Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Traditional Art / Professional Member NimaMale/United States Group :iconprehistory-alive: Prehistory-Alive
Bringing prehistory back to life
Recent Activity
Deviant for 5 Years
Needs Premium Membership
Statistics 99 Deviations 5,427 Comments 115,756 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:
 
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2015
Dear Nima
Please tell me  the anatomy mistakes in the BBC Spinosaurus(planet Dinosaurs 2011) for me.
Reply
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2015
Dear Nima
you know BBC media always show fact in wrong way. even once a pale-artist from England, John Conway told me, documentaries in TV media are a garbage. unfortunately, people in Iran trust to BBC works. in facebook, a rude Iranian person attack me while I told him the Spinosaurus model in BBC documentary (planet Dinosaurs 2011) was wrong in anatomy. He ask me tell him my reasons for my words but I cannot explain it....just i told him their model is very different of imagination of Scott Hartman....but he told me Scott never speak about mistakes of BBC Spinosaurus in his website. I really do not know what do I do with this rude Iranian man that attack me again and again in facebook for this issue. therefore, I block him in facebook. you are very skillful in explanation about Dinosaurs mistakes. if you may, please write  anatomy mistakes in BBC Spinosaurus for me.


Best regards, your brother always from Iran.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2015  Professional Traditional Artist
Overall I suspect the BBC Spinosaurus was just too big and too bulky. Usually most TV programs tend to make predators too bulky (remember these were animals that had to hunt for a living). The biggest spinosaurus remains are the fragment of upper jaw/snout found by Dal Sasso, and broken bits like this are notoriously difficult to scale from. (Even though people like Scott Hartman seem to have it down to a science, if you try scaling it yourself in microsoft paint, you can get wildly divergent results just by messing with the numbers a few percent.

As for this rude fellow that keeps messing with you on facebook... since he seems to get pleasure out of harassing other people, give him a taste of his own medicine.... just call him vatan foroush and let him know his movements are being watched :XD:
Reply
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2015
Dear Nima
I start to study Caspian Seals.....Russian hunters and Iranian fishermen killed them...Now, we just have 100 thousands Seals in Caspian sea....but in past, we had one million Caspian seals. I try to help to these apex predators....lately, I published an Persian language interview with beautiful real photos about Caspian seals.....please send my Email, an email, for send a pdf copy of my interview(6 pages).


my Email:
keyvan_1878@yahoo.com
Reply
:icontheothertheropod:
TheOtherTheropod Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2015
Dear Nima,
Why do diplodocoids hold their necks down low, while brachiosaurids and kin hold them high? 
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Edited Jan 8, 2015  Professional Traditional Artist
The quick answer is food.

Diplodocids were mainly feeding on the ground, the majority of them have wide square mouths which are typical of a ground-feeder. So this is why they held their necks low. Also the fact that they have low shoulders and relatively short arms, indicates they were built for low-level grazing. And they have thin pencil-like teeth for stripping ferns and other small plants from the ground.

Brachiosaurs have very high shoulders and long arms, and most other macronarians follow a similar pattern. This only makes sense for animals that evolved to feet on tall trees, if they were feeding on nothing but ground plants it would totally defeat the purpose of having long arms. Also they have rounded or U-shaped mouths which are better for "messy" feeding, high in the treetops, and their teeth are much more robust and numerous, their whole mouth is full of teeth. These animals were crunching through tree branches, not stripping ferns off the ground.

However a few diplodocids, like Tornieria, Barosaurus, etc. belonged to a U-mouthed lineage, they evolved to feed on treetops, but retained typical diplodocid teeth. So they may have preferred the fresh growth on the trees which usually sprung up on young trees and also on branches after some sort of damage (fire, mammals, brachiosaurs....) They had longer necks than other diplodocids, but probably didn't need to hold them vertical in order to feed on tall trees, since they were still very well-adapted for rearing just like "traditional" diplodocids. It's also possible that barosaurines were generalists, overlapping between both high and low levels of food sources.
Reply
:iconteratophoneus:
Teratophoneus Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2014
Dear paleo King, Aegyptosaurus has always been an enigmatic animal since its bones were destroyed. I have heard now several classifications of this animal, some say that it was related to argentinosaurus, others that it is more related to saltasaurus. I wanted to reconstruct this animal and wanted to know what you think of it fav.me/d8aw51b
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2015  Professional Traditional Artist
It's a very tricky animal since not much of it was published even before it was destroyed.

Your restoration is a good guess. It's basically a Malawisaurus-like animal, which makes sense. Malawisaurus had osteoderms too, even though it was fairly basal, a stem-lognkosaur if you will.

The femur of Aegyptosaurus, based on Stromer's lithographs, looked like something between Argentinosaurus and Malawisaurus... of course this is a guess I'm making based on the fact that the only pictures I've seen of Malawisaurus femurs (the actual fossils) show pretty fragmentary material. However the overall shape of the Aegyptosaurus femur is that of a basal titanosaur, it's very different from the thick, wide, "inward-canted" femur of Saltasaurus.

And Saltasaurus isn't even a "typical" derived titanosaur, despite being used as a model for many fragmentary titanosaurs.
Reply
:iconteratophoneus:
Teratophoneus Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2015
thank you very much for having the time to answer.
I hope that someday more fossils of it are found, I  think its a pretty interesting animal, especially since its not very big compared to other sauropods of that region like paralititan.  And yes, I tried to include some malawisaur like traits as well, glad you noticed :D
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2015  Professional Traditional Artist
Yes it's a good way to restore this animal for now. If more of Aegyptosaurus is found, it's a good guess it will look like Malawisaurus. The femur is long and slim in both animals, without any inward canting, so it's definitely NOT a saltasaur, and not robust enough for even most intermediate forms (i.e. Futalognkosaurus, Argyrosaurus). And then there's the fact that for African titanosaurs of that size, Malawisaurus is really all we have to go on.... except for Rukwatitan, which also seems to look very similar to Malawisaurus.

I don't see any proof of derived lithostrotians in mainland Africa but they will probably turn up. After all Madagascar has them. All we have so far from Africa is basal stem-lognkosaurs and one big argyrosaur.... but don't forget, it's not as if Africa is an easy continent to go fossil-hunting in. What with all the civil wars, infectious diseases, tribal conflicts and so forth. Angolatitan almost didn't get discovered. And now Egypt is a mess, Morocco and Algeria are sliding fast, and so on.... And ironically the countries that don't have these problems, usually aren't the right age for big sauropod dinosaurs. Plenty of Permian-triassic animals and some ape-men in South Africa, but it's not good titanosaur country.
Reply
Add a Comment: