Were dinosaurs lightweights?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The dinosaurs that roamed Earth millions of years ago might not have been nearly as massive as we’ve long imagined, says a paper published today in the Zoological Society of London's Journal of Zoology.

The creatures may have weighed half as much as previously estimated. Paleontologists have leaned on a 25-year-old statistical model to calculate dinosaur body mass. But that method is “seriously flawed,” says Gary Packard, lead study author and biology professor emeritus at Colorado State University.

If he’s right, the biggest dinosaur, the Apatosaurus louisae (formerly of the Brontosaurus genus), wasn't really 42 tons (38 metric tons), but instead a slimmer 20 tons (18 metric tons).

The influential 1985 study that has been the basis for most mass estimates derived its models from measurements of large specimens of modern-day animal species—from rodents to hippos. But Packard and his colleagues claim that flawed equations and a sampling of uncharacteristically large individuals have overestimated weights ever since.

The standard method of prediction, using the statistical tool of back-transformation from logarithmic forms, estimated one elephant’s weight at 20,283 pounds (9,200 kilograms) based on the length of its femur. But the new, nonlinear regression model predicts 13,007 pounds (5,900 kilograms). The actual weight of the elephant? Thirteen thousand pounds (5,897 kilograms).

If the biggest lizards were half as massive, there would be far-reaching implications for our understanding of the animals, including a rethink of how they moved, their metabolisms and, perhaps, even their life histories.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe