We are independent & ad-supported. We may earn a commission for purchases made through our links.
Advertiser Disclosure
Our website is an independent, advertising-supported platform. We provide our content free of charge to our readers, and to keep it that way, we rely on revenue generated through advertisements and affiliate partnerships. This means that when you click on certain links on our site and make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn more.
How We Make Money
We sustain our operations through affiliate commissions and advertising. If you click on an affiliate link and make a purchase, we may receive a commission from the merchant at no additional cost to you. We also display advertisements on our website, which help generate revenue to support our work and keep our content free for readers. Our editorial team operates independently of our advertising and affiliate partnerships to ensure that our content remains unbiased and focused on providing you with the best information and recommendations based on thorough research and honest evaluations. To remain transparent, we’ve provided a list of our current affiliate partners here.
Biology

Our Promise to you

Founded in 2002, our company has been a trusted resource for readers seeking informative and engaging content. Our dedication to quality remains unwavering—and will never change. We follow a strict editorial policy, ensuring that our content is authored by highly qualified professionals and edited by subject matter experts. This guarantees that everything we publish is objective, accurate, and trustworthy.

Over the years, we've refined our approach to cover a wide range of topics, providing readers with reliable and practical advice to enhance their knowledge and skills. That's why millions of readers turn to us each year. Join us in celebrating the joy of learning, guided by standards you can trust.

What is Amphicoelias Fragillimus?

Michael Anissimov
By
Updated: May 21, 2024
Views: 14,220
Share

Amphicoelias fragillimus was a sauropod herbivore dinosaur, possibly the largest dinosaur (or animal of any kind) that ever existed. Its veracity is contested because the only bones of the dinosaur, a partial vertebra and a gigantic femur, have since been lost. The vertebra fragment, located by an employee of the American paleontologist Edward Cope in 1877, measured 1.5 m (5 ft) in length. The vertebra it was a part of during the life of the dinosaur would have been 2.7 m (8.8 ft) in length. Extrapolating the length of the vertebra to the total size of the dinosaur, based on similar species, has given an estimated length of 40-60 m (131-196 ft), with a mass of up to 122 tonnes (135 tons), longer than a blue whale but approximately two-thirds its weight.

Amphicoelias, which means "doubly-hollow" is a reference to the animal's thin vertebral walls, which would have been necessary to allow an animal of that size to carry its own skeleton. The second part of the species name, fragillimus, is a reference to the fragility of the fossil. It was discovered in Colorado mudstone, a weak rock that has the tendency to fragment into small, irregular cubes. A sketch of the fossil was only completed from one angle, which is unusual given Edward Cope's reputation for detail and drawings from multiple angles of every important fossil. Historians reason that this may have been because the fossil fragmented into pieces after the first sketch.

Amphicoelias was a diplodocid dinosaur, a family of sauropods known for their extremely long and slender bodies. Like other sauropods, an adult Amphicoelias probably would have had little need to worry about predators, spending all its time grazing foliage at the same height as its head, which would have been about 9 m (30 ft) off the ground. It is uncertain how old the dinosaur would have been at death or how fast it grew: it depends on its metabolism. If it were warm-blooded like mammals, it would have grown to full size in about 10 years, growing an average of roughly 20 ft/year, 1.7 ft per month, or a few inches per day. If it were cold-blooded like reptiles, it would have required a full century to reach the size at which it died. Scientists continue to debate whether dinosaurs in general were cold or warm-blooded, and the consensus seems to be that they were somewhere in between.

Unfortunately, all reports of Amphicoelias after the 1870s indicate that the bones in question had gone missing. Thus, there is considerable controversy whenever the dinosaur is presented as possibly being one of the largest creatures ever to have lived.

Share
All The Science is dedicated to providing accurate and trustworthy information. We carefully select reputable sources and employ a rigorous fact-checking process to maintain the highest standards. To learn more about our commitment to accuracy, read our editorial process.
Michael Anissimov
By Michael Anissimov
Michael Anissimov is a dedicated All The Science contributor and brings his expertise in paleontology, physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry, and futurism to his articles. An avid blogger, Michael is deeply passionate about stem cell research, regenerative medicine, and life extension therapies. His professional experience includes work with the Methuselah Foundation, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, and Lifeboat Foundation, further showcasing his commitment to scientific advancement.
Discussion Comments
By pleonasm — On Jun 08, 2014

@pastanaga - I was completely shocked when I found out how competitive and ruthless fossil collectors can be, so it wouldn't surprise me if this one did turn out to be some kind of fake.

There have been all kinds of cases of people pretending to have found something new and then either losing the evidence, or just cobbling it together from existing fossils.

And there would be a lot of prestige attached to finding the largest land animal that ever existed.

By pastanaga — On Jun 07, 2014

@fa5t3r - Well, yes and no. I mean, it's true that it's highly improbable that we'll ever be able to fill in all of the creatures that belong on Earth's family tree. But these creatures generally have a lot in common so we can still tell quite a bit from what we do find.

Since they found a couple of bones in this case, they'd be able to compare those to other fossils and see where they are the same and where they differ. Just like, if you found a horse tooth today, you'd be able to tell quite a bit about it by comparing it to the teeth of other herbivores and contrasting it with carnivores.

There are millions of unique species, but all those species are related, so it's not like scientists are starting from scratch every single time they find something new.

The only real problem is when something like this becomes controversial and they can't trust the evidence that is available.

By Fa5t3r — On Jun 06, 2014

This sort of thing always reminds me how little we actually know about the deep past and how much we may never know. If this particular kind of dinosaur was prone to produce fragile fossils, perhaps we'll never find decent examples of what it looked like. And there might have been other creatures back then that either don't produce fossils, or that we've simply never found. When you think about the enormous time span, the number of potential species (I mean, we don't even know all the species alive on Earth today) and the hurdles in fossils being made and being discovered, it's amazing that we ever find more than one example of any fossil type.

Paleontology is all about taking shots in the dark and speculating based on very little information.

Michael Anissimov
Michael Anissimov
Michael Anissimov is a dedicated All The Science contributor and brings his expertise in paleontology, physics, biology...
Learn more
Share
https://www.allthescience.org/what-is-amphicoelias-fragillimus.htm
Copy this link
All The Science, in your inbox

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.

All The Science, in your inbox

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.