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 Core Membership
Statistics 102 Deviations 5,592 Comments 135,325 Pageviews
×

Newest Deviations

Favourites

Activity


Check this out if you haven't already. This is just the cutest thing. Dr. Phil Currie kicks off 2016 with a description of a near-complete baby Chasmosaurus!

I remember Chasmosaurus with a lot of nostalgia. It was my favorite horned dinosaur growing up. In fact it was my second favorite dinosaur of any sort for a long time (after Giraffatitan of course, which was then known as "Brachiosaurus brancai"). The different species and horn configurations fascinated me no less than the endless variations in modern antelope horns, from the little nubs on C. belli to the longer studs on C. russelli, to the impressive upturned skewers of C. kaiseni (or Mojoceratops, if the two skulls are truly from the same species). The frill was large but simple, a rectangular shield framed with rows of basic epoccipital studs and a couple of pairs of larger studs at the corners. This genus was the namesake of its own subfamily, the classic "standard model" three-horned dinosaur by which all others were measured, most of which appear like some fancier variation of it. More of the "three-horns" in fact resemble Chasmosaurus than they do Triceratops. But there was never a baby specimen... until now.

Baby-chasmosaurus by Paleo-King


The strangest thing about this adorable dinosaur is how long the hindlimbs are compared to the body, particularly when you scale it up against an adult's proportions. While the arms are missing, there's a possibility that they were not unusually elongated relative to the adult proportions, which begs the question - were baby ceratopsids bipedal? This was after all the basal ceratopsian condition found in Leptoceratops and other protoceratopsids. There's already been some venturing (and illustration) of the theory of habitually bipedal running among baby sauropods, which makes a lot of sense (for the bottom-heavy diplodocids anyway - I don't really see Toni the Brachiosaurus doing too much of this). But there haven't been a lot of juvenile ceratopsid remains complete enough to do a biometric analysis of bipedal running and its feasibility. What do you think?  (BTW the paper is free to download, though being in the control of JVP's new masters Taylor and Francis, it's uncertain how long that will last. Get it while you can!)
... uninformed about basic manners and etiquette on the paleoblogosphere (or anywhere else online), here is a refresher. I am not a big fan of doing this, admittedly it's an unwelcome hassle, but once again, it seems, the faceless bullies are slinking out of the woodwork. Normally I would ignore them, but now there appears to be veritable army of anonymous re-posters picking fights with me on here and my blog as well as taking viral social media comments (which I have no control over) nearly to the level of outright blackmail. So here we are again.


First, read the BGRs. You can do whatever **** you want on your own blog, but if you comment here, for the love of all you hold dear, PLEASE do not do any of the things on that list.

Second, if you want me to respect you and your opinions, however they may diverge from mine, you must show respect. It's a good idea to adhere to the following BEST PRACTICES:

1. Don't make subjective statements about a person who is a total stranger to you (i.e. calling someone "arrogant" or "egotistical" or "evil" without having ever met them or heard them speak publicly on camera). Avoid adversarial or libelous statements which you would not wish to see applied to yourself.

2. Don't presume to know the personal views of one individual toward another individual if he has not expressed those view explicitly (i.e. falsely accusing one paleoartist of "hating" another).

3. Don't invent false accusations such as claiming X work was a "rip-off" of Y artist, when clearly you have no proof, and the proper attributions have long ago been made and credit given. Keep things professional.

4. Don't judge or twist a person's views today based on their views 5 years ago. This clearly proves you either can't read, or deliberately didn't bother to read their more recent statements.

