The Biggest Land Animals In History: The Megasauropods

Megasauropod dinosaurs were the largest animals to ever walk on land, which some even rivalling the biggest whale species in terms of body mass. When it comes to terrestrial animals, sauropods are far and away the most massive. This video explains the biggest sauropod dinosaurs' size as well as their ecology and physiological adaptations that allowed them to grow so big.
Mega sauropods are the biggest dinosaurs ever by far. So out of the biggest sauropods ever, which mega sauropod claims the title of king? This ranking sorts giant sauropods by size and class within the Megakingdom, and Vividen explains the reasoning for each mass estimate. You may be surprised at the true winner in this contest of the largest sauropod dinosaurs.
Size Estimate Source Document: docs.google.co...
Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):
uppbeat.io/t/a...
License code: ZDZIILBZCRHGCQGC
Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):
uppbeat.io/t/d...
License code: Q8BEFZKKVCQJ1JGJ
Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):
uppbeat.io/t/l...
License code: TMIC8K7OX88JVMG4
Eyes of Glory by Aakash Gandhi
The Battle of 1066 by Patrick Patrikios
How big were dinosaurs? Were they bigger than blue whales? The biggest dinosaur may have been Bruhathkayosaurus matleyi, a huge titanosaur from India, according to a new study by Gregory S. Paul and Asier Larramendi. The two paleontologists analyzed dinosaur size limits to find out the answer to the question: how big were dinosaurs? When it comes to the comparison of “Dinosaurs vs blue whale” and “Dinosaurs vs mammals,” it can go either way. Blue whales are often cited as the biggest animals ever, but with this recent discovery about giant sauropods like Bruhathkayosaurus and Amphicoelias (now Maraapunisaurus) that may not be true. Dinosaurs the size of a blue whale could be more common than previously thought, with multiple sauropod species weighing well over 100 tonnes. But was it really possible that there were dinosaurs the size of a blue whale? Find out here on The Vividen!
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @thevividen

[@MourningCoffeeMusic]

The biggest sauropod is Spinosaurus.

[@monsterzero521]

🤡

[@TaurusSaurus]

Facts.

[@JS53516]

True

[@toranydangit]

I agree

[@kailanerman5090]

No way man!!! Giganticosaurus is the biggest cerotopsian the world has ever seen!!! 💯

[@joaovitorambrosiomilani3553]

I can't stop thinking that these are not the biggest exemplars of their species, these are the ones that just ended up fossilized.

[@devinvalero7452]

With how rare fossilization is - that's practically a guarantee! These specimens are often literally one in a million, the odds of the ones we find being the absolute largest of their species is near zero.

[@raylopez99]

@@devinvalero7452 Sounds like the famous Monty Hall paradox, but yes.

[@Strawberrymilkdrink]

The thought of herd of these things is crazy

[@Rage7860]

Remember. The larger the bones the more likely they will be fossilized too

[@raylopez99]

@@Rage7860 Pace Cambrian period jellyfish.

[@gladiolus5377]

There are a lot of creatures from the past that I want to see in person, but the biggest of sauropods are possibly at the top of that list. Truly a shame we will never be able to see the spectable who were the most magnificent creatures to ever walk the earth.

[@pedroroque829]

You can see a titan bigger than any of them. The mighty blue whale, you can even dive with them.

[@raylopez99]

@@pedroroque829 Supported by water, that doesn't count. Also blue whales are protected so it's hard to dive with them. I personally say bring back the sauropods using genetic engineering; I'd like to see 200+ ton dinos walking the earth. Tho the EPA would have an issue with their methane gas emissions.

[@pedroroque829]

@@raylopez99 200 tons is a big of a stretch. Over 100 tonnes sure but 200 is probably an exaggeration

[@nirudangaragoda5286]

I'll probably sell my soul to see *ANY* dinosaur but on the other hand us humans don't deserve to witness such magnificent creatures. Most of us can't even appreciate all the amazing animals that live alongside us. So what makes us deserving of seeing the biggest animals to ever walk the earth?

[@eel5618]

​@@raylopez99Genes dont work like that its sadly imposible to bring them back and also 200 TONS IS WAY TOO MUCH

[@GODEYE270115]

A land animal that could possibly rival the blue whale. I didn’t think I’d live to see that Dinosaurs were just built different

[@TheVividen]

Truly

[@prasanth2601]

@@TheVividen Are we absolutely sure regarding Bruh..Saur being an actual dino?? I mean how come all of a sudden it's being declared as the biggest dino. Also was it's size estimates accepted among palaeontological community.

[@concept5631]

​@@prasanth2601 Sauropods have always been considered the largest group of dinosaurs. That was never in question.

[@TaurusSaurus]

@@prasanth2601 Assuming the fossils actually belong to it yeah.

[@Tyrannosaurine]

Literally everything is “built different” or everything would be the exact same as everything else regardless of how many times you repeat the same tired trope as everyone else.

[@qwellen7521]

The closest the world got to actual kajiu.

[@grzybowy1680]

Prehistoric Planet's Dreadnoughtus fight scene is basically a real life kaiju battle

[@Fossil_Blade]

I used to just go "haha scally giraffe" when i was young. But now, I can't imagine what it would be like to just stand in a yard and watch as one of these creatures the size of a building walk past you.

[@jamesoldham9995]

"Fermentation based digestion" Imagine the farts these things produced

[@MichalArchangelo]

Add another theory to the list of possible causes of the K-Pg extinction event

[@jurassicsmackdown6359]

Just huffing dinosaur farts and getting high 😭😭😹

[@bethaneh5318]

@@jurassicsmackdown6359why did you have to put that image in my head 😭😭😭😂😂

[@mstr293]

You forgot the biggest Worldbreaker-class sauropod: Yo Mama!

