Science folks often try to be precise by admitting to a certain imprecision, generally expressed as “plus / minus”, or ±. You see it in polling, in measurements of physical quantities, just about anything. This, however, seems a trifle excessive when it comes to biology:
“I don’t think the scaling equations are wrong,” says Wedel. “I think they’re imprecise.” The main problem is the margin of error, which can be 30 tonnes or more for a gigantic sauropod. Despite its imprecision, the method is popular among dinosaur palaeontologists because it is easy to use, even without a good understanding of sauropod anatomy. They aren’t necessarily concerned by its shortcomings. Biologically and behaviourally speaking, a 30-tonne sauropod was probably similar to a 60-tonne one, says Campione, and pinning down body mass more precisely arguably has limited scientific value. [“The biggest dinosaur ever may have been twice the size we thought,” Colin Barras, NewScientist (13 June 2020, paywall)]
So, off by 30 tonnes for a 30 ton sauropod? Perhaps ±15 tonnes for an estimate of 45 tonnes, just so we don’t end up including an infamously weightless dinosaur when we’re doing the math?
ooof.
And that Puertasaurus above? Deduced from …
[The only specimen] consists of four well-preserved vertebrae, including one cervical, one dorsal, and two caudal vertebrae.
Visually, again from Wikipedia …
I have no problem with deduction, but working from all of four – monstrous – vertebra seems amazing.