5. Don't claim or imply that someone's opinions are baseless when you have not asked them about the rationale.

6. Don't ridicule that which is reasonable (i.e. the evidence-based view that "raptors" were feathered, but lightly enough to still be agile, aerodynamic predators and keep cool in hot climates, does not deserve ridicule). This also goes for any self-righteous crusaders that use terms like "heterodox" and "radical" to mean "intolerable" or "looney". I care nothing for labels of orthodox and heterodox, I only care for evidence and how rigorously it's interpreted, not merely "critically" but also laterally, without false dichotomies of "black and white" skewing conclusions or resulting in forced cherry-picking. And at the end of the day, do you really want to be that guy who resorts to an appeal to orthodoxy, like the old "cold-blooded or unacceptable" establishment that ridiculed Bakker's work by outright denialism, only to crawl into their shells a few years later when all sorts of fossils proved him right? Science is based on proof and reason, not political populism.

7. If you want to criticize, be willing to be criticized. Be open about your own identity, views, and body of work, and what - if anything - you have contributed. Criticizing a publicly known artist in a malicious and personally insulting way while hiding your own identity online, is a coward's game and not worthy of any respect.

8. Don't distort the views of researchers in your support (i.e. citing Mike Habib in support of fanatical insistence on ankle-attachment of pterosaur wings, when this is not, in fact, his position.) And whatever you do, DO NOT use photoshop to cut and paste letters and words into a person's mouth or make it look like they previously said/wrote something they did not say/write. In the real world that's called FORGERY.

9. And most importantly of all, DO NOT trash someone's reputation on social media. Artists do sell their work and do not appreciate attacks on their reputation which may do irrevocable harm to future commissions or business opportunities. You may think it's cute now, but it will come back to bite you, one way or another.
Cedarosaurus weiskopfae by Paleo-King
Cedarosaurus weiskopfae
Etymology: "Weiskopf's Cedar Mountain lizard" (after the Cedar Mountain Formation in Utah and "for the Late Carol Weiskopf for her hard work in the field and lab")

Time horizon: Early Cretaceous, Barremian epoch (~126 mya)

Length: ~16m (~53 ft.)

Probable mass: 17 tons, perhaps more based on maturity


The slender brachiosaur known as Cedarosaurus is a subadult specimen, so how large the adults got is anyone's guess. We do know that it was native to the Yellow Cat Member of the Cedar Mountain Formation, and thus making it a few million years older than the basal somphospondylian Venenosaurus. Its vertebrae and limbs closely resemble those of English brachiosaurs from around the same time, such as Eucamerotus and Pelorosaurus (most of which are also known from mid-sized immature specimens)

Cedarosaurus is known from a type specimen (shown here) and possibly also a referred foot described by d'Emic (2013), although this could belong to any number of cretaceous brachiosaur species. Cedarosaurus overall appears to follow the classic "Abydosaurine" body plan of most Cretaceous brachiosaurs, with a compact torso, slender limbs, "perky" neural spines tilted forward relative to the articulation axis of the centrum, and overall taller neural arches on the dorsals than in most Jurassic brachiosaurs. This tendency towards taller arches, which translates to a more elevated ribcage and a wider back, was also evolved independently in somphospondylians, eventually culminating in the extreme dorsals of the Acrofornica like Phuwiangosaurus, whose vertebrae were nearly 70% neural arch and almost NO neural spine.

Also notable was the discovery of 115 "clasts" or gastroliths in the stomach region, which are worn smooth by internal grinding and acid-etching just like in other sauropods. Unusually, some of these stones actually contained fossils of small plants and invertebrates that were already ancient and long-dead when the Cedarosaurus swallowed them. For a long time gastroliths were only known from diplodocids, and it was unknown whether brachiosaurs swallowed stones to grind food in their stomachs. Their teeth, more massive and numerous than those of diplodocids, seemed to argue against this, but the discovery of these belly-stones with Cedarosaurus shows that the animal still swallowed its food with a minimum of biting or chewing. Even the toothy mouths of brachiosaurs were primarily designed for hacking through branches, not actually chewing the food.

I was unable to locate any good information about the late Carol Weiskopf, the species' namesake, other than that she was probably one of Dr. Bakker's eponymous "museum people" toiling long hours with little recognition in the vaults and specimen labs, who are "always overworked, always underpaid, and they deserve sainthood, each and every one".


REFERENCES:

d’Emic, Michael D. (2013). "Revision of the sauropod dinosaurs of the Lower Cretaceous Trinity Group, southern USA, with the description of a new genus". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 11 (6): 707–726.

Sanders, F.; Manley, K.; Carpenter, K. (2001). "Gastroliths from the Lower Cretaceous sauropod Cedarosaurus weiskopfae". In Tanke, Darren; Carpenter, Ken. Mesozoic Vertebrate Life: New Research Inspired by the Paleontology of Philip J. Currie. Indiana University Press. pp. 166–180.

Tidwell, V., Carpenter, K. and Brooks, W. (1999). "New sauropod from the Lower Cretaceous of Utah, USA". Oryctos 2: 21-37

Tidwell, V., Carpenter, K. & Meyer, S. 2001. New Titanosauriform (Sauropoda) from the Poison Strip Member of the Cedar Mountain Formation (Lower Cretaceous), Utah. In: Mesozoic Vertebrate Life. D. H. Tanke & K. Carpenter (eds.). Indiana University Press, Eds. D.H. Tanke & K. Carpenter. Indiana University Press. 139-165.
Loading...
Check this out if you haven't already. This is just the cutest thing. Dr. Phil Currie kicks off 2016 with a description of a near-complete baby Chasmosaurus!

I remember Chasmosaurus with a lot of nostalgia. It was my favorite horned dinosaur growing up. In fact it was my second favorite dinosaur of any sort for a long time (after Giraffatitan of course, which was then known as "Brachiosaurus brancai"). The different species and horn configurations fascinated me no less than the endless variations in modern antelope horns, from the little nubs on C. belli to the longer studs on C. russelli, to the impressive upturned skewers of C. kaiseni (or Mojoceratops, if the two skulls are truly from the same species). The frill was large but simple, a rectangular shield framed with rows of basic epoccipital studs and a couple of pairs of larger studs at the corners. This genus was the namesake of its own subfamily, the classic "standard model" three-horned dinosaur by which all others were measured, most of which appear like some fancier variation of it. More of the "three-horns" in fact resemble Chasmosaurus than they do Triceratops. But there was never a baby specimen... until now.

Baby-chasmosaurus by Paleo-King


The strangest thing about this adorable dinosaur is how long the hindlimbs are compared to the body, particularly when you scale it up against an adult's proportions. While the arms are missing, there's a possibility that they were not unusually elongated relative to the adult proportions, which begs the question - were baby ceratopsids bipedal? This was after all the basal ceratopsian condition found in Leptoceratops and other protoceratopsids. There's already been some venturing (and illustration) of the theory of habitually bipedal running among baby sauropods, which makes a lot of sense (for the bottom-heavy diplodocids anyway - I don't really see Toni the Brachiosaurus doing too much of this). But there haven't been a lot of juvenile ceratopsid remains complete enough to do a biometric analysis of bipedal running and its feasibility. What do you think?  (BTW the paper is free to download, though being in the control of JVP's new masters Taylor and Francis, it's uncertain how long that will last. Get it while you can!)

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:
 
Hidden by Commenter
Hidden by Owner
:iconmegalotitan:
Megalotitan Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2016  New Deviant Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2016  Professional Traditional Artist
Nice, so the Chubut monster has a name! Or is this a different titanosaur? It says it's from Neuquen rather than Chubut, and I don't see the femur or shoulder material from Chubut....
Reply
:iconcarcharodontotitan:
Carcharodontotitan Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2016
Are there two giant titanosaurs from Chubut?
Because Wikipedia has an article about one that was discovered there in 2014, but I'm not sure if that's the "Chubut Monster" that it's talking about or not.
When was the "Chubut Monster" discovered?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2016  Professional Traditional Artist
Yes that is the Chubut monster. I blogged it soon after the discovery: paleoking.blogspot.com/2014/05…

I am pretty convinced that this is a different animal from Notocolossus, they are from different formations and probably different times, although they are very closely related.
Reply
(2 Replies)
Add a Comment: