Pelorovis antiquus (Northern Giant Long-horned Buffalo)

[richardrli]

Yeah a source for the 2000kg would be great. I really think that 2 tonnes is just a bit too much, so any more info on that would be much appreciated.

[another specialist]

reply 4 mentions this info but here is source

www.nasmus.co.za/rockart/news.HTM

[sordes]

It is problematic to estimate the weight, because there are nearly no sources about its actual size in the net. If it had a shoulder height of 2m, it was about the size of a gaur, and very probably ober 1000kg in weight. I´ll made some calculaions based on cape buffalos. But I suppose that this species were really the bovids with the largest horns ever. I heard about horn spans of about 2m for bison latifrons, but P. antiquus had nearly 4m.

[another specialist]

The image i uploaded on reply 3 gives you a good scale of its size.

[dantheman9758]

B. latifrons skull on display at North Dakota museum has a horn CORE span of 7', which is 2.1 meters, it is also stated that their horn core spans could be even larger than 7'... this is probably where you got your 2 meter number... but remember thats just the CORE span not the full span of the horn on the living animal, the actual estimate for its full length is something like 3.5 meters. I doubt Pelorvis had a 4 meter horn CORE span, so I'm assuming that is the full length estimate of its horn span... so they aren't too different in terms of horn span. And bison latifrons was capable of attaining an 8.5' shoulder height according to various sources.

All in all if you ask me, I think both animals were about the same size... And I bet if i did some scale charts, and some research on how weight estimates were attained, it would show that pelorvis probably did not weigh 2,000 kg... but more along the ballpark of 1200-1500 kg.

[another specialist]

also we have to remember that Pelorovis antiquus was alot larger than bison bison the modern day bison and with states like this Bison can reach up to 2 metres (6½ ft) tall, 3 metres (10 ft) long and weigh 900 to 2,000 lbs. The biggest specimens on record have weighed as much as 1140 kg (2,500 lb). I would say for sure it would of weighed more than 1200-1500kg

[sordes]

I made a calculation based on th given weight of 680 kg for a cape buffalo with a shoulder height of 1,70m. The result was a weight of about 1200-1300 kg for a "giant" cape buffalo with a shoulder height of 2,10 (because P. antiquus is on the illustration clearly over 2m). Given the fact that bovines have a tendency to become much more massive with increasing size, it could be also more, but surely not 2000kg.

[another specialist]

Personal opinions will always vary and measurements and weight estimates will always vary.

[dantheman9758]

A weight estimate should never be a personal opinion, so thats not a choice of word that i would use, it makes the whole debate sound like a bunch of kids arguing over which superhero is more powerful, and those arguments go nowhere. If you believe it to be 2000kg than show us some reasoning behind it, I still think, even with that scale chart, that it looks no bigger than the extinct bison latifrons, which again, puts it at between 1300 - 1500 kg. It surely does not look as bulky, or long as a white rhinoceros (though it appears a little taller... the length and bulk should outweigh height). Even though buffalo have stocky body plans for a bovid, they still look quite thin compared to the rhinoceros family. 2000kg is the size of a mature white rhino, and this animal is not in the ballpark of the current 2nd largest mammal family on earth. It's a bovid... its body plan is big but I still can't believe that it is as large as a white rhino, its dimensions aren't big enough. It looks larger than a large Gaur bull or very large wild Asian water buffalo, but not by a significant amount to push it to the 2000 kilo mark.

If you really want to reinforce the fact that you agree with the 2000kg estimate, some reasoning or an analytical breakdown would be nice, that way we can atleast see what angle your looking at this with.

[another specialist]

JSTOR:

Bison Latifrons in Kansas
B. F. Mudge
Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science (1872-1880), Vol. 5, 1877 (1877), p. 10
doi:10.2307/3623492

links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1933-0537(1877)5%3C10%3ABLIK%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

The weight of B. latifrons was about four times that of the living buffalo.

So as you said above it looks no bigger than the extinct bison latifrons. so if bison latifrons was about four times the weight of a bison bison.

What weight would you come out with using this source?

