And the Indian Straight-Tusked Elephant (Palaeoloxodon namadicus) weighs over 15 tonnes

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

Beware of a commenter called Indy Reno posting nonsense taxonomy and other flawed info. He does this all the time and stubbornly ignores criticism. Further, when confronted, he frequently replies; 'actually' followed by a wall of even more flawed taxonomy, none of which addresses the first round of nonsense. For example, he claims Paraceratherium bugtiense weighs over 30-36 tonnes, when it is nowhere near that weight. Same for other weights claimed.

[@indyreno2933]

@Dr.Ian-Plect, Paraceratherium bugtiense was the largest land mammal that ever lived, therefore it weighs over 30-36 tonnes Deinotherium giganteum weighs over 22 tonnes, making it the second largest land mammal that ever lived and the largest proboscidean that ever lived The Steppe Mammoth (Mammuthus trogontherii) weighs over 18 tonnes making it the third largest land mammal that ever lived, the second largest proboscidean that ever lived, and the largest elephant that ever lived And the Indian Straight-Tusked Elephant (Palaeoloxodon namadicus) weighs only 15 tonnes and is therefore only the fourth largest land mammal that ever lived, the third largest proboscidean that ever lived, and the second largest elephant that ever lived

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

@@indyreno2933 As usual, your 'therefores' do not follow from the unsubstantiated drivel that preceded.

[@prashantsinghsisodia6709]

Wake up man

[@The_Story_Of_Us]

I think the big P. Namadicus estimates are unscientific at best and therefore invalid. The large leg bone it is based on was not detailed in its measurements and lacks either precedent or any ability to be verified. But at least the lower end estimates for Namadicus fall in the same range as that which is accepted for P. recki and are therefore more credible as well as being based on more material. Therefore, Paraceratherium retains the crown. Although, it may be possible a large specimen of the Steppe Mammoth is larger, with a potential 4.5 meter shoulder height based of a large humerus and a weight estimate of over 14 tons.

[@indyreno2933]

The Steppe Mammoth (Mammuthus trogontherii) is larger than the Indian Straight-Tusked Elephant (Palaeoloxodon namadicus) but not larger than Paraceratherium bugtiense, surprisingly Deinotherium giganteum is bigger than both the steppe mammoth and the indian straight-tusked elephant.

[@The_Story_Of_Us]

@@indyreno2933 huh, that’s not what I’ve read. I thought Deinotherium has a shoulder height of just about 4 meters flat, the same size as the largest African Bush Elephant

[@indyreno2933]

@The_Story_Of_Us, incorrect, Deinotherium giganteum was the largest proboscidean that ever lived and the steppe mammoth (Mammuthus trogontherii) was the largest elephant that ever lived, Paraceratherium bugtiense was the largest land mammal that ever lived, all three of these are bigger than the indian straight-tusked elephant (Palaeoloxodon namadicus).

[@The_Story_Of_Us]

@@indyreno2933 I said the largest African Bush Elephant, Loxodonta africana. Can you provide a source for the Deinotherium claim that like includes measurements of a specimen? Like genuinely I’m really curious about this stuff.

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

@@The_Story_Of_Us Beware of a commenter called Indy Reno posting nonsense taxonomy and other flawed info. He does this all the time and stubbornly ignores criticism. Further, when confronted, he frequently replies; 'actually' followed by a wall of even more flawed taxonomy, none of which addresses the first round of nonsense.

[@max2008abhi]

Paleoloxodon namadicus has been immortalised in Indian legends as eravat the giant elephant of the gods.

[@aryantyagi12a]

elephant of indra the thunder god

[@GIGADEV690]

It's different it went extinct before Indian civilization another wanna be proud Indian cringe

[@sagnikchatterjee2946]

Na na na . Eravat is portrayed to have 7 tusks , these however do not.

[@daxbashir6232]

🤍 🤍 🤍