Talk:Ichthyotitan

also is there an article for obesity in animals like turtles can turtles become obese? 1204753792 edits (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not animals generally, no. You are welcome to create it - I'm sure there is literature on it - we currently have an article for obesity in pets, but that does not mention turtles. Also this creature is likely large as a result of adaptations for its environment, not as the result of any medical condition. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The authors did not venture into a weight estimate. However, in 2021 for a 21 metre long Shonisaurus a mass was estimated of 81 tonnes. Some remains of giant ichthyosaurs indicated a length of thirty metres. That would implicate an astounding 250 tonnes, even without assuming special fat layers. Gregory S. Paul considered these to be vast overestimations. He claimed that a correct stronger curvature of the vertebral column would have reduced length. Correctly slanting the ribs would have lowered the depth of the trunk. He estimated the weight of Shonisaurus at just sixteen tonnes. Applying this line of thought, Ichthyotitan might be twenty metres long and thirty to fifty tonnes heavy.--MWAK (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Both GSP's and that 2021 estimate for Shonisaurus (Shastasaurus sikanniensis) are very incorrect. The 81t mass comes from scaling S. sikanniensis to 21m with Shonisaurus popularis proportions. It's a much bulkier animal than Shastasaurus at the same length, and scaling from other Shastasaurus species gives a more conservative 39-45t.

GSP's 16t estimate is pretty baseless and thus not very reliable for the time being. Ashe VSM (my talk page) 19:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did not find an article about obesity in animals such as turtles. I am sure it could be a fascinating article and hope you are able to source enough informaiton to submit an article. To get you started, here is an article I found: "Body condition scoring and obesity in captive african side-neck turtles (Pelomedusidae)* "Ann. Anim. Sci., Vol. 14, No. 3 (2014) 573–584, DOI: 10.2478/aoas-2014-0037. Good luck to you! Jurisdicta (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

bro brought references to the talk page LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Usually when a new species of prehistoric animal (and even more of this kind) is immediately described, there is already a "classification" section, sometimes even accompanied by a cladogram. So, I ask that someone with at least some experience can develop this section about the phylogenetic place of Ichthyotitan. Amirani1746 (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is believed to be a shastasaurid, but, due to the extremely fragmentary nature of the remain, there hasn't been a more specific phylogenetic classification. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The classification beyond Shastasauridae is unknown and impossible to determine without further remains, as all current Ichthyotitan specimens are only surangulars. Ashe VSM (my talk page) 19:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

" It is of note that sea reptile size got hyped in the search for ratings ... there seems to be an effort by some paleos to produce super sized marine reptiles to fit the bill. And perhaps dino size envy, there certainly were sauropods of 100 tonnes and maybe even more than that back in ye Mesozoic, where are the ichthyosaurs et al to compare? After all they are buoyed by water and whales got as big although that is pretty much limited to the late Pliocene-Pleistocene. And there is the new culture of why bother to go to the effort to produce carefully constructed profile-skeletals, just run some seemingly fancy-dandy calculations that will improve one's chances of getting tenure and we end up with Triassic basal ichthyosaur and basal whale masses over estimated many fold. One person has labeled my methodology old fashioned. ... At least my work has been suppressing claims of megamasses in the technical literature, and the Attenborough documentary on the new giant Brit pliosaur did not even mention its mass as I recall." -Gregory Paul' via DMG ___ Paul has a point here, folks - remember the Scandanavian pliosaur 'Monster X' and its downsizing, and several others as well. I would use this in the article as a balance against the huge 'projected' size of this critter. 2603:6080:21F0:6000:35DD:99D6:F446:E542 (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps he does have a point, but unless these musings are published in a reliable source, they shouldn't be included in the article. A message on a mailing list doesn't really count here. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply