Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Traditional Art / Professional NimaMale/United States Groups :iconprehistory-alive: Prehistory-Alive
Bringing prehistory back to life
Recent Activity
Deviant for 7 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 119 Deviations 6,193 Comments 165,718 Pageviews
×

Newest Deviations

Brachiosaur comparison :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 55 14
Literature
List of Biggest Dinosaurs
The largest dinosaur in terms of mass and volume is probably some sort of titanosaur. As of now.....
Here's how the biggest titanosaurs rank out in first-last place:
1. Tie between Alamosaurus (referred Mexican fibula + Fowler & Sullivan's neck centrum) and Puertasaurus (1 cervical, 1 dorsal, 2 unpublished caudals). Both of these animals were around 120+ ft. long and probably 100 tons.
2. Tie between Argentinosaurus and the "Chubut Monster". Both of these animals were probably pushing 110+ ft. long and 80-90 tons
3. Tie between Ruyangosaurus (cervical rib, anterior and posterior dorsals, additional unpublished dorsals, dorsal rib, upper femur, tibia), Notocolossus (dorsal and caudal vertebrae, foot, and limb elements) and "Argyrosaurus" (referred femur FMNH 13018) - probably between 75-90 tons. Ruyangosaurus may have gotten longer than 100 ft., Notocolossus and "Argyrosaurus" were probably not as long but still huge at 90+ ft.
4. Tie between Dreadnoughtus (majority of skeleton) and Par
:iconPaleo-King:Paleo-King
:iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 27 101
Supersaurus vivianae :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 74 34 So you want to draw Huanghetitanids? :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 62 32
Literature
Our March - 'Die Paleo-Kompanie'
(The new anthem of the Paleo-Nazis - to be sung to the tune of "Die Braune Kompanie" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYYDffIKC3k  any time you get trolled by "awesomebros" or other living Godwin's Law exhibits)
I still am young on years of life,
I still am far from death;
But I have witnessed “awesomebros”
attempt to choke our breath.
And though my luck does raise me up,
I give first thanks to thee:
I pledge to you my loyalty, O Paleo Company!
I pledge to you my loyalty, O Paleo Company!
Already some have been ripped off
From our Paleo-Korps
The bells of victory, now clang,
my arm and brush, exhort!
I swear and I renew that Oath
that Paleo-King did sing -
“I pledge to you my loyalty, O Paleo Company!”
“I pledge to you my loyalty, O Paleo Company!”
So struggle forth like dinosaurs,
til Fraudsters' whining shall end;
Accuracy and copyrights,
with tooth and claw defend!
And Araucarias be strewn
Upon our victory!
Serve you, I shall, in loyalt
:iconPaleo-King:Paleo-King
:iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 11 7
Brachiosaur Death's Head :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 23 14 Giraffatitan brancai UNCENSORED! :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 99 44 Brachiosaurid skull comparison :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 76 14 Titanosaurs and other Somphospondyli :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 43 32 The Drinker :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 58 22 Sonorasaurus thompsoni :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 36 13 Cedarosaurus weiskopfae :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 55 40 British Brachiosaurs :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 119 16 Abydosaurus mcintoshi skeletal :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 96 42 Fusuisaurus zhaoi skeletal :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 54 73 Daanosaurus zhangi skeletal :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 57 14

Favourites

Chuanjiesaurus :iconjavifel:javifel 29 1 Giraffatitan :iconsteveoc86:Steveoc86 93 27 Brachs and Guests. :iconfranoys:Franoys 34 42 Young Queen / Chomper Skeletal :iconmrsamosaurus:MrSamosaurus 67 20 Destroyers :icongetawaytrike:GetAwayTrike 33 4 Oozing Lava :iconhitokirivader:hitokirivader 681 108 Tarbosaurus skeleton :iconszymoonio:Szymoonio 82 35 Alioramus altai :icongetawaytrike:GetAwayTrike 34 12 Angolatitan adamastor :iconjavifel:javifel 13 2 Erketu ellisoni :iconjavifel:javifel 23 11 Abrosaurus especulativo :iconjavifel:javifel 8 2 Diamantinasaurus matildae :iconjavifel:javifel 18 0 Pick and run :iconraph04art:Raph04art 992 46 Gigantomakhia :icongetawaytrike:GetAwayTrike 58 18 Mackillop's Southern Lizard :iconplastospleen:PLASTOSPLEEN 67 11 Sarmientosaurus :iconhyrotrioskjan:Hyrotrioskjan 319 90

Activity


I am working through some revamps to the earlier skeletals I have on here. Obviously Giraffatitan got a HUGE revamp with multi-views. The revised Andesaurus also got redone yet again a while back.

I just redid the Brachiosaurus skeletal too, fixed the skull - again.

Also on the workbench are Argentinosaurus, Paralititan, and of course Futalongkosaurus (actually quite far along on that one). Elaltitan will get its own skeletal, with more accurate proportions, and get bumped off the Argyrosaurus page - eventually.

Now revising old skeletals is all fun and good, but you might wonder, why not get it right the first time? Simple answer: lack of good photos/published diagrams to work from. As more images from better angles become available, we discover errors in old skeletals. With Giraffatitan, I didn't have access to the full Janensch papers for years after I did the first version. With Argentinosaurus and Paralititan, there are still very few good photos available of most of the bones with decent lighting and angles, and the description papers left out a lot of visual data. And of course with Futalognkosaurus there is still no final word on the actual measurements, proportions, or any literature on the two juvenile specimens and other referred material such as an allegedly complete tail for the holotype and an egg which may also be from Futalognkosaurus - there are only a couple informal photos and scant textual mention of these remains. Sadly, many titanosaur species are better viewed from amateur tourist photos on Pinterest or Instagram, than from anything published by actual scientists in the literature. Very few of them are visual thinkers, and fewer still bother to take photos of the stuff they work on (despite having smartphones and facebook). In this regard, the SV-POW guys seem to be the rare exception to the visual apathy of much of the field.

The reason so much stuff needs revision is that we can't be everywhere at once, and the people who are in the museums, rarely take or publish any good multi-view images of the fossils. You work with what you have (often times little more than amateur snapshots from bad angles), and when the guesswork to fill the gaps turns out to be wrong, you revise it. Or, you can just stick to doing skeletals of super-boring species that have been done to death with hundreds of hi-fi photos or diagrams from nose to tail, like Kaatedocus and Diplodocus. :XD: Anything that's actually interesting and not just another vanilla Diplodocus, Apatosaurus or Camarasaurus cousin, seems to always be horribly photographed, horribly mismeasured, or horribly restored (with plaster or otherwise), and stays that way for years or decades. Aside from things which are apparently still undergoing research, such as the French Monster and the Chubut Monster, earlier crucial finds are either locked behind paywalls, ignored/abandoned by science, or both.

* Argentinosaurus
- no multiview photos of the femurs, fibula, or hip material.
* "Antarctosaurus" giganteus - no multiview pics of anything in any paper.
* Paralititan
- no published photos of anything, and no casts of it besides the humerus. Did I mention the description was literally just one page long?!
* Futalognkosaurus
- 3 papers and still not a single consistent set of measurements or evaluation of referred specimens - and a terrible mishmash mount at the Royal Ontario Museum with Rapetosaurus head, Big Bend 'Alamosaurus' neck and scaled-up North Horn Alamosaurus caudals - contains almost NOTHING from Futa itself except a cast of the hips, despite consulting them on it they did not follow my advice.
* Dreadnoughtus - actually a decent paper, but very few published photos in multiview, and they are much lower resolution than the informal and press photos you can find on the internet (all from horrible angles) -at least they included a very nice 3d model though, which nobody else ever did with a titanosaur.
* Notocolossus - for once some good hi-fi photos, just scarce material.
* Puertasaurus
- decent drawings of the dorsal and photos of the cervical - but no images at all on the two caudals mentioned in the description - that's fully 50% of the holotype that may as well not exist!
* The Monster of Museo de La Plata - back in 1988 Greg Paul mentioned a huge though incomplete femur at the MLP which seemingly outclassed any dinosaur femur known at the time (this was before Argentinosaurus, but apparently bigger than "Antarctosaurus" giganteus). No catalog number was mentioned, and no photos or description were ever published.
* Fusuisaurus - basically you can count all the photos of the type specimen on your fingers. I know there isn't a lot of material, but there's literally only one or two grainy black-and-white pics per bone, and several of the bones mentioned in the paper have no photos at all. And before seeing any of it you have to pay $38 to multinational publishing cartel Wiley. For 4 pages and 7 awful photos.
* "Mamenchisaurus" sinocanadorum - first, there are photos of a full skeleton mount in a museum in Tokyo. Then Greg Paul does a full skeletal and a mass estimate in total confidence and boldly claims this is the biggest dinosaur ever. And then... he claims the specimen only consists of a couple of neck bones, and only puts a silhouette in his 2nd edition of the Princeton Field Guide. Presto! The giant dinosaur has disappeared from scientific reality faster than a rabbit in a top hat. I don't doubt that it's real (the Tokyo mount honestly looks to be casted form something that's undergone a bit of crushing and erosion) but it's little more than a hugely hyped replica with no percentages for the actual fossil's completeness, and no museum catalog number. There is still NO scientific paper on this animal, even now.
* "Xinghesaurus" - same story as above, only this one is smaller, likely a titanosaur, and didn't even get a blindly done Greg Paul skeletal.
* "Liaoningtitan" - apparently a very large euhelopodid, restored and mounted in Liaoning Museum but never described or published. Still known from only a couple of grainy photos.
* "Huanghetitan" ruyangensis - there is apparently a lot of neck material from additional specimens but aside from a single vertebra, none of it has even been published or formally referred. The huge femur also has never been published. Good luck figuring out if there's any truth to the horribly short neck included in the museum mounts. It looks to be cast from something, we just don't know what, and it's almost certainly from an animal much smaller than the holotype. Oh well... at least Chinese paleontologists actually designate holotypes (despite omitting to mention a ton of material from ostensibly the same individuals in the description paper), which is more than I can say for many western scientists in the recent past (heck even Lusotitan is nothing but a pile of lectotypes, none of which takes precedence over the others).
* Ruyangosaurus - a few pics of the initial 6 bones described, but nothing other than crappy internet snapshots of all the other vertebrae, ribs, and possible sacral material that was never mentioned in the paper! Oh wait, there is a display of the dorsals in some sharper online photos (amateur tourist pics of course) - with horrible plaster work, incorrect ordering of the bones, and possibly extra bones from a separate individual thrown in just for the heck of it. When 90% of what's been seen of this animal is only known from tourist pics or grainy press photos of the digsite, and totally IGNORED in the actual published literature, you have a problem.
* Alamosaurus - aside from the Big Bend specimen, which may not be Alamosaurus after all, there are very few photos of any neck or dorsal material, including the remains that Lehman and Coulson's skeletals were based on. Only a handful of the juvenile vertebrae were illustrated in their paper 2001, which included no photos at all. There is a lot of material lying in museums that is usually assumed to be Alamosaurus, most of which has never been photographed. The gigantic remains referred by Fowler and Sullivan only have a few photos from a couple angles, and the biggest specimen, the fibula from Mexico, is basically only known from a measurement. That's it.
* "Brachiosaurus" nougaredi - two super-grainy and distorted photos of the giant sacrum "ZR.2" still in the ground back in the 1950s, then it's never seen or heard about again. It was only included in a large survey of Algerian fossils by Albert-Felix de Lapparent, who mentioned in passing: "in spite of its size and fragility we were able to recover this element and transport it back to Paris" - but he never mentioned just where in Paris. There was no subsequent research done on this enigmatic sacrum, and there isn't even a record of which museum it's in, or if it still exists at all.
* And of course Bruhathkayosaurus - where do we even begin with this thing. Two overhyped, under-productive government paleontologists in India dig up what they claim to be the biggest dinosaur ever known, and for 30 years they leave it in the ground, only take three extremely blurry black-and-white photos of the "bones", draw a baby-skill sketch of them that makes no anatomical sense, alternately claim it's a Godzilla-sized theropod, pachycephalosaur, and finally sauropod, and then a few years ago the thing just happens to conveniently "wash away in a monsoon flood" and nobody ever took a decent color photo of any of it. In over 30 years. If it was legit, you'd think these guys would be either writing a book on it or at least taking a pile of polaroids if they didn't have digital cameras, and mailing them to researchers abroad, at least do SOMETHING in all those 30 years.