[@jurassicsmackdown6359]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOH 👀

[@thebeatles114]

🤣🤣

[@Maxine71365]

Ayo what? 💀

[@MeiPaul-pc4gu]

Nah more like Caseoh💀

[@FA-18ESuperHornet-jm7my]

Yomamasaurus and Caseohtitan are two of the biggest megasauropods

[@Ornitholestes1]

I’m confused now. Are these average masses, or averages of mass estimates for the largest known specimens? And if the latter, then what criteria were used to decide what mass estimates to include, and what mass estimates to exclude? (e.g. I assume that old 80 t mass estimates for _Giraffatitan brancai_ were not included, despite being peer-reviewed, due to being clearly ridiculous, but where do you draw the line what to in- and what to exclude?). Also, if it is the latter, you are missing the Oklahoma Apatosaurine material, some of which indicates an animal easily in 70-80 t territory.

[@dynojackal1911]

If the K-Pg extinction hadn't occurred, I'd wager that India, Southeast Asia, and China would be home to giant sauropods as big or bigger than Bruhathkayosaurus. What do you think the maximum size for megatheropods have been, both terrestrial and fully aquatic (had Spinosaurus survived long enough to evolve into new genera)?

[@raylopez99]

1000 tons says another comment, the maximum weight a skeleton can handle. Imagine 10 blue whales (or five of the largest blue whales ever recorded) running down the street to meet you since they recognize you as their mother from the time they imprinted when they were the size of a small chick. Just a small misstep by them and they would unfortunately squash you.

[@Doomguyhunter1]

The max theoretical size for a bipedal megatheropod would probably be in the 15-tonne range, and for an aquatic one, I don't know, but something like that could get very big.

[@zainmudassir2964]

India would've been island in Indian Ocean

[@dynojackal1911]

@@zainmudassir2964 I mean in an Alter-Earth Holocene

[@tobiasedwards2643]

I’m so happy that 2 of my most favorite dinosaurs are among the biggest being, the Brachiosaurus and the T. rex.

[@seanledden4397]

Super fun and super satisfying compilation. Thank you!

[@JonathanLopez-bk7rx]

I love your ranking system. a little 40k'ish in there?

[@Manny4Life948]

Here’s an interesting thought: these dinosaurs have some of the biggest competition with each other, because of their need to find so much food.

[@TheGBZard]

This video is really cool. Also about the Patagotitan I don’t think it was a memorial treck as sauropods were probably pretty stupid. Very small brains for their bodies and most of their energy went towards fueling their bodies

[@arturleperoke3205]

CAPTAIN NEEDED: years ago, I read that Maarapunisaurus and Bruhathkayosaurus are not taken seriously by Paleontologist any more ? (probably because their remains did not preserve until today?) Is that so?

[@ThatBalkanGuy.]

Imagine the fact a modern tank weighs more than them - 60 tonnes, meanwhile Im playing War Thunder and they feel like feathers. And a ship can weigh 160k tonnes-thousands of times their weight. Its just insane when you think about the human engineering

[@peterolbrisch8970]

Could you imagine the traffic jams they would cause if they were still out there wondering around?

[@IAmTheLazermaN]

Huh... I didn't know Alamosaurus was heavier than Antarctosaurus giganteus...

[@z1az285]

Can you imagine the greenhouse gas emissions at that time? Not to mention the amount of poop everywhere. Yeah, no wonder the poles were equatorial

[@tahustvedt]

I just want a land animal to take over the crown from the blue whale as the biggest/heaviest ever animal. Fingers crossed for a spectacular skeleton find.

[@thefordlord9893]

never gonna happen

[@dologongpoloponobonotongpo235]

@@thefordlord9893 these fraudulent clout chasing paleontologists will make sure that it happens

[@thegamingbean953]

@@thefordlord9893 Its already happened, we just haven't found the fossil yet

[@showcaseshot]

The audio volume is very inconsistent

[@dkoz8321]

An animal 150 tons in mass and nearly 150 feet long from nose to tailtip is beg enough to be visible from low earth orbit with low power telescope or normal binoculars. Thats far too big to exist. Paleomath has to be wrong.

[@thegamingbean953]

Really?

[@aeyelashbug6311]

Some studies show that I am up to 75% more likely to click a video if sauropod is in the title

[@BenBen-kh1dm]

How and the hell did they breed🤔

[@rangerbubblegum7509]

i noticed that the bigger the sauropod the worse evidence. the smaller ones sometimes have full skeletons, the bigger ones just footprints

[@gelobeep8188]

Are Dino bones more dense or something to contain that weight and muscles

[@Jomi91]

Worldbreaker was a famous mace, gifted by the Emperor to his most favoured son.

[@vladline1882]

Is there no Brachiosaurus altithorax specimen who's larger than Giraffatitan? I think the Brachio sp. Is altithorax too

[@goodguykonrad3701]

6:33 I mean, if you like dreadnoughts with legs, I could recommend a franchise to you

[@Lydialo59]

2:27 : *Ashvee noises*

[@Alberad08]

Just: wow!

[@MiniTrial]

Finally actual biggest dinosaur list, not some of the nonsense outdated random facts channel

[@raylopez99]

Biggest blue whale ever, supported by water, was 200 tons. Imagine that last dinosaur weighing as much (if not more, if it was near the average for its kind) and supported on four massive legs. If that beasts stepped on you...

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

You can't state ever, just known.

