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Alamosaurus (referred Mexican fibula + Fowler & Sullivan's neck centrum) and Puertasaurus (1 cervical, 1 dorsal, 2 unpublished caudals).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 Tie between Ruyangosaurus (cervical rib, anterior and posterior dorsals, additional unpublished dorsals, dorsal rib, upper femur, tibia), Notocolossus (dorsal and caudal vertebrae, foot, and limb elements) and "Argyrosaurus" (referred femur FMNH 13018) -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:
 
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Edited Feb 22, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
Mammals adapted to sea and in rare cases the air, but never mastered the air the way birds (derived theropods) did.

I think the fact that dinosaurs did not dominate the sea had more to do with competition than "not being adaptable". There were a lot more lineages of sea reptiles then than today (what are we left with, just turtles and saltwater crocs?) so competing in the sea was difficult.

If there had not been ichthyosaurs, placodonts, nothosaurus, plesiosaurs, pliosaurs, mosasaurs, marine crocodiles (metriorhynchids and teleosaurids) and the like, then there nay have been more opportunity for dinosaurs to evolve into fully aquatic animals.

As it was, the land favored the dinosaurs and the oceans favored more primitive and possibly cold-blooded lineages. Mammals lucked out due to the K-T extinction removing most of the ocean competitors, but even then it was many millions of years before primitive whales evolved anything close to the aquatic specializations that ichthyosaurs and pliosaurs had developed over 150 million years earlier.

In most respects dinosaurs have had more efficient bodies than mammals, in everything from locomotion to respiration to flight to tooth replacement. Mammals by contrast can be thought of as a more incomplete metamorphosis in "deep time" terms. The evolution of mammals was severely scarred by the Permian mass-extinction just as it was barely making headway, and the next 200 million years were spent basically reversing the previous course and evolving into the most compact and small burrowing animals possible, to basically get out of the way of bigger and faster creatures. The transition from sprawler to erect runner was never fully completed until the Cenozoic, and by that time the option were more limited in many ways.

In the process a number of losses occurred - teeth were lost, as was the ability to replace them (though this might have begun sooner)... and the loss of certain bones like the coracoid (which meant land mammals can't support bodies heavier than 15 tons or so), also the need to focus on extreme sound frequencies to detect silent predators forced a rapid conversion of sound-sensitive therapsid jaw bones into mammalian ear bones "malleus" and "incus", causing the "stapes" to remain more primitive and underdeveloped than in dinosaurs, and leaving a less flexible lower jaw. Other things happened too like the reduction of the number of muscles and bones due to many of them not being needed for scurrying up trees and into holes, loss of cervical ribs and the enlargment of the calcaneum instead of the astragalus, meaning that once mammals were finally free to grow to large sizes and walk upright instead of semi-sprawled, a whole new mode of running had to be developed, which was less energy-efficient than that of dinosaurs.

The end result was, once the mammals came out of the mesozoic, they were a lot more specialized for life on a small scale than when they went in, and a lot of the features they had given up could not simply be re-evolved but had to be compensated for. So bats ended up being weaker and more fragile fliers than birds, many ungulates ended up depending on very few toes and spindly legs with less resistance to injury than those of fast quadrupedal dinosaurs, land predators have blunter teeth with no serrations and often no replacement adult teeth, and whales only managed to spread around the oceans very slowly with huge sacrifices for marine specialization (no more hauling yourself onto shore in case the oceans turn toxic) and a slow-reproducing K-strategy that would not have even worked in the vicious frenzy of mesozoic marine life.

Humans bucked this trend due to large brains, year-round fertility, and being tool users, not to any specialization of the body.
Reply
:iconrajaharimau98:
RajaHarimau98 Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Would you mind if I used your Puertasaurus as a reference for a drawing?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
No problem, so long as you handle 2 things.

1) If it's commercial then I want an equitable share of the profits. PM me with the details if this is the case.

2) Whether it's commercial or not, give me proper credit according to honorable attribution guidelines as in the template DISCLAIMER posted here: paleo-nazis.deviantart.com/jou… (the underlined blank space is for copying and pasting pasting my name and avatar)
Reply
:iconrajaharimau98:
RajaHarimau98 Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
No problem, its not commercial but if I ever do a commercial project referencing your works I'll make sure to include you in profits. Proper credit will be given. Thank you so much!
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2017
Hallo Paleo-king!

I was wondering if you could give me permission to use your Europasaurus skeletal to produce a silhouette for a chart I'm preparing. All credit would of course go to you and will also link your profile and your original restoration.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
Ok no problem! Just don't forget to use our template script for attribution :D

Let me know when it's done, I look forward to it!
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2017
Ok, thank you very much. I will and I hope you'll like it.

Also and if you dont mind I will use the Cedarosaurus too because Hartman's doesn't seem to match with the measurements in Benson et al (2014)

I'd also like to ask you about Europasaurus; is there any study that suggests that the animal could have grown much bigger than the 6-7 m estimated as maximum size in the 2006 papers? Their conclussion seems solid and based on histological studies however I've seen people claiming the animal could get much bigger.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Edited Feb 14, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
Hartman's Cedarosaurus is not even a Cedarosaurus. Sad to say, but it's true. :XD: It's just his Giraffatitan with an Abydosaurus skull frankensteined onto it.

Yes feel free to use my Cedarosaurus. It's a bit out of date, but still not too far off what it should look like.

Europasaurus adults were apparently 10m or 30ft. long as an adult based on the scale figure in Carballido and Sander (2013) - though they cut off the end of the tail so it looks like 8m. I don't expect them to have gotten much bigger than this.
Reply
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment: