Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Traditional Art / Professional NimaMale/United States Group :iconprehistory-alive: Prehistory-Alive
Bringing prehistory back to life
Recent Activity
Deviant for 6 Years
Needs Premium Membership
Statistics 99 Deviations 5,457 Comments 123,358 Pageviews

Newest Deviations

Favourites

Activity


British Brachiosaurs by Paleo-King
British Brachiosaurs
A combination image of most of the known brachiosaur species found in the British Isles (all from England so far). I made this a couple years ago and refined it a few times, I figure it's time to show it off since it can't really get more accurate than this (since with such incomplete specimens, "accuracy" of skeletal art isn't really quantifiable past a certain point). As you can see, there aren't a whole lot of good remains of these animals, which may be due to the climate affecting the exposed fossil strata. It seems that the Isle of Wight, the homeland of the majority of England's sauropods, was dominated by brachiosaurs in the Early Cretaceous. They are mostly small or midsized animals for their lineage, but this does not rule out the presence of bigger species or individuals. The fragmentary nature of the fossils and the lack of any shoulder material means these specimens (aside from the clearly juvenile Bothriospondylus suffosus and the not-so-gigantic Chondrosteosaurus gigas with their unfused neural sutures) may still be at most only subadult animals.

In terms of quality of preservation (which, for most sauropods found in England, leaves a lot to be desired), the "nicest" of these animals is Eucamerotus, although only two vertebrae are in tip-top shape. They clearly indicate a deep-bodied brachiosaur similar to Giraffatitan but with more robust neural spines which lack the backswept angle found in Giraffatitan. The proportions of the missing parts (i.e. 95% of the skeleton in most of these animals!) were reconstructed after Brachiosaurus, Giraffatitan, Lusotitan, Lapparentosaurus and other brachiosaurs I have restored. All the species shown here are called by the most recent revisions of their names (which themselves have a very long and convoluted history of being recycled, passed around, and brought back from the dead) but I have decided to stick with the old BMNH catalog numbers for the sake of consistency with the older literature. The British Museum's needless and chronic name-changes to the "NHM" and then the "NHMUK", and now to who knows what (hence changing catalog letters and possibly even some specimen numbers), really makes me angry :X .All the confusion with specimen codes and all the money wasted on new labels, databases and stationary. Not that this makes BYU's specimen number-shuffles look any better :XD:

The larger and more complete "Barnes High brachiosaur" could not be accurately illustrated as it is in private hands and the issue of ownership remains complex - there are no good photos to go on. The Isle of Wight giant "Angloposeidon", which is also probably a good deal larger than any of these animals, is now thought to be a basal somphospondylian (probably something similar to Chubutisaurus) rather than a brachiosaur. An undescribed ilium, sacrum, and limb material found on the Isle of Wight appear to have bsal somphospondylian features and may also belong to this animal.



References:

Barrett, Paul M., Roger B.J. Benson and Paul Upchurch (2010). "Dinosaurs of Dorset: Part II, the sauropod dinosaurs (Saurischia, Sauropoda) with additional comments on the theropods". Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 131: 113–126.

Blows, William T.  1995.  The Early Cretaceous brachiosaurid dinosaurs Ornithopsis and Eucamerotus from the Isle of Wight, England.  Palaeontology 38 (1): 187-197.

Hulke, J. W. 1879. "Note (3rd) on (Eucamerotus, Hulke) Ornithopsis, H. G. Seeley, = Bothriospondylus magnus, Owen, = Chondrosteosaurus magnus, Owen". Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 35: 752–762.

Hulke, J. W. 1874. "Note on a very Large Saurian Limb-bone adapted for Progression upon Land, from the Kimmeridge Clay of Weymouth, Dorset". Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 30: 16–17.

