Length isn’t a particularly good proxy for “size” in many cases. Nobody would say a python is “bigger” than an elephant, though they can grow much longer.

I meant the 100 tons mark but either way you’re absolutely right like that article shows. Curiously, I even remember reading the article but after so much reading sometimes things start to overlap each other.

I appreciated the reminder. Thank you!

You are certainly right that there is a plague of overestimation when it comes to dinosaur size. But you are certainly wrong in disputing that the two Brian discusses here reached 100 feet in length. They were both much bigger than that, by any reasonably estimate. For more detail on this, see How big was Amphicoelias fragillimus? I mean, really?.

Good write-up. Unfortunately, Bruhathkayosaurus shares a third characteristic with Amphicoelias in addition to being giant and incomplete: the original fossils have now been lost. Evidently they were being stored under tarps out behind the rural museum where they were curated and washed away during a flood. As far as I know, in the slightly more than two decades that the Bruhathkayosaurus material was available for study, no orthogonal photographs or detailed measurements were taken; at least, none have ever been published. Call it the curse of the gigapods.

So in fact the answer to the question, “How big were the biggest sauropods?” is “We can’t say for sure anymore.”

Best,

Matt