Talk:Hierophant

The article said "bigger than a blue whale" not "more massive" so perhaps the article was referring to volume, length and or height.

It was in the context of the Heirophant's canonical mass being 51 tons, and as such presumably referred to mass. --69.125.57.117 02:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Counter:Saying the Blue Whale is the "Largest animal EVER!" is both out-dated and naive, we have numerous theory's and evidence pointing out animals that could make a Blue Whale look like a rat in comparison, one includes a Itchyosaur that if proven correct, dwarves the whale. Others such as the Leedsitchis have weight measurement that could go up to 200+ tons. There are many dinosaurs such as Amphicoelias for example, have weight that would just be colossal, the old 122 ton mark was a mistake, you heard me a MISTAKE. The guy redid his calculations and it came out with a weight of over 240 tons, the heaviest Blue Whale was 175 tons no Whale came close to reach the 200+ton mark. And god forbid if we go into the Broome Titanosaur, that dinosaur would actually dwarf a Reaver-Class titan, no kidding search it up.

• Don't be silly, Reaver titans would weigh at least over a thousand tons.

 *Of course I know that son, I am just talking about first impressions, that Dinosaur look like it can step on the Reaver [:-/

Citation needed for your sauropod mass figures. Also, remember that amphicoelias isn't exactly a well-attested fossil, so any figures are highly speculative. Also, remember reality-checking: when you're in the 200+ ton range, you have to ask whether it's plausible for a land animal to have a mass like that and not implode. As for the Broome titanosaur, there are no bones to go by, so again, any figures have massive margins of error. --70.192.72.65 13:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• The Broome Titanosaur came from a group of Dinosaur Tracks in Broome of Australia, said feet was measured at 1.7 metres long that is big enough that a entire Human could sit on it. Some paleontologist enthusiast from the Carnivorum forums tried caculating its mass and it turned out to be over the 250+ ton mark. Furthermore Amphicoelias, even if it was a lost bone, was heavily documented, and thus is considered more legit by Paleontologist. The Amphicoelias original weight was considered a mistake by the original author and Palaeontologist and thus corrected it, by re-calculating it he gets a dinosaur above 200+tons. And once you remember that Amphi's Backbone was as tall as an Elephant...You have to remember that just 50 years ago Palaeontologists believe that animals weighing over 30 tons was impossible, now look at what we have now. The link for Amphi is right below.

Link:http://palaeozoologist.deviantart.com/journal/Amphicoelias-fragillimus-bigger-than-you-think-221544713

• Furthermore this is what a scaled model of the Broome Titanosaur and Amphicoelias really is compared to the whales, link is below

Link:http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=11h8f8k&s=6

One - that's just speculation based on a fossilized footprint and a single bone. Two - while both dinosaurs may well have been significantly larger than a blue whale, that doesn't mean they were heavier. Remember that there are real limits on the mass of a land animal, and anything over or even near requires extraordinary evidence - which is simply lacking here. Footprints and single bones are not the same as complete or largely-complete skeletons. --70.192.72.65 16:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• You do know that the Dinosaur footprints of Broome isn't the only place showing massive Sauropod feet, Parabrontopodus are a set of Sauropod tracks that is in similar shape and size as those found in Broome, they are located in europe but is more promenent in France. Furthermore Amphicoelias isn't speculation, it was fact, this is because the bones and details of Amphicoelias was heavily documented and based, unlike Bruhathkayosaurus, with the added fact that the guys from Carnivorum calculated that the maximum weight for a Sauropod Dinosaur was 300 tons. Remember that just over 50 years ago, 30 tons was considered the maximum weight of a land animal, furthermore collosal animals such as Amphi would be very hard to fossilised since it was too big, and that we only discovered less then 10% of all Dinosaurs, non the less every Prehistoric creature out there. So to call the Blue Whale as the largest animal ever is as equally as speculative as saying Bruhathkayosaurus was legit.

Not largest, most massive. There were almost certainly dinosaurs larger than blue whales, but it's not clear if there were any more massive. Carnivora is not a good scientific source, their calculations aren't really worth anything. Amphicoelias is not a well-attested genus. We don't have the bones of the type specimen anymore, and there was never anything close to a complete specimen. 9 bones, no matter how big, is not exactly a lot to go on. As for the legitimacy of the claim that the blue whale is the most massive animal ever, we don't have very much by way of evidence against it, and it's certainly the most massive of the animals whose masses we're pretty sure of - and Amphicoelias doesn't fit into that category. --70.192.71.187 22:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Of course there are animals bigger then the Blue Whale, the main problem you and I have is that large animals such as Amphicoelias and Puertasaurus has a less chance to fossilise due to its size. Furthermore Carnivorum may be less legit, but the fact that the original author and Palaeontologist that did the weight of Amphicoelias said it was a mistake, and was infact larger then originally thought further puts the notion of the Blue Whale as the biggest animal more in danger.
• Only us /tg/ers can have this kind of a digression on dinosaurs when talking about a small Kaiju sized regenerating murder dinobug.

*Neh, this is just help full information and discussion over Paleontology and the likes ^^

• Any suggestion that this or that animal was larger than a blue whale is heresy.
  • Any suggestion that the Blue Whale is larger then all of them despite multiple claims of the contrary is extra heresy.

Use of term in fantasy - New Section or New Article?

As an old religious title, it's used for plenty of fantasy stuff. Should this stuff be covered in a new section or a new article and, if a new article, what should be in the parentheses? Off the top of my head it's a core Prestige Class in D&D 3E and a Mythic Path in Pathfinder, but I'm sure there's others. --Agiletek (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)