So this weight would be for bison latifrons which was similiar in size to Pelorovis antiquus.

[another specialist]

It is all personal opinion when you think about it as it ain't fact we are all coming out with different estimates with different calculations.

If it wasn't an opinion and was fact there wouldn't being estimates or guesses there would be exact figures.

[richardrli]

dantheman, there are some minor errors with your post. First of all, a mature bull white rhino should weigh heavier than 2000kg, im pretty sure about that. Also, the Southeast Asian subspecies of the gaur (the largest of the subspecies) is said to be 1400 kg for an average bull. Given that P. Antiquus was larger than it is and judging from pictures of it's height and bulk I will put it around the 1600-1800kg ballpark. I also think it was slightly smaller than a Bison Latifrons, which is likely the largest bovid ever.

[another specialist]

Richardrli you are right about white rhino being heavier.

The White Rhino has a massive body and large head, a short neck and broad chest. The average size range of a mature rhino is a weight of 1800-3000 kg (4000-6600 lb), a head-and-body length of 3.35-4.2 m (11-13.9 feet) and a shoulder height of 150-185 cm (60-73 inches). The record-sized White Rhinoceros was about 3600 kg.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rhino

[dantheman9758]

I never said "bull white rhino" anywhere and i did not imply bull white rhino either, I stated that 2000kg is in the weight range of a full grown white rhino species, and that is true, --- there was no error, I left out the specification of "bull". My source is the Smithsonian Institute book "Animal: The definitive visual guide to the worlds wildlife". and It says the weight of a weight white rhino is "Up to 2.3 tonnes (2300 kg)"... meaning that that is the maximum typical weight (and I already saw wikipedia's article before I even posted my statement that 2000kg is in the size range of a white rhino... and it only reinforces my statement... look for yourself, the number 2000 is definitely between 1800 and 3000)... don't split my hairs and say "but the record weight is!!!..... or "theyve been recorded larger!!!!" ... yeah so what? I'm not comparing the "largest" white rhinos to a Pelorvis, and i never once stated that i was... I'm comparing a typical, generic white rhino (which is typically the 2nd largest type of land mammal on earth) to a Pelorvis... and 2000kg is pretty damn big, it's close the the upper size range of white rhinos according to a Smithsonian book that is far more credible than wikipedia.

And.... Bull Guar most certainly do not AVERAGE 1400kg, whatever source said that is full of baloney .... 650-1,000kg is a typical range for Gaur... maybe 1200kg for the very rare large specimens... and those numbers include males and females, females being closer to the lower number and males closer to the higher number.... and again, 1200kg would be rare, and that is just me guessing so you guys don't horde me with a ton of sources that contradict the book, because the book only puts 1000kg at the upper range of a Gaur...

I am not a "scientist" and many of you probably aren't either, but we are using (or should be, if you aren't) logical deductions based on science, evidence, and factual information to come up with our estimates.... c'mon... saying its all just "opinion" waters this debate down to useless bickering and i'd rather not treat it that way... It's much more than opinion, when factual knowledge is placed behind it... thats when it starts to become a theory or at the very least, a hypothesis, so we are THEORIZING or HYPOTHESIZING the possible weights of this animal, not just throwing out our random opinions... I don't see it any other way... Opinion is: "whats your favorite color?" "mine is blue"...

Jstor isn't a goldmine of facts, a lot of those articles are old, outdated, or based on poor evidence. A typical, healthy male Bison latifrons most certainly was not 4 times the weight of a typical healthy male Bison bison. Look around, every other source states that bison latifrons was usually, 1/3rd, or 30-35 percent larger than a Bison bison... 50 percent larger at the most, a farcry from 400 percent... which is clearly an outrageous estimation.

8,800 lbs for a bison? (2200 lb bull bison bison x 4 = bullshit...)

[dantheman9758]

www.angellis.net/Web/PDfiles/ungartio.pdf

Use this as a source for species size, they are either good estimates, or actual lengths/heights/weights calculated by scientists who are much more qualified at getting this data than any of us. Though unfortunately for our particular animals, it doesn't give weight, we CAN logically deduce what a probable weight for the animal will be....