Meanwhile we are for some reason up to our eyeballs in hi-fi photos and open-source papers on just about every vanilla "this one looks so much like the last one" Morrison diplodocid you can think of (except the ones that are still a bit unique, like Seismosaurus). But good luck finding anything verifiable on Ruyangosaurus, Fusuisaurus, Huanghetitan, or even the 30+ Brachiosaurus specimens besides the holotype and the Potter Creek one, without paying out the nose for a 6-page paper with a handful of crappy and possibly mis-scaled photos. The species that really matter for understanding the truly dark and murky parts of the Sauropod family tree, get horrible scientific coverage, if any at all. Meanwhile everything that looks like a Diplodocus clone gets the Red Carpet Treatment in full HD megapixel resolution.

There is probably an axiom here... the more interesting, gigantic, and taxonomically significant the species (for our understanding of sauropod evolution), the worse the photographic record and published literature on it tends to be - and the less work tenured professors (in general) can be bothered to do on any of it. Call it Sassani's Law.

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!"

I am a Paleo-Artist and Independent Paleontologist. I aim for both accuracy and elegance in my visual time-travel back to the Mesozoic, as is the case we observe in nature today. I have been featured in blogs, twitter, and even in a few very good books.

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

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:icondinosaurzzz:
Dinosaurzzz Featured By Owner 3 days ago
How many hours a day did a large sauropod have to use to eat?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Edited 2 days ago  Professional Traditional Artist
A lot less than you might think, even with being warm-blooded... but it depends on the species. A lot of people imagine that sauropods were so big that they had to spend all their time eating, or that a warm-blooded metabolism would demand more food than they could ever possibly take in. But this simply isn't true! Now of course sauropods didn't all have the same energy requirements, but most would have been in a similar nutrient/tissue conversion range, in general the formula goes like this:

A big warm-blooded herbivore eats about 2% of its mass in food per day to keep going. (A 5 ton elephant = 5,000kg, needs minimum 200 pounds or 100kg of food per day, that's 2% or 0.02 of the elephant's mass). Now this assumes sauropod digestion was as bad as that of elephants or horses, but it was likely much more efficient, this is just worst case scenario.

Going by a similar measure for sauropods, we get the following:

Using Giraffatitan HMN SII (subadult) as a test case, since we actually have a complete mouth and most of the skeleton:

It's ~33 tons (lean mass). So, 33,000kg x 0.02 = 660kg of food = 1320 lbs per day, or around 6/10 of a ton, minimum.

So how big was each bite?
The mouth of HMN SII (skull HMN S116) is big. Very big. Here's where most paleontologists get lost - they assume based on modern mammal rates of feeding that sauropods needed many hours to feed - not true, since despite having proportionally small heads, sauropods had much bigger mouths than modern mammals. The skull of SII/S116 was at least 0.8m long, that's pushing 3 feet - with the toothy portion of the mouth being about 0.4m long, and just as wide, and about a foot deep. So its volume is about 1.47 cubic feet, bigger than a laundry basket = Big enough to bite off 70 pounds of conifer leaves/needles. Though lets be conservative and say it was on average 50 pounds per bite because not every bite was on full branches.

So how long did feeding take with that size of mouth?
Each ~50lb bite takes 30 seconds max to hack off and gulp down, probably it was much faster, since these animals didn't chew, but we don't know if their brain stem could coordinate breathing independently of swallowing (most reptiles and birds can pull it off, some mammals can't) so worst case we'll give him 30 seconds per bite for a breather. So that's 2 bites or 100 pounds of food per minute. 1320 pounds daily requirement, divided by 100 pounds per minute,  = 13.2 minutes to eat the minimum food to stay alive, assuming elephant-like digestion (which is, again, far less efficient than we'd expect for any sort of archosaurs).

Of course they probably ate a lot more. But even if they took in twice as much on average, that's 2,640 pounds or 1,320 kg... which translates into 27 minutes of feeding. But lets be REALLY conservative and say that most of the trees in the area have already been depleted of branches up to the Giraffatitan's feeding height... so our friend SII has to spend half of the time moving around and looking for fresh trees that have not been fed on. This doubles the feeding time to just under an hour. If the area is totally depleted and SII has to walk around another 5 miles, that's another hour (5mph is easy for a big brachiosaur, with that huge stride length, it's next to no effort). So even in a worst case scenario with competing herds eating everything, you travel 5 miles from where you were yesterday, foraging and feeding time is 2 hours, eating twice the minimum needed.