Melville, A.G., 1849, "Notes on the vertebral column of Iguanodon", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 139: 285–300

Owen, R., 1842, "Report on British Fossil reptiles, Pt. II". Reports of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 11: 60–204

Owen, R., 1875, "A monograph on the Fossil Reptilia of the Mesozoic Formations. Monograph on the Genus Bothriospondylus", Palaeontographical Society, 29: 15-26

Owen, R. (1876). "Monograph on the fossil Reptilia of the Wealden and Purbeck Formations. Supplement 7. Crocodilia (Poikilopleuron) and Dinosauria? (Chondrosteosaurus)." Palaeontographical Society Monographs, 30: 1-7.

Seeley, H.G., 1870, "Ornithopsis, a gigantic animal of the Pterodacyle kind from the Wealden", Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 4th series 4(5): 305-318
Loading...
I have updated my Andesaurus image again, based on the research in Mannion and Calvo (2011). New restorations of arm material and ribs, and upgraded vertebrae, hips, tail, everything. Jorge Calvo himself was co-author (along with Argentina's "Godfather of Paleontology" Jose Bonaparte) of the original description paper for Andesaurus in 1991. So it's interested to see how his view of Andesaurus and its relatives has changed. One thing is sure, the new paper has MUCH more good visual material than the old one. Actual photographs of many of the bones, in high resolution, which uncover some major problems in the original drawings, and even more so those in Salgado and Calvo (1997) which illustrated an anterior caudal far too big (probably an error incurred through compiling such a large monochrome paper with such admittedly cheap, smoothed out line drawings). We end up with a shorter-tailed, higher-shouldered Andesaurus than before, which fits with its position as a basal titanosaur intermediate to euhelopodids/acrofornicans and intermediate titanosaurs like lognkosaurians. The tail is also considerably thinner than the isolated line drawings in Salgado and Calvo (1997) misled us to believe.

So that means with its smaller tail, Andesaurus is even smaller than previously estimated. Read it and weep, Dougal Dixon. :XD:
Dreadnoughtus schrani, or as I call it, Lacovara's titanosaur, is the newest giant on the block. Just described, after years of painstaking reconstruction and cementing thousands of fragments together. Not the biggest dinosaur, but still very impressive for its size and completeness.

Find out more on my blog here: paleoking.blogspot.com/2014/09…

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ebkMheGcLlQ/VBTSWLhj09I/AAAAAAAABWQ/hSxn1k_szVw/s1600/model.jpg

And here's the announcement from Drexel U: drexel.edu/now/archive/2014/Se…

And the paper itself: www.nature.com/srep/2014/14090…

No matter whether you agree or disagree with the paper's conclusions, this is one cool beast. And one impressive name.
Post your thoughts below. What do you like about this find? Heck, what's not to like!
Abydosaurus and Lusotitan have been revised. Check them out:

paleo-king.deviantart.com/art/…
paleo-king.deviantart.com/art/…

In the case of Abydosaurus, the changes required were relatively slight. For Lusotitan, they were far more radical, and resulted in a considerably smaller body size, but with a longer tail than before. This was a relatively long-tailed brachiosaur, but not an exceptionally huge one as previously thought. The head was also altered based on additional data from Europasaurus and referred Brachiosaurus sp. remains. Lusotitan was probably closer to the basal end of Brachiosauridae, somewhere between Europasaurus and Giraffatitan.
I have updated my Andesaurus image again, based on the research in Mannion and Calvo (2011). New restorations of arm material and ribs, and upgraded vertebrae, hips, tail, everything. Jorge Calvo himself was co-author (along with Argentina's "Godfather of Paleontology" Jose Bonaparte) of the original description paper for Andesaurus in 1991. So it's interested to see how his view of Andesaurus and its relatives has changed. One thing is sure, the new paper has MUCH more good visual material than the old one. Actual photographs of many of the bones, in high resolution, which uncover some major problems in the original drawings, and even more so those in Salgado and Calvo (1997) which illustrated an anterior caudal far too big (probably an error incurred through compiling such a large monochrome paper with such admittedly cheap, smoothed out line drawings). We end up with a shorter-tailed, higher-shouldered Andesaurus than before, which fits with its position as a basal titanosaur intermediate to euhelopodids/acrofornicans and intermediate titanosaurs like lognkosaurians. The tail is also considerably thinner than the isolated line drawings in Salgado and Calvo (1997) misled us to believe.

So that means with its smaller tail, Andesaurus is even smaller than previously estimated. Read it and weep, Dougal Dixon. :XD:

deviantID

Paleo-King
Nima
Artist | Professional | Traditional Art
United States
Current Residence: A dinosaur museum/bone bed near you
deviantWEAR sizing preference: Somewhere between Otto Arco and Louis Cyr
Favourite style of art: that's rather self-evident...
Operating System: Anything but Vista!
Skin of choice: mammalian, watertight, preferably soft, hairless and well-insulated
Personal Quote: "It must be new or bust!"

All images are my own copyrights unless explicitly noted otherwise. If you are interested in commissioning work or using any of my images in a paper, book, presentation or website, drop me a line at Paleo_King@hotmail.com.

Website: www.sassani-dinoart.com/

Blog:
Interests

AdCast - Ads from the Community

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:icondotb18:
DOTB18 Featured By Owner Jun 17, 2015
Having recently watched NatGeo's Dino Death Match, I wanted to ask: What's your take on the Montana Dueling Dinosaurs? Do you think it lends credence to the validity of Nanotyrannus?
Reply
:iconbrolyeuphyfusion9500:
brolyeuphyfusion9500 Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2015
Here's something which has potential implications for your titanosaurs:

journals.plos.org/plosone/arti…

This seems to be the primitive condition for titanosaurs.

Scott Hartman interpreted them as a series of spikes, and then applied them to two of his sauropod reconstructions.

Malawisaurus
Rapetosaurus
Reply
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner May 6, 2015
I love your sketch! very beautiful...my dear friend, Nima, you are Master of Paleo-art!

also, your information and interpretations about Dinosaurs are always logical...I am very lucky for having a smart friend like you!
Reply
:icontaytonclait:
Taytonclait Featured By Owner May 3, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Have I stumbled across your blog in the past? Glad you have a deviantart page, time to get browsin!
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2015  Professional General Artist
Thoughts on Sibirosaurus? Sounds like a monster big animal!
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2015  Professional Traditional Artist
I don't know... look at the pictures:

siberiantimes.com/PICTURES/SCI…
siberiantimes.com/PICTURES/SCI…

The vertebrae are small enough to hold in your hands and look absolutely tiny next to a very average (and broken) mammoth tusk. I don't see this animal being all that big. Maybe a Saltasaurus or even Pitekunsaurus-sized animal - pretty small for a sauropod to say the least.

On the other hand, if a much larger specimen exists then it may be possible.
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Apr 30, 2015  Professional General Artist
Is why I asked....you know way more about bones than me. Thanks!
Reply
:icontyrannosaurusprime:
TyrannosaurusPrime Featured By Owner Apr 12, 2015
peerj.com/articles/857/

Your thoughts on this paper?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2015  Professional Traditional Artist
It's a very well-done paper overall, but I disagree with a couple of its conclusions. First, it appears that D. carnegiei was sunk into D. longus (am I reading this right LOL?).

Second, why were A. excelsus and A. parvus reassigned to Brontosaurus, but A. louisae was left in Apatosaurus along with the much longer-legged and gracile A. ajax? I mean seriously, these two are the MOST different-looking Apatosaurus species, if you're going to split apart the genus (which I don't mind, given how much the Hornerites' lump-o-mania makes me vomit) then at least put squat, chunky A. louisae into Brontosaurus, or if this requires too many steps, then give it its own genus. It's clearly different enough from A. ajax to merit it.

Other than that it's a very good paper. Interesting to know that D. hayi also got its own genus Galeamopus, for over a century almost nobody even paid attention to this unusual diplodocid. Looks a bit like Diplodocus and a bit like Kaatedocus, but with a longer neck than either.
Reply
Add a Comment: