Size Argentinosaurus is among the largest known land animals, although its exact size is difficult to estimate because of the incompleteness of its remains. A reconstruction of
Argentinosaurus created by
Gregory Paul in 1994 yielded a length estimate of . Later that year, estimates by Bonaparte and Coria suggesting a hind limb length of , a trunk length (hip to shoulder) of , and an overall body length of were published. In 2006,
Kenneth Carpenter reconstructed
Argentinosaurus using the more complete
Saltasaurus as a guide and estimated a length of . In 2008, Jorge Calvo and colleagues used the proportions of
Futalognkosaurus to estimate the length of
Argentinosaurus at less than . In 2013, William Sellers and colleagues arrived at a length estimate of and a shoulder height of by measuring the skeletal mount in Museo Carmen Funes. In 2016, Paul estimated the length of
Argentinosaurus at , but later estimated a greater length of or longer in 2019, restoring the unknown neck and tail of
Argentinosaurus after those of other large South American titanosaurs. Paul estimated a body mass of for
Argentinosaurus in 1994. In 2014 and 2018, Roger Benson and colleagues estimated the mass of
Argentinosaurus at , but these estimates were questioned due to a very large error range and lack of precision. In 2016, using equations that estimate body mass based on the circumference of the humerus and femur of quadrupedal animals, Bernardo Gonzáles Riga and colleagues estimated a mass of based on an isolated femur; it is uncertain whether this femur actually belongs to
Argentinosaurus. In the same year, Paul moderated his earlier estimate from 1994 and listed the body mass of
Argentinosaurus at more than . While
Argentinosaurus was definitely a massive animal, there is disagreement over whether it was the largest known titanosaur.
Puertasaurus,
Futalognkosaurus,
Dreadnoughtus,
Paralititan,
"Antarctosaurus" giganteus, and
Alamosaurus have all been considered to be comparable in size with
Argentinosaurus by some studies, although others have found them to be notably smaller. The mass of the
blue whale, however, which can be greater than , still exceeds that of all known sauropods. The (excavations on the sides of the centra) were proportionally small and positioned in the front half of the centrum. The vertebrae were internally lightened by a complex pattern of numerous
air-filled chambers. Such camellate bone is, among sauropods, especially pronounced in the largest and longest-necked species. In both the dorsal and sacral vertebrae, very large cavities measuring were present. The dorsal ribs were tubular and cylindrical in shape, in contrast with other titanosaurs. probably had six sacral vertebrae (those in the hip region), although the last one is not preserved. The centra of the second to fifth sacral vertebrae were much reduced in size and considerably smaller than the centrum of the first sacral. The sacral ribs curved downwards. The second sacral rib was larger than the other preserved sacral ribs, though the size of the first is unknown due to its incompleteness. Sebastián Apesteguía, in 2005, argued the structures seen in
Argentinosaurus, which he termed hyposphenal bars, are indeed thickened laminae that could have been derived from the original hyposphene and had the same function.
Limbs |alt=Photo of the assigned upper thigh bone on exhibit at the Museo de La Plata The complete femur that was assigned to
Argentinosaurus is long. The femoral shaft has a circumference of about at its narrowest part. Mazzetta and colleagues used
regression equations to estimate its original length at , which is similar to the length of the other femur, and later in 2019 Paul gave a similar estimate of . By comparison, the complete femora preserved in the other giant titanosaurs
Antarctosaurus giganteus and
Patagotitan mayorum measure and , respectively. While the holotype specimen does not preserve a femur, it preserves a slender fibula (originally interpreted as a tibia) that is in length. When it was identified as a tibia, it was thought to have a comparatively short , a prominent extension at the upper front that anchored muscles for stretching the leg. However, as stated by Mazzetta and colleagues, this bone lacks both the proportions and anatomical details of a tibia, while being similar in shape to other sauropod fibulae. ==Classification==