This is as direct as measurements or estimates can get...

Bison latifrons shoulder height 2.3 meters, with a 46?cm skull (? means its an estimate.. probably due to incomplete skull finds)
The Pelorvis genus had a shoulder height of 2 meters, and the species Pelorvis antiquus had a skull length of 43 centimeters....

Based on these actual measurements (not b.s. estimations) one can LOGICALLY DEDUCE (not express opinion) that a Pelorvis was smaller than a Bison latifrons. AND based on the various sources that state Bison latifrons was 30-35 percent larger than a Bison bison (which is much more reasonable than a 400 percent estimate), a weight range of 1200-1500 kilograms is obtained.... so based on logical deduction, it would be impossible for a Pelorvis to weigh 2,000kg, as we have already established that its dimensions are smaller than a Bison latifrons....


End of Debate

[richardrli]

To be honest I would rather use the upper end numbers for given weights than lower figures, for a simple reason, upper end (not the heaviest or whatever) simply shows what an animal is CAPABLE of reaching, its potential size it can reach given optimum conditions and enough food (sadly often not the case these days with human activities everywhere). Also, I wouldn't really give a damn about 'averages', they're just that, averages, interpret it in whichever way you like. A good example is say in a class of 20 people, 18 are quite smart while there are two real idiots, guess what happens? THEY BRING THE AVERAGE DOWN!
Now, the black rhino is said to weight on AVERAGE 800-1400kg, and the majority of sources I've seen states the gaur as the largest bovid these days and that it's NOT smaller than a black rhino, some I've seen said it was bigger, so take your pick. Again, what I'm saying is to keep an open mind and not reject anything you may not have seen or heard yet. One interesting report I've read claims that a bull gaur was fighting with an indian rhino (don't know whether it was male or female) and it seemed to be doing quite well, it was evenly fought. Now the Indian rhino is the same size as a White rhino, so again interpret it as you will.
You do seem to underrate the weights of various animals, I've noticed it a bit. Also your first reply to my post seemed to be out of context, I sense bitterness in that post, I was only pointing something out to you and I meant it in the most friendly manner. You're probably taking this more seriously than it needs to be, just try to look at more sources and perhaps then you can understand more. This is not a personal attack or anything, so please don't interpret it as such. A good debate is what I'm after when I joined this forum.
Cheers

[dantheman9758]

If an average gives a range of weights, that means it really doesn't bring the average down like you said it does. Use your example again, this time give it an answer of "human intelligence ranges from idiot, to quite smart" (because we are giving weight ranges for animals here, not solid numbers) and it now encompasses the full range... which is usually what animal weight "ranges" do.... a weight range is much more specific than an average, it encompasses a broad range of weights, including the "heavy" weights --- they just usually leave out the rare record holders that are nearly impossible to come by, and usually get large via rare genetic predisposition, which really doesn't speak collectively for how large most of its species members can get even under the best of conditions. You can say that I seem to "underrate" the weights of animals all you want, but I didn't rate them at all (save for the Pelorvis and Bison Latifrons estimations, which are actually in the ballpark of other peoples previous estimations).... I've already shown you that All my data was obtained from sources, and good ones at that.

Now, the black rhino is said to weight on AVERAGE 800-1400kg, <---- also, you should rephrase that so it instead says "Now, the black rhino is said to have a weight RANGE of 800-1400kg" because that is not a weight average, that is a weight range - Its more specific and like i said, encompasses a much broader and more accurate size range than a single average would.

According to wikipedia your right about Gaur being quite large, and indeed in the 1400kg ballpark... the trouble is, that the wikipedia page's sources completely conflict with the text written, and therefore that text is probably made up, or wrong. These are things you need to be careful of because a lot of these numbers might have been assumptions, or citations based on the weight numbers that something like the Indian govt gives in order to boost its eco-tourism (they want their animals to sound as spectacular as possible), also if those weights were obtained from zoo's than that could also be a red flag, as zoo animals are not a good representation of what a trim, and fit wild animal would weigh. Either way, take a look for yourself, the sources don't match the text and the text seems completely made up or based on poor sources. Here are the cited sources on the wikipedia gaur page, and they all seem to agree with my previous source the Smithsonian institute book.
www.wildcattleconservation.org/SpeciesFactSheets/BosGaurus.htm
www.ultimateungulate.com/Artiodactyla/Bos_frontalis.html
Wikipedia Is generally a good source and I don't want to completely discredit it, but in this case I think that the Gaur page contains some accuracy issues that have been flubbing up this whole debate (because it makes 1500kg seem like a plausable modern bovid weight, which in turn makes 2000kg seem like a plausable extinct bovid weight, but it isnt!) and this sounds like it may have been your main source about a Gaur size. - thats 3 sources against 1, that all verify the 1000kg mark as the upper weight limits of a Gaur, which at 2.2 meters shoulder height, is actually taller at the shoulder than a Pelorvis (however, gaur have shoulder humps, which boosts their shoulder height, Pelorvis, at roughly 2 meters at the shoulder (give or take) is still pretty damn impressive considering it has no shoulder hump and it was built more like a cape buffalo, so it was quite stocky and round, which would still put it above the 1,000kg mark, perhaps 1200kg... but nowhere near 2000kg)


I think I seemed bitter because i posted that at like 3:00 in the morning, and I was really tired, and probably really was unintentionally being bitter, sorry.

If I seem bitter again, in this response than maybe its just the way I type my phrases but I'm really not trying to sound that way, I don't want to offend anybody or anything. I'm not trying to look angry or stern, I just try to get my point accross and I don't bother with the "haha's" and the smiley faces that usually lighten up a response. So yeah don't worry I didn't consider anything you said a "personal attack" and I hope you don't feel the same way either.

So, now that we've established that even the largest bovid alive today, the Gaur, is somewhere around 1,000kg at the upper limits (give or take 100kg just to be flexible), and now that we have actual skeletal dimensions of Bison latifrons, and Pelorvis antiquus, which clearly show that the animals were large, but not insanely larger than their living counterparts, can we all come to some sort of consensus or agreement that a Pelorvis probably never weighed 2,000kg?, that is afterall what we were originally trying to establish... -- we don't have to agree on what exactly it weighed but c'mon 2000kg is silly. Pelorvis was barely bigger than a gaur, and in fact shorter at the shoulder.

[another specialist]

The original source for 2000kg was www.beaufortwestsa.co.za/Rockart.htm

and the exact words used are as follows

a giant buffalo that weighed up to 2 000 kg and which had a 3 m hornspan.

The words up to are used so that would of been the maximum not the average measurements. That would of been its maximum body weight with its maximum horn span.

so an average would of been lower lets say 1,500 kg possibly.

[richardrli]

OK, I admit I used solely wikipedia to get the gaur's weight. Wikipedia is actually quite reliable, despite what a lot of people say! But the bottom line is, 2000kg is clearly a bit excessive, even for an extinct bovid. Maybe, just maybe, the largest Bison Latifrons could reach that size.

Off topic, does anyone think any dinosaurs could possibly have been heavier than a blue whale?

[dantheman9758]

Yes I know wikipedia is usually reliable, I use it all the time myself... I don't blame you for arguing with me about the weights, wikipedia is generally a good source. But every once in a while you will find a page that still isn't accurate, and that gaur page needs some overhauling... I went back to read that page and it sounds like the author of that page, is some huge fanatic of the Gaur, and has this idealized massive fighting beast envisioned in his head... A lot of that stuff is like "even tigers don't dare touch the mighty gaur!" and "gaur can even go toe to toe with a rhinoceros!" and of course, those 50 percent bumped up weights. Somebody needs to go clean that page up and make it more scientific, and less hype and baloney about how "superior" of an animal the gaur is. The authors style of writing reminds me of those people who like to discuss "which animal would win in a fight! a blank or a blank!"

hmmm there was a thread where people were discussing that very topic about dinosaurs being heavier than blue whales. I don't know nearly enough about sauropods to give my own 2 cents on it but here is the thread.
extinctanimals.proboards22.com/index.cgi?board=dino&action=display&thread=1166748711&page=1