Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-19-2018, 11:25 AM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 743

Size of a dinosaur's thigh


What is the best-guess diameter of the larger land-going dinosaurs' thighs? Something like an apatosaurus.

I'm trying to figure out how strong dinosaurs were compared to other animals, and I'm using the leg because you wouldn't want to base a T-Rex's overall strength on its arms.

I know that size doesn't really equate to strength, so I'm open to any other ideas for determining roughly how strong the various animals are.

Last edited by GreysonCarlisle; 10-19-2018 at 11:26 AM.
  #2  
Old 10-19-2018, 11:37 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 41,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
I know that size doesn't really equate to strength, so I'm open to any other ideas for determining roughly how strong the various animals are.
You can get an idea of how large muscles were by looking at the attachment areas on the bones. I would suggest looking at a good scientifically based reconstruction, then measuring the thigh and calculating its width proportional to the length specified for the animal.

Obviously the strength of the muscles has to be sufficient to move the weight of the animal. (Although earlier it was assumed that the big sauropods were too big to be able to support themselves on land and were therefore mostly aquatic, this idea has now been dismissed.)

The musculature and skeletal structure of T. rex has been the subject of considerable analysis and controversy relative to whether it could run fast or only amble along. Different analyses have come to different conclusions.
  #3  
Old 10-19-2018, 11:41 AM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
You can get an idea of how large muscles were by looking at the attachment areas on the bones. I would suggest looking at a good scientifically based reconstruction, then measuring the thigh and calculating its width proportional to the length specified for the animal.
So I can just use the bone. Awesome! Thanks, Colibri!
  #4  
Old 10-19-2018, 12:01 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
...I know that size doesn't really equate to strength...
In the application of the square-cube law to biomechanics, the usual assumption is that muscle and bone strength is approximately proportional to cross-sectional area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square...w#Biomechanics
  #5  
Old 10-19-2018, 12:17 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 41,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
So I can just use the bone. Awesome! Thanks, Colibri!
While this is true to a first approximation, I should say that other considerations can come into play, such as where the muscle is attached on the bone (providing leverage) and the kind of muscle fiber involved.
  #6  
Old 10-19-2018, 12:26 PM
Sailboat's Avatar
Sailboat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,842
Remember that almost every animal is stronger for its size than a human, because humans carry a mutation that makes our muscles much less efficient.

Also bear in mind that dinosaurs were almost certainly active animals, with a high rate of metabolism. They are more likely to have been birdlike in their movements and alertness than lizard-like.

I don't know how you're measuring strength -- are they lifting something? In general terms, the answer should be "enormously strong." Tyrannosaurs Rex is believed to have had the strongest bite force of any land animal.
  #7  
Old 10-19-2018, 12:32 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailboat View Post
I don't know how you're measuring strength -- are they lifting something? In general terms, the answer should be "enormously strong." Tyrannosaurs Rex is believed to have had the strongest bite force of any land animal.
Measuring it very generally. Like "A T-Rex was x-thousand times stronger than a cottontail rabbit" or "A gigantopithecus was y times stronger than a modern chimpanzee."

It's slowly dawning on me that it's simply not possible to calculate, even on very general terms. Kangaroos, for instance, have that unique musculature that makes hopping their most efficient means of locomotion, and the very powerful alligator has those spindly little legs.
  #8  
Old 10-19-2018, 12:33 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
So I can just use the bone. Awesome! Thanks, Colibri!

It isn't like you have any other choice--the bone is all that there is to work with.



You might find some useful articles at SV-POW!, such as this one.
  #9  
Old 10-19-2018, 12:55 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailboat View Post
Remember that almost every animal is stronger for its size than a human, because humans carry a mutation that makes our muscles much less efficient.
Cite? I thought we just had a disadvantage of structure (how the bones are laid out and where the muscles connect to them) as compared to, for example, a chimpanzee.
  #10  
Old 10-19-2018, 01:02 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 41,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
It isn't like you have any other choice--the bone is all that there is to work with.
Some fossils include tendons, and there are a few rare "dinosaur mummies" that include other soft tissues. But yes, for most species we only have bone.
  #11  
Old 10-19-2018, 01:08 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Cite? I thought we just had a disadvantage of structure (how the bones are laid out and where the muscles connect to them) as compared to, for example, a chimpanzee.

Chimps aren't as much stronger than humans as "common knowledge" claims.
  #12  
Old 10-19-2018, 01:18 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,430
Great cite, Darren.
  #13  
Old 10-20-2018, 08:22 AM
Textual Innuendo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 455
We even had a thread where we discussed this at greater length.
  #14  
Old 10-20-2018, 03:00 PM
RaftPeople is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 7-Eleven
Posts: 6,475
But double is still pretty significant.

"A chimpanzee had, pound for pound, as much as twice the strength of a human when it came to pulling weights."
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017