So we're talking around 2 hours max, but usually much less time than that. And that's assuming both a warm-blooded metabolism and a fast, inefficient digestive system like that of elephants. In reality sauropods probably had much more efficient digestion like ostriches, and so may have needed less food and feeding time even with a fast metabolism (Foster, 2007 says that even the heavier Brachiosaurus altithorax needed only 400kg a day, not 660kg). So 2 hours is really worst case. We can forget about all the crazy stories of sauropods needing to eat nonstop 24 hours a day without resting, it simply isn't true.
Reply
:icondinosaurzzz:
Dinosaurzzz Featured By Owner 2 days ago
Huh, interesting. Thanks for the answer!
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner 2 days ago  Professional Traditional Artist
Yeah, truth is often stranger than fiction. :XD:
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icondinosaurzzz:
Dinosaurzzz Featured By Owner Mar 16, 2017
Hello, can I use your Brachiosaurus altithorax skeletal for reference for a drawing?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner 6 days ago  Professional Traditional Artist
Sure, just give proper credit and include my avatar and link to the original.

And if it's a commercial project, PM me before doing ANY of that, so we can work out the terms of the contract.
Reply
:icondinosaurzzz:
Dinosaurzzz Featured By Owner 6 days ago
It's just for a drawing here on DA, no commecial project.

And thanks :)
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner 5 days ago  Professional Traditional Artist
You're welcome, I look forward to seeing it.
Reply
:iconrizkiusmaulanae:
RizkiusMaulanae Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2017  Student Traditional Artist
Just some more question about sauropods

Since we know that animals don't need to have a massive brain-to-body ratio to be smart, I start to think that sauropods are abit smart at the least (not so smart, but at the same time not necesseraly dumb). I know we still have no idea how smart these creatures could be, but do you think sauropods are (atleast) as intelligent as a cow or deer ?

There's a myth that sauropods would have lung collapse when they enter the water. Is that true anymore ?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Edited Mar 11, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
Based on their raw cc's (cubic centimeters) most large sauropods may have been as smart as a deer. That's very plausible.

Interestingly Giraffatitan has a brain around at least 500 cc, which is in the same range as chimpanzees - and that's just the HMN t1 skull, which is a juvenile skull, considering that the huge SII/S116 is still a subadult. So that one may have had an even larger brain size, and that's before you even get to "adult" specimens like HMN XV2/Fund no., which is VERY incomplete with no skull material. Now what this means for actual intelligence is harder to tell. They have less cerebrum tissue than modern mammals. But that may not mean much since even some large mammals are incredibly dumb despite having a big cerebrum.

Lung collapse depends on how deep an animal is submerged in water and how large it is. A sauropod chest-deep in water isn't in any real danger. But if it was head-deep in water with neck held vertical, it would die. Lung collapse isn't so much a myth, it's a valid theory given surface area and water pressure calculations done by Ken Kermack in the 50s, debunking the then-popular dogma of 'snorkeling brachiosaurs' walking on 40-foot deep lake beds with their necks fully vertical and only their nostrils sticking out. That much pressure would kill them. That was always true and always will be. Humans can't even use a snorkel consistently more than a couple feet below the water, so imagine doing it at 40 ft below. Impossible. And that's before you even begin to factor in a sauropod's much higher surface area, which multiplies the effect of water pressure - if they could ever sink that deep.

And here's why that "if" is so important - based on modern body density calculations, sauropods floated and could probably swim, so I doubt they could ever sink to a neck-deep level even if they tried. Elephants float too, and they aren't as pneumatic. Kermack wasn't trying to say sauropods couldn't enter the water, he was only saying they couldn't be aquatic or submerged, he was busting a bad theory whose basis turned out to be wrong anyway (i.e. that sauropods could actually sink) but was nevertheless wildly popular in books and museums in his day, before there were realistic sauropod density models.

If they walked on the bottom of a 40-foot lake, like in many old paintings, they would indeed die. But that's impossible in real life anyway, since sauropods were not dense enough to sink that far, so it's a moot point. Most of their body mass was either water (blood, fluids, etc.) or things lighter than water (muscle, bone, air sacs all over the neck and back vertebrae, etc.) They would float and thus avoid the lung collapse problem entirely. Though the fact that they floated meant they were not built for an aquatic lifestyle and I doubt they swam very often due to the danger from giant crocs and pliosaurs lurking below.
Reply
Add a Comment: