Dinosaurs actually weren't that heavy, finds study

A comparison of dinosaur skeletons with those of living mammals suggests that the ancient reptiles were tens of tons lighter than previously believed. 

Bill Sellers
Computer "skin and bones" model of Brachiosaurus. In analysis of computer models of modern mammals, they are about 20 percent smaller than the animals in real life.

Dinosaurs have shed some extra pounds just in time for beach season, with a new analysis suggesting the mighty sauropod previously known as Brachiosaurus weighed tens of tons less than earlier estimates.

Artists' renderings of dinosaurs have long been plagued by discrepancies, with some depictions larger and heftier than others.

"The whole point is we were trying to get around the guesswork" of artistic reconstructions, study researcher Bill Sellers, of the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom, told LiveScience. The researchers found that among the artists, "the ones reconstructing their dinosaurs as quite skinny are more right."

Skinny skeletons

To come up with their skinny dinosaur suggestion, the researchers analyzed the skeletons of living species and compared the skeletal sizes with those animals' actual weight. Using 3D images made by laser scans of full sets of bones from 14 large mammals, including a polar bear, giraffe and elephant, the researchers calculated the "minimum wrapping volume" needed to cover a skeleton with flesh.

"All we can do when we are looking at these long-dead fossil animals is rely on what we can find out from living animals," Sellers explained. They chose these large mammals instead of the dinosaur's closest relative, the crocodile, as comparison points because they are land-adapted. (Crocodiles are adapted to living in the water, where body mass is less of an obstacle.)

Using the relationship between skeletal bones and amount of skin and fat needed, the researchers came up with a mathematical equation that also could be applied to dinosaurs. By using a computer to calculate mass, the researchers said, they took subjectivity out of the equation. In fact, when the researchers based their body-size estimates on artists' skeleton-informed reconstructions of dinosaurs, there were large discrepancies in the estimated weight. [Album: Colorful Dinosaur Art]

"They would take a scan, then produce an artistic reconstruction of the scan," Sellers said. "No two people would get exactly the same answers. Some would make them fat dinosaurs, and some would reconstruct them as skinny dinosaurs."

Bony Brachiosaurus

Comparing the number that came out of their mathematical analysis with what science actually knows about the living species they chose, the researchers saw that that the weights were reliably about 20 percent more than the minimum volume. If this also held true for dinosaurs, such as the large dinosaur known as Brachiosaurus (now called Giraffatitan brancai), the researchers said, many have overestimated the beast's weight.

The researchers then used the same laser-scan technique on the Berlin Brachiosaurus, a nearly complete skeleton of the large sauropod. When they calculated the wrapping volume and added 20 percent, they found the big dinosaur came in at around 25 tons (almost 23 tonnes; a ton is 2,000 pounds and a tonne is 1,000 kilograms).

This weight is a lot less than historical estimates, which average about 34.7 tons (31.5 tonnes) and  ranged up to 88 tons (80 tonnes).

The new analysis comes closer to more modern estimates of the sauropod's weight at 18 tons (16 tonnes) from a report in the Journal of Zoology in 2009.

The study is detailed in the June 6 issue of the journal Biology Letters.

Follow Jennifer Welsh on Twitter @microbelover or LiveScience @livescience. We're also on Facebook & Google+.

Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.