[@geneticdisorder1900]

Toe jam or boat nectar, nope it that elderly couple from 12B.

[@1370802]

That dinosaur weighed 95 tons, about half of a blue whale

[@MJW238]

I’m not sure that would even be possible. Physics and biology would seem to discount it.

[@elmjojokes7782]

@@MJW238 life finds away Even 70 ton animals walking around and actually Getting enough to eat is actually damn near unbelievable. Like you said, With physics and biology applied it just boggles my mind how it can even be real. It's insanity

[@AgroAcro]

I really hope we find more remains from Bruhathkayosaurus. If we found enough to confirm that 120 ton size that would prove just how large they could get. Also, finding a large carnivore there would also make that rediculously massive size more believable.

[@suricata1993]

Agree because right now I don’t believe for a second on their estimates - so they see a old picture and confidently say that is a sauropod of 110tons on a conservative side? Real science there

[@iron2684]

​@@suricata1993ah yes, we see here an internet warrior that definetly understands the science of determining sauropod size

[@Doomguyhunter1]

​@@iron2684 Good skepticism is important, and I do think bruhath at least couldn't reach anywhere near 170 tonnes, that's literally around 75% larger than maraapunisaurus' giant estimates, though bruhath was still likely very large, but I don't see it being over 130 tonnes, and anyways, a few pictures that don't have much to compare the bones to don't give a good picture of their size, and right now we can't say for sure how big bruhath was, not until we find some more material to give us some definitive information on how big bruhath could've been.

[@suricata1993]

@@iron2684 internet warrior? I’ve been studying dinosaurs for the past 20 years… but yeah, tell me again boy about the scientific weight determination formula use for photos. Go on, I can wait

[@N..P..]

​@@iron2684Ah yes, we see here an idiot who doesn't understand what the phrase 'internet warrior' means but uses it anyway.

[@THX11458]

It's mind blowing to think that, at the very least, there were sauropods that rivaled the mass of a blue whale.

[@treystephens6166]

It’s possible but that’s getting unlikely.

[@jackstraw4222]

average blue whale is 75-80ft long....even back centuries ago 100ft+ blue whales were quite rare....

[@soudino2723]

@@jackstraw4222 length dosent matter the amout of mass does

[@comrade-princesscelestia4907]

​@@soudino2723who appointed you as the arbiter of what does and doesn't matter?

[@soudino2723]

@comrade-princesscelestia4907 measuring the size of a living organism is determined by weight, not length. If we compare by length, then a reticulated python is bigger than an elephant, but by weight, the average elephant is 80 times bigger than a reticulated python, and mass is used as the base to measure the size of animals which is why I said length doesn't matter when comparing sizes

[@extraterrestrialhorse9722]

Shocked at how small Puertasaurus is. Always thought it was comparable or bigger than Argentinosaurus.

[@lightman3581]

I saw somewhere that it’s bones are from a juvenile

[@Ornitholestes1]

@@lightman3581 there's no evidence for that (but then, I don't think there's ever been a histological analysis done for any of this material, so we also don't know if it, or Argentinosaurus for that matter, was still actively growing). What needs to be kept in mind is that these are all estimates. Puertasaurus is only known from four vertebrae. It really could be a wide range of sizes, and some people have estimated it at far larger sizes than Argentinosaurus (Nima Sassani's widely criticised reconstruction is far over 100 t) but in direct comparison, the dorsal vertebra is shorter and shallower than that of Argentinosaurus (albeit far wider), so the overall tendency is towards saying that it's a bit smaller.

[@rodrigopinto6676]

@@Ornitholestes1😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@Ornitholestes1]

@@rodrigopinto6676 still haven't stopped trolling and liking all of your own comments, I see?

[@szodoss7764]

In reality, there could not have been much difference in weight between argentinosaurus and puertasaurus, maybe they were the same (just my opinion). Argentinosaurus may have had a longer torso and puertasaurus had a more robust torso. Puertasaurus's dorsal centrum is very chunky(the chunkiest), the transverse process is both wide & robust, the neural spine is short, but very robust.

[@nono9543]

I do wonder what is the size limit for a sauropod or any land animal in general. I get that it depends on body plan but many people say that the maximum length a sauropod could accomplish is 60 meters. Which tbf, is bigger/longer than the first Godzilla.

[@concept5631]

Damn

[@hyrumhanson3390]

The ability to shed its ever increasing body heat would likely be one of the final limits of size.

[@r.k845]

Skeleton wise, it’s 1000 tons.

[@ferociousrazordino3581]

Bigger than we think probably

[@yanlopez674]

​@@r.k845Yeah bullsht, bro pulled the numbers out of his ass.

[@eliletts8149]

On the topic of Alamosaurus, it's ecological relationship with Tyrannosaurus rex is never really talked about all too much at all in paleontology. I would think such a discussion would be more popular!

[@jurassicsmackdown6359]

How freakin hard would a documentary scene where a family of Tyrannosaurus go after an old or sick Alamosaurus be??? Imagine showing off the intelligence of the T. _rex_ family, and the massive size of the Alamosaurus as it fights for its life

[@wildlifeisthewealthofnatur5457]

Because Alamosaurus can destroy a T rex with little to no efforts which will make T rex fanbabies mad who think they are invincible predators capable of hunting anything.

[@justjoshua5759]

Megalaphobia. Is a good description of understanding mega sauropods and therapods exist and seeing how we really are less than rats in comparison. Also the sueprgrowth is interesting. Vividen if you were to see this. You reckon this process is similar in other genus attempts like the growth hormone in crocodilians that ensures that they never stop growing?

[@TheVividen]

It's possible, but from what I've read sauropods experienced extreme growth in their early years and then slowed down considerably. I'm currently conducting more research into their intraspecific size variation to see how big they continued to get after sexual/skeletal maturity, so we'll see what I uncover!

[@parthasarathidey1113]

Shantungosaurus watches with Jealousy.

[@mister_maim]

Everything over 70 tones most likely is a strong overestimate

[@Infinityc702]

Splendid video! One of the few Dino channels nowadays that actually gets me hyped up, subbed and keep going mate

[@TheVividen]

Awesome, thank you! It's people like you that keep the channel going!

[@Infinityc702]

@@TheVividen Haha, no problem man, keep up the great work!:)

[@BinroWasRight]

This is absolutely brilliantly done and also quite up to date. I like your style, sir. Subscribed 😎

[@TheVividen]

Thank you! Glad to have you!

[@melvinshine9841]

I'll always love the irony of sauropods, and dinosaurs in general, being able to reach sizes most land mammals can't compare to partly because they had a lot of air in their bones and bodies. It sounds so incredibly counterintuitive. Plant material must be more nutritious the higher off the ground it is, since all the truly giant land animals happen to be capable of high browsing. There actually isn't that much of a difference in size between the largest mid browsing/low grazing mammals and dinosaurs.

[@italucenaz]

i don't think it's about plants being more nutritious at the top, rather it's that there are way less animals eating them and there is surplus for the big guys

[@Titancameraman64]

no must sauropods diet consistent mostly of low plants like ferns grass there necks were probably used like elephant's trunk to reach food without moving PBS eons made a video about the theory also the American Museum of Natural History wote a article going more in detail

[@hainleysimpson1507]

Ferns can grow to be massive.

[@LoudSunshine]

The algorithm leads you to places only an autistic mind can comprehend...

[@alexanderren1097]

Growing up, I remember Brachiosaurus being considered the absolute biggest dinosaurs ever. It’s crazy how Brachiosaurus is now considered midsize

[@reecetruesdale1855]

Definitely one of the tallest but definitely dwarfed by length and weight

[@nono9543]

As far as I know, the Rajasaurus shared an ecosystem with a Bruhathkayosaurus. But the Rajasaurus had lengths of around 30 to 36 feet. Large, bigger than other abelisaurids like Carnotaurus but nowhere near large enough to destroy a Bruh.

[@Tyrannosaurine]

We still don’t know that some theropods didn’t hunt in packs. We are always told it’s unlikely because predatory birds are largely solitary and given examples of solitary large cats, etc etc. But what is even more unlikely? That an entire clade of organisms all conformed to a single diagnostic trait.

[@wildlifeisthewealthofnatur5457]

Rajasaurus should be like 80-100 feet long to hunt an adult Bruhathkayosaurus. At 30 feet length, even 10 wouldn't be able to hunt an adult.

[@fefferryerr1818]

Hi there! Is the brachiosaurus the best pet megasauropod for you? We'll rate it by 5 categories which are handleability, care, hardiness, availability and upfront costs.

[@TheVividen]

Clint?

[@fefferryerr1818]

@@TheVividen I thought it'd be something he'd say, he picks animals there is no way anyone would have as a pet, like a bush master. He'd likely review dinosaurs as pets if we ever brought them back.

[@TheVividen]

@@fefferryerr1818 Clint is an absolute homie. My dad has done quite a few collabs with him so I've got to hang out with him a few times. He's an all-around awesome dude

[@fefferryerr1818]

@@TheVividenHe's the best, no doubt.

[@TheWigglergler]

I have seen a lot of people completely discounting Bruhathkayosaurus, and while healthy skepticism is a good thing, I would argue in favor of current size estimates. 1. A lot of people are saying that the tibia was probably a femur. This was a common belief among paleontologists prior to the release of new photos in 2022. It is worth noting that the first paleontologist to make an estimate based on this assumption was Paul, who was one of the authors of the study placing it at 110-170 tonnes. The photos show that the bone was a tibia. In addition, there was a degraded femur at the site, which is where the 110-130 tonne conservative range comes from. 2. The original discoverers of the Bruhathkayosaurus did not recognize how huge it was. This makes it rather unlikely that the were exaggerating, as they would gain nothing from doing so. At the time of its discovery, Giraffatitan was still widely considered to be the largest known sauropod. 3. I've seen it stated that the masses of the largest sauropods (Argentinosaurus, Notocolossus, Puertasaurus, ect.) appear to have an upper limit at ~80 tonnes. This is only true if you take upper estimates for all of these (except Argentinosaurus), and most of these upper estimates are outdated. Instead, we see a whole bunch of sauropods between 40-60 tonnes, and then a handful larger than that. The most likely estimates are too widely spaced to infer an upper limit from them. The most likely reason why we haven't found any complete 100+ tonne sauropods is that such animals would almost never fossilize. Sauropods in general tend not to fossilize as much as other animals due to their hollow bones, and the problem only gets worse as they get bigger. A sauropod of that size being buried quickly enough to fossilize would have been exceedingly rare. Combine that with the probable relatively low adult population sizes (given the amount of food that they would have needed to consume), and you get very little fossilization. 4. India may have been an island, but it was a big one; it could easily sustain a sizeable population of gigantic sauropods. Just because we have not found any giant theropods to encourage sauropods to grow huge does not mean that they were not there. In fact, an ilium at the site where Bruhathkayosaurus was found was possibly from a large theropod. 5. Paul and Larramendi are experts in scaling sauropods. In fact, they tend to be among the ones to downsize sauropods claimed to be the "largest ever". They both previously came out with smaller estimates, but changed their minds based on the evidence presented in 2022. The methods that they used were quite good (at least given how fragmentary the specimen is), and scaling using limb bone allometry gets accurate sizes for sauropods. In fact, the 110-130 tonne range is quite conservative. I would argue it is more likely to be an underestimate than an overestimate. Take all of this with a grain of salt, but given current evidence, Bruhathkayosaurus is most likely the largest known sauropod (and possibly the largest known animal, given the average blue whale is 110 tonnes).

[@Doomguyhunter1]

Underestimate? Nah, and you shouldn't take it with a grain of salt, more like with whole salt shaker. And 120 tonnes is the max size for a terrestrial animal, at least professors at the university of New Mexico stated this, I don't get why a few pictures are justification for 110-130 tonnes being a "conservative" estimate, 130 tonnes is literally over 45% more than the second biggest sauropod, if maraapunisaurus' giant estimates are true, though I do think bruhath was still very large, in the top 5 biggest land animals for sure.

[@TheWigglergler]

@@Doomguyhunter1 I would like to see the study that proposes a 120 tonne size limit. That's rather specific given how many variables are at play here, so I'm quite skeptical. In any case, a roughly defined size limit based on parameters that are not completely understood is not more valuable than fossil evidence. Up until the 1950s, Brachiosaurus was considered too large to live on land. Also, the degree of increase doesn't really matter. O. megalodon was ~50 tonnes on average, more than twice as large as the next largest known shark. Even the conservative (and almost certainly more accurate) estimates for Perucetus put it at ~80 tonnes, four times as much as Basilosaurus, the next largest known basilosaurid. The estimates are conservative because they are primarily based on the femur, which gives lower estimates than scaling using the tibia.

[@Doomguyhunter1]

@@TheWigglergler well, it wasn't a study, just a statement, so I'm decently skeptical of it too, but I don't think it's too far from the true max size. And in sauropods, the biggest ones always seem to be not too much bigger than the runner-ups, argent is only a bit larger than the runner-up, and maraapunisaurus, if the estimates are true, is only around 10% larger, even less if argentinosaurus cf. were to be a more average specimen. In my obviously unprofessional eyes, 110-130 tonnes is possible, but should be considered to be a somewhat high estimate, and we should consider sizes anywhere from 80-130 tonnes, though I'm not an expert, maybe I'm wrong, I hope we find more material so we can finally get these goofy debates about some pictures over, and finally discover the true size of bruhath.

[@suricata1993]

@@Doomguyhunter1 careful, everyone likes to believe in unbelievable stuff, most people will come and start calling you a internet warrior.. anyway, I’m 200% with you here. They saw a photo, there are no accurate measurements, no width measure of bones but they can go conservative and state 110-130tons 😂😂 such a fkn joke! Might as well believe in Godzilla’s too. Another one that is very funny is that new basilosaurus, can be 80 tons but can also be 375 tons… a good example here: Dunkleosteus - was supposedly the size of an orca and now is not even half that size. And mind we have fairly good evidences. Now imagine using a photo to state that the owner of that bone is 110ton conservative and the biggest dinosaur ever.. it’s laughable

[@jpintero6330]

Team Bruhathkayosaurus ! 💯

[@akucha16]

Your mom.. 1:16

[@aircraftcarrierwo-class]

It's always shocking to realize how much we know or intuit about so many sauropod species when one considers how fragmentary and incomplete their fossils tend to be.

[@andreafleming9022]

Absolute best video about thise titans.However the are someone you missed i think:Australotitan cooperensis 72 tons and 30 metres long.

[@TheVividen]

Man, I was looking into Australotitan as a contender for the video but I couldn't find any peer-reviewed mass estimations. Are you aware of any?

[@andreafleming9022]

@@TheVividen Bruh ...... they are right above you.Those are the first estimates ,more recent one put this colossus at 29 metres and 65 tons .So it is still massive.Also what about Barosaurus.

[@martymillions4270]

I just saw your video on Cope rex and how nobody was talking about it possibly being the biggest T. rex so I wanted to ask if you know anything about the Triceratops “Willard” which is another under the radar specimen that’s the biggest triceratops found and was over 2ft taller than other triceratops. It was 3.6 meters tall just under 12ft and was briefly displayed in Hong Kong’s big 8 exhibit. A video on that would be just as intriguing as copes rex!

[@TaurusSaurus]

I went to the natural history museum in New York last year and the sauropod skeleton was mind boggling huge. Edit: thanks for the likes, also the sauropod was actually Patagotitan if anyones wondering.

[@TheVividen]

That's awesome!

[@ConstantOfTermination]

What sauropod was it

[@extraterrestrialhorse9722]

​@@ConstantOfTerminationyo momma

[@monsterzero521]

@tossupeater Patagotitan skeleton I seen in real life & the wound it got inflicted by a Tyrannotitan.

[@TaurusSaurus]

@@ConstantOfTermination Im pretty sure it was Argentinosaurus.

[@vladline1882]

I think Brachiosaurus recent reconstruction is slightly larger than Giraffatitan

[@Tymdek]

Are there any length estimates (or even known body lengths) on any of these? Because while I get wh people use mass as a measure of "who is the biggest", I think it's not as intuitively understandable as, well, size... (see e.g. blue whales, which are mostly not that much bigger than the next biggest fin whale but vastly heavier). Also I'm curious what's the current understanding of sauropod length and posture, especially with diplodocids and titanosaurs. I remember a few years ago when I was a child there were some estimates thrown about that _Argentinosarus_ might have been over 40 m long

[@TheWigglergler]

Supersaurus was 40+ meters long as an adult (assuming the giant vertebrae come from it and not Barosaurus). If size estimates for Maraapunisaurus and Bruhathkayosaurus are correct, they are about 35-40 meters and 37-45 meters long, respectively. Argentinosaurus is most likely ~35m.

[@Tymdek]

@@TheWigglergler Thanks! Does that mean that if the vertebrae are from _Barosaurus_ it would scale similarly?

[@TheWigglergler]

@@Tymdek You're welcome! If the vertebrae are from Barosaurus, the animal would be 45-48 meters.

[@Tymdek]

@@TheWigglergler That's...a lot haha. Can't even imagine an animal that big, even if it's "only" _Supersaurus_-sized

[@asshat1607]

please don't confuse size with length. size is mass/weight, not length. a damn anaconda is pretty long but hardly weighs anything for how "big" it is.

[@figlet6427]

I'm so grateful that my fascination with these animals survived to my adulthood, bcs it's just about the only thing anymore that can get me all giddy, wide eyed and excited anymore❤ great video

[@Xmaster-bh8wb]

In a new study, Scientists have found out that the spinosaurus could grow to heights about 10 times taller than the argentinosaurus!

[@petrfedor1851]

I love how it started with batshit crazy massive and ended with straight up kaijus.

[@albinodino2005]

What about Australotitan cooperensis?

[@alxtheguy]

7:10 "Its own foot of course it wasn’t weird" Next up on Sauropod research: Evidence of Sauropod foot fetishes

[@cryoking7303]

Im surprised Australotitan didnt make it on the list considering its size being comparable to Dreadnoughtus.

[@eybaza6018]

He probably forgot...what a shame

[@szodoss7764]

Was even larger. True, that the humerus of the australotitan was no longer than that of the dreadnoughtus, but it's torso was much longer, and it's femur was both longer and more robust, than that of the dreadnoughtus. So was heavier....

[@simonhajnal]

​​​@@szodoss7764 Exactly. Well, the torso of the dreadnoughtus was relativly short, compared to its thigh and upper arm. It was around 4,5 meter.

[@szodoss7764]

@@simonhajnal Dreadnoughtus is one of the most overrated sauropod, maybe, because his skeleton is more complete, but australotitan and huangheititan have to should be on this list, above the dreadnoughtus.

[@maozilla9149]

could you do mega hadrosaurs someday in the future?

[@rodrigopinto6676]

Probably

[@maozilla9149]

that would be cool@@rodrigopinto6676

[@ghostysmokesweed9628]

😂😅

[@aaronjimenez7825]

So, the giant barosaurus is now supersaurus again?

[@suricata1993]

Indeed

[@archosaur_enjoyer824]

The fact that bruhathkayosaurus is a bit bigger then Argentinosaurus is just *INSANE*

[@suricata1993]

It isn’t, it is an estimative from a picture… not reliable at all

[@dallomarde5756]

Patagotitan was bigger

[@minimalbstolerance8113]

Okay, while I love everything about this video, the thing I love most is that apart from the "King killer" class (and possibly the Worldbreaker class although I'm not sure) you named all the classes of megasauropod (knowingly or not) after oversized war machines from Warhammer 40k!

[@ludwigiapilosa508]

Those must have been some MASSIVE farts. Probably enough to knock you over.

[@ZeFroz3n0ne907]

"They hatch small but then explode." *Baby Sauropod hatches, Allosaurus comes up to eat the baby, baby looks up at Allo* *BOOM!* 💥*Mini A-Bomb goes off* David Attenborough: "And that, is how the dinosaurs really went extinct."

[@anthonyhall7019]

Im subbed, your content is very nice and as good as ben g thomas or any of the other good paleontology KZbinrs! Very nice keep up the awesome work!

[@TheVividen]

Welcome aboard! Thank you!

[@NDY666]

You must also think that we only talk about average. Imaging how tall the talest realy was.

[@SherlandShrouht-esse]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Argentinosaurus_size_with_raised_neck.png This art depicts a 36 meter Argentinosaurus with their neck raised at about 18 meters tall, so half the body length. A DeviantArt user (PaleoNerd01) estimated a length of 42.58 meters for “Fangorn” (Bruhathkayosaurus), based on a 33 meter Argentinosaurus estimate, so they would have a maximum height of 21.29 meters. Taking a mean from the average:maximum estimates The Vividen made for another video, the hypothetical largest individual may have been 1.89x larger, multiplying the height by the cube root gives 26.32 meters tall for a hypothetical largest individual, or 86 feet.

[@مهدياحمد-ذ1ض]

Disappointing reality

[@arkady116]

Brachiosaurus has been my favorite dinosaur since I was a kid. I fell in love with it watching the first jurassic park movie with my dad. And alongside the Albertosaurus they are still my favorite dinosaurs.

[@jamesaron1967]

Great breakdown on known sauropod sizes.

[@bruh949]

5:38 I know it’s not its prey type but if it was, Torvosaurus could.

[@cemgns]

Spiderman at 4:07 ?

[@purplemage4974]

Was looking for a comment that saw it too :')

[@BJByochick]

I love you man. I love the gym, tanks, cars, bikes, jets, dragons, guns and a whole lot more but you've made dinosaurs one of my favorite things.

[@sabrogaming4602]

It’s just so hard to comprehend just how something so gigantic once roamed the planet

[@MB32904]

I don't think t. rex pack hunting would be a problem for alamosaurus since it's just so big but what do I know

[@uhvoiidTV]

first youtube vid in a while that actually makes me wish I had some friends to show some cool dinosaur stuff

[@TheVividen]

Now you do! discord.gg/ecTk3wK8pt

[@FelidaeEnjoyer]

@@TheVividen Plugging everything possible into every hole, huh? Subbed

[@ЕрсултанСапаргали-ц3ь]

​@TheVividen I m can tell you one my question:If we can discover biggest sauropods ever,likely they will be titanosaurs

[@johnstojanowski8126]

The reasons that were given for the immense size of sauropods are all contributing factors. However, the major factor was the lower surface gravity on and near Pangea. As my theory ‘The Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction’ explains, a surface gravity gradient around the globe occurred when very large surface mass on the Earth moved to high latitude causing the Earth’s core elements to move off-center. When this happened megafauna developed. The same thing happened during the recent Ice Age when ocean water transferred to high latitude polar regions producing the ice caps allowing the megafauna (e.g., mammoths, giant ground sloths, etc.) to develop. Those megafauna disappeared when the polar ice started melting, sending the water to low latitude and moving the displaced Earth core elements back toward centricity.

[@thegamingbean953]

Its possible, however by the time of any of these mega sauropods, pangea was already breaking up

[@johnstojanowski8126]

@@thegamingbean953 Yes, you are correct. However, what is significant is the center of mass of all continents. When it moves north or south of the equator the core elements moves off-center resulting in the gravitational gradient around the globe. That center of mass moved across the equator about 250mya and 65mya (as shown in the chart in summary of my theory) increasing surface gravity to near current level exterminated the megafauna.

[@thegamingbean953]

@@johnstojanowski8126 Oh ok

[@Xenosaurian]

8:20 I'd say the three layers (collectively three meters deep) containing the animals were deposited relatively quickly during the Global Flood and the animals stayed in the area and simply died at different times.

[@theangryholmesian4556]

There was no Global Flood. C'mon now dude. Santa Claus isn't real either.

[@Xenosaurian]

@@theangryholmesian4556 Yes there was. Why do you deny that?

[@theangryholmesian4556]

@@Xenosaurian Because there's no evidence. Here I'll shoot you a link to Aron Ra's comprehensive debunking.

[@theangryholmesian4556]

@@Xenosaurian kzbin.info/aero/PLXJ4dsU0oGMJP95iZJqEjmc5oxY5r6BzP&si=_ZuFkApvv1m-llii

[@Xenosaurian]

​@@theangryholmesian4556 I suppose I wouldn't expect anything better from you than Aron Ra. Unfortunately for your argument, we have a great multitude of evidence, including the entire surface of the planet, covered in sedimentary strata deposited by water and being rich in exceptionally preserved and extreme quantities of fossils, most of which are marine, gradually advancing from shallow seas to inland areas and today being found uplifted to the highest mountains. There's also the fact there's enough water on the planet to cover it to a depth of at least 3 km if the surface were sufficiently flattened out and there being legends of such a global flood from different cultures around the world which shares many core elements. Of course, the most affirming evidence is Jesus Christ affirming it as a real event, with him demonstrating himself to be God through his resurrection before countless witnesses and igniting the sudden spread of Christianity.

[@FlyingWithSpurts]

Ah yes, Bruh-how-thicc-are-ya-saurus

[@JOGA_Wills]

I am certain I am not quanitifying how large these bags of dinosaur meat really are... 120+ metric tonnes my goodness

[@ZeFroz3n0ne907]

Great video! Love the channel! ❤

[@alexandracojocaru1210]

Please, PLEASE, record your voice louder... my speakers are at max, volume is at max, but i struggle to hear anything without absolute silence around

[@spider-man695]

Can you provide me how you got Brachiosaurus at 42 tonnes? I used Fabio Alejandro's Giraffatitan as reference and I got Brachiosaurus at 77 tonnes using isometric formula.

[@TheLazyFusspot_3428]

I'm also baffled why the B. sp. specimen might be speculated actually be Camarasaurus instead of Brachiosaurus...

[@spider-man695]

@@TheLazyFusspot_3428 No no I'm talking about normal Brachiosaurus altithorax which is ~25 meters based on Gunnarbivens

[@TheLazyFusspot_3428]

​@@spider-man695Is Brach A. really bigger than Giraffa?

[@spider-man695]

@@TheLazyFusspot_3428 Hmm Giraffatitan is 21.43 meters long and ~50 tonnes. Brachiosaurus is 24.81 meters and ~77 tonnes.

[@spider-man695]

@@TheLazyFusspot_3428 And the Potter Creek Brachiosaurus (using 26 meters) is 89.2 tonnes. If the Recapture creek Brachiosaurus sp. (Which people think might belong to Camarasaurus) really belong to B.altithorax then it would be around 104.5 tonnes. I think people have good reason for not accepting the Recapture creek specimen as Brachiosaurus because it's unusually too heavy for a Macronarian. I would stick to 77 tonnes.

[@Zorro9129]

Why is size based on mass and not on length, height or volume?

[@thegamingbean953]

Because it makes more sense

[@Distix-uz8qr]

But spinosaurus was the largest dinosaur 😡😡😡😡

[@spider-man695]

You're in Colossal squid's server?

[@Distix-uz8qr]

@@spider-man695 yeee

[@suricata1993]

To me, Mamenchisaurus and every sauropod after argentinosaurus are not really that big. At least, without further evidences, I’m taking their sizes with a huge scoop of salt. We already make so many exaggerations with good remains and skeletons, imagine how many errors are being made with footprints or single vertebras.

[@suricata1993]

Imagine seeing a picture and say confidently “hm that’s a sauropod, most probably 110-120tons in a conservative side” 🙃

[@ferociousrazordino3581]

That's just how big the bone was

[@suricata1993]

@@ferociousrazordino3581 I understand that, but we have so many examples: Dunkleosteus just got a massive downsize. Spinosaurus went from bipedal 17m to 14m stork like. A giant barosaurus was never a thing, it was supersaurus all along. A fragmentary jaw from a giga cannot prove that it was 6% bigger animal than the holotype. If with way better evidences we can still make measurement errors and so on, how can we expect or accept accurate measurements form a photo? I understand the concept behind it but it is dubious to say the least. A photo cannot give you a 110ton conservative estimate. Too thin of a evidence

[@ferociousrazordino3581]

@@suricata1993 i mean yeah it's very possible that it would get downsized in the future provided we have better material and etc ( i dunno how that happen, but anyways )but that doesn't mean that its completely dismissable. It's definitely also a possibility that these estimates are right and yes 110 tons IS CONSERVATIVE for what we know about it right now, that's literally the minimum possible size for the thing going off what we have.( the max being 240+ t ) Yes, animals have been downsized in the past, but many animals have also been upsized or found to have lived up to their giant sizes when more material was found later. Also keep in mind that we're talking about larramendi and paul, people who are known to downsize animals and go for the most conservative ranges. If they're confident in this estimate that means something. Not only that but the methods used are superior to the ones that have produced grossly exaggered masses for other extinct animals in the past. 20 ton spinosaurus wasn't really consisent with other estimates at that time anyway and the estimate came from a flawed method ( skull regression ) while this estimate for bruhathkayosaurus comes from better methods as out ability to estimate masses of extinct animals has only gotten better and better. Downsizes and etc have become less common over the years. Obviously it still happens ( Dunkleosteus ) but saying that an estimate like this is completely false or impossible because other animals like this have been downsized in the past is really silly. Basically, could it be wrong, yeah totally but that doesn't = it being pure speculation thats 100% incorrect, because this is the best we can do at the moment

[@suricata1993]

@@ferociousrazordino3581 totally get what you are saying! But still, this numbers are not believable. Every sauropod we have from good remainings have struggled to reach the 60-70 ton mark. Dreadnaughtus, the most complete titanosaurus we have so far, almost full skeleton found, was initially supposed to be the heaviest sauropod that we accurately could measure, at the time, numbers were around 60 tons. Now is around 40-45tons. A 110-240 ton sauropod doesn’t sound realistic, just the margin of error there of 130 tons is almost double the size of an argentinosaurus, the biggest dinosaur we know of. Should I say the 2nd biggest now? These numbers are no way near accurate.. how could they be, scaled by a photo that ressurged out of nowhere form a material that doesn’t even exist anymore? It’s like believing that story of Kelly slater that a fisherman saw a salt crocodile from a mile away and was stated to be 10m… even deep blue, the supposed biggest great white shark that was seen/filmed, national geographic tried to measure it from photos and comparison with objects on photos and they didn’t come with an accurate measurement, it’s a estimate from 20-24ft.. it’s not reliable at all

[@wallrider4194]

9:34 I want to call the Spanish giant: Hispanosaurus titanus.

[@AnoNYmous-bz2ef]

They were rulers? Really? What rules did they implement?

[@kingofprehistory7851]

1. Food=mine 2. Touch me=one way ticket to leg show 3. Speedrun 24/7 Perhaps these would be ze rules

[@raider1_163]

The rule of Don't fuck around me to found out

[@Tyrell-d6o]

Hmm, you call them "rulers," yet I don't see any numerical demarcations... how interesting... 💀

[@platypus2141]

Shut up lil nigga

[@BlunderBuns]

The rule of 79 tickles

[@kadourimdou43]

Is there a realistic maximum size, based on what’s physically possible, and what food availability would allow.

[@tongatapu7325]

No Sauropod ever exceeded 80 tonnes. I will die on that hill.

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

Stubborn ignorance.

[@tongatapu7325]

Currently we have no conclusive evidence for 80+ tonne sauropods. On the other hand, we have several conclusive fossils for animals around 70 tonnes. @@Dr.Ian-Plect

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

@@tongatapu7325 Right over your head; evidence doesn't have to be considered here! You made a blanket statement; "No Sauropod ever exceeded 80 tonnes." - much like the blue whale, it can't be stated 'largest animal of all time', only 'largest animal known' - you simply don't have a basis for "No Sauropod ever exceeded 80 tonnes" End of.

[@tongatapu7325]

@@Dr.Ian-Plect You argue semantics now? I'm not even a native speaker of this language. Until definitive proof is presented that shows I'm wrong, I will hold onto my statement.

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

@@tongatapu7325 Add arrogant clown to stubborn ignorance. The semantics are EXACTLY your flaw in your statement. Muted.

[@Vapouriste]

Pro-tip: when discussing the size of dinosaurs, please include their height and length, in metres. Otherwise, the weight comparison is somewhat meaningless

[@thegamingbean953]

Weight is how size is measured

[@Engifarting456]

"imperator class" no way its inspired from warhammer 40k

[@pandahsykes602]

*Biggest LAND sauropods ever : (proceeds to show a blue whale)*

[@SternaRegnixTube]

My name is Jerry too, the elephant Jerry is my homie

[@FellTheSky]

I would just disregard all of the estimations based on a single vertebrae, foot print or tooth.

[@Adminium21]

Ah yes. "We've found a single fossilized bone, or maybe even just a footstep. Time to draw up exactly what this animal looked like based on almost absolutely nothing.

[@y0url0calb1n]

You do realize that its multiple bone and multiple skeltons to make a new species right?