Daikaiju are real

"Daikaju" is not a scientific term. You should not use it for real animals. In any case this sauropod was a herbivore, not the primarily carnivore look which the Godzilla design was based on. 

This is already categorized as a dinosaur, Not a kaiju. Kaiju are usually from fictional books, or movies, or ledgend.

This is a dinosaur, It is also not a fully complete skeleton, Only a sole vertebrae was discovered. Even the scale of it is assumed, we have yet to recover an actual full skeleton. 

(As stated prior, Herbivore)

remember, amphcolious was a lightly built diplodacid, the closest thing i could think of to a daikaiju(and it would still be pretty far off) would be bruhathkayosaurus, shorter than amphcoleous, but the higher weight estimates put it at a size comparable to a blue whale, if not bigger.

"'Daikaju' is not a scientific term."

No sh*t, Sherlock.

"In any case this sauropod was a herbivore, not the primarily carnivore look which the Godzilla design was based on."

What does that have to do with anything?

"This is already categorized as a dinosaur, Not a kaiju. Kaiju are usually from fictional books, or movies, or ledgend."

Because there are no kaiju in all of fiction that are dinosaurs... that would be preposterous! *coughgodzillaanguirusbaragongorosaurusandcountlessotherscough* In all seriousness, though I'm pretty sure there have been plenty of kaiju that are just naturally evolved, unmutated dinosaurs.

"This is a dinosaur, It is also not a fully complete skeleton, Only a sole vertebrae was discovered. Even the scale of it is assumed, we have yet to recover an actual full skeleton."

The same is true for pretty much all dinosaurs. I fail to see how this is relevant.

All of your arguments fail to explain why this creature could not be considered a daikaiju. Once again, isn't the only qualifying trait of a daikaiju that it is a giant creature?

Listen Linkzilla. If you don't like getting responses you don't like, maybe you shouldn't start threads here. To enlighten your mind, Godzilla is based on carnivore design, got that? 

Maybe its too hard for you to understand, but in the real world, no one with any self-respect call animals with imaginary names like "daikaju". You could name it after fictional creatures but you cannot define it as a fictional creature. Smarten up will you.

Once again, I ask you, what does Godzilla having a carnivore design have to do with this animal? The last time I checked, a monster's diet has nothing to do with whether it's a kaiju or not. And, Jesus Christ, lighten up, will you? I was obviously not seriously suggesting that I or anyone else should go around calling real animals "daikaiju." I was merely pointing out that a real animal existed which was around the same size as your average Godzilla monster. And finally, resorting to personal insults is just low.

Also, it seems that 3 posts in this discussion after my second post have randomly disappeared. Does anyone know why that might have happened?

Show me a planting-eating Kaiju in the Godzilla series, Linkzilla.

As for insults, where did I call you "names"?  Its not right to call real animals 'Daikaju" for the simple reason that we don't call real things as fictional creatures, same size or not.  We don't say unicorns are "real" just because there are animals with horns on their heads (narwhal). Besides, if you really want to talk about size, you do realize Godzilla is 300+ feet now and some of his adversaries (Ghidorah, Destroyah etc) are even bigger. That is far bigger than this dinosaur you point out.

Sure, some early kaijus have a similar size, but again, its wrong to place real animals as comparison, you don't see real animals shoot lasers or atomic breath out of their mouths do you? 

"Show me a planting-eating Kaiju in the Godzilla series, Linkzilla."

When did being carnivorous become a prerequisite for being a kaiju? In fact, I can remember hardly any instances in the Godzilla series of kaiju eating anything at all, and none whatsoever of Godzilla eating.

"As for insults, where did I call you "names"?"

I didn't say you called me "names," I said you used "insults." You did this when you said "Maybe its too hard for you to understand" (implying that I am stupid), "no one with any self-respect call animals with imaginary names like 'daikaju'" (implying that I should have no self-respect), and "Smarten up will you" (once again, implying that I am stupid). And all that for making a light-hearted suggestion that an animal fits the definition of a term usually used to refer to fictional creatures. Really, what did I do to deserve such a venomous response?

"Its not right to call real animals 'Daikaju" for the simple reason that we don't call real things as fictional creatures, same size or not."

You are still acting as if I seriously suggested that this animal should be taxonomically categorized as a "daikaiju," even though I already said that that is not true.

"We don't say unicorns are "real" just because there are animals with horns on their heads (narwhal)."

That's not really comparable, since unicorns are a specific type of creature, while "daikaiju" is just a term used to refer to giant monsters in general. Basically the only definition of the word that would cover all of the monsters that are commonly referred to as that would be "a giant creature," and Amphicoelias fits that definition perfectly.

"Besides, if you really want to talk about size, you do realize Godzilla is 300+ feet now and some of his adversaries (Ghidorah, Destroyah etc) are even bigger. That is far bigger than this dinosaur you point out."

The fact that some incarnations of Godzilla are bigger than Amphicoelias doesn't change the fact that others are smaller than it. Are you saying that those Godzillas are not real daikaiju?

"you don't see real animals shoot lasers or atomic breath out of their mouths do you?"

You do know that not all daikaiju have exotic abilities like that, right? Look at Zilla, for example: his only unusual abilities are burrowing (which many real animals can do) and breathing flammable gas (which is biologically possible, although no animals have ever been known to evolve it), and he is not at all immune to conventional weapons, but I don't hear anyone saying he's not a real daikaiju. Or, for an even better example, see the Rhedosaurus (The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms), the monster that partially inspired Godzilla, which, IIRC, is just a perfectly ordinary dinosaur that rampages through New York, but I'm pretty sure he's generally considered a daikaiju as well. In fact, the Rhedosaurus is 2-3 times smaller than the estimated sizes of Amphicoelias.

Once again, since you didn't seem to understand it the first time, this thread was never intended to be all that serious, I was just sharing my discovery that there was a real animal that was as big as a Godzilla monster. If you can't handle that for some reason, you should take a chill pill and come back when you can be a little more civil about it.

Hahaha.

Me take a chill pill? Maybe you should take some of your own advice. I'm not the one who seem to hyperventilate over every response here. 

As for not taking this so seriously, again who is the one here who is oh-so-offended when I told you maybe you shouldn't mix real animals with Daikaiju? 

Its irrelevant whether some kaiju have no exotic ability or not, the fact is, they don't exist in our current world, so its rather meaningless to discuss it as a comparision to real animals in a serious fashion, which is what you seem to be doing.

"its rather meaningless to discuss it as a comparision to real animals in a serious fashion, which is what you seem to be doing."

I'm not, and I never was. There, end of discussion.

Ok....but you sure came across as rather serious, that's all I'm saying, but ok then, whatever you say....:)

I was serious about you insulting me. I can see why you might have thought I gave a damn about the whole daikaiju argument, though.

Insulting you? Riiighhhttt. That was what I was talking about, so serious. Listen kid, you gotta learn to deal with different opinions. Don't hyperventilate each time someone disagree with you.