Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Argentinosaurus huinculensis by Paleo-King Argentinosaurus huinculensis by Paleo-King
Argentinosaurus huinculensis by Paleo-King (print image)

Loading...

All rolled Fine Art Paper Prints ship with an additional 1.5" bright white border. learn more. Gallery framed Fine Art Prints ship with an additional 2" bright white border. All Gallery Wrapped Prints ship with an additional 1" bright white wrapped border. View Original
Actual products will not display the DeviantArt watermark.


FORGOTTEN GIANTS: species #2 - Argentinosaurus huinculensis

*NEWLY UPDATED with more robust limbs, bigger chest, and more accurate femur width and limb spacing*

**Dorsal vertebrae COMPLETELY REVISED based directly on the 1993 description paper, with a new posterior view of the third dorsal**

***Femur and fibula COMPLETELY REVISED after intensive study of the description and Mazzetta (2004)***

***Black flash skeletal added. (Thanks Amin for the suggestion.)***

Location: Plaza Huincul, Argentina
Time: Cenomanian epoch (beginning of the Late Cretaceous)
Length: 110ft. (33m)
Probable mass: 80 tons

This not-so-forgotten giant is currently considered by most people to be the "biggest" dinosaur (though there are as many as ten contenders for that title, including something potentially longer and a LOT wider: fav.me/d3lfqci).

Argentinosaurus is a basal titanosaurian sauropod (currently classed in the dubious family Andesauridae, though it may not belong there), and probably reached a length of 110 ft (33m). It's known from two specimens - one consisting of some enormous dorsal and hip material plus a fibula (NOT a tibia as Bonaparte and Coria originally claimed in 1993), and the other being a femur shaft that's missing both ends. Its neck and tail are totally unknown, but based on related basal titanosaurs, it's likely that both were pretty long.

Argentinosaurus had a very long torso. Here I have restored it with 11 dorsal vertebrae (the standard count for most macronarians, including some titanosaurs). However it may have had 12 like some other basal titanosaurs, making its belly even longer.

References:

- Bonaparte, J.; Coria, R. (1993). A new and gigantic titanosaurian sauropod from the Rio Limay Formation (Albian-Cenomanian) of Neuquen Province, Argentina. Ameghiniana 30 (3): 271–282

- Carpenter, Kenneth (2006). Biggest of the Big: A Critical Re-Evaluation of the Mega-Sauropod Amphicoelias fragillimus, Cope, 1878. In Foster, John R.; Lucas, Spencer G.. and Geology of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation. 36. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. pp. 131–138.

- Mazzetta, Gerardo V.; Christiansen, Per; Fariña, Richard A. (2004). Giants and Bizarres: Body Size of Some Southern South American Cretaceous Dinosaurs (PDF). Historical Biology 65: 1–13. www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/pape…
Add a Comment:
 
:iconmajestic-colossus:
Majestic-Colossus Featured By Owner Apr 1, 2017
Will you shrink it too much in your updated version?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Apr 1, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
Shrink it "too much"? LOL you are talking to the Paleo King here, not Ken Carpenter :XD: I don't think I will end up shrinking it, but if I do, it certainly won't be "too much". There's certainly no reason to turn it into a short-necked Saltasaurus clone.

The main changes that may need to be made are in the order of the dorsal vertebrae. Other than that the proportions may change a bit depending on what clues I can find in its cousin Rukwatitan, but I don't expect a very big change in the proportions. Maybe a small change in the curve of the neck and tail.
Reply
:iconmajestic-colossus:
Majestic-Colossus Featured By Owner Apr 1, 2017
Happy to know that... Scott Hartman, for example, said that Argentinosaurus was possibly around the same size as his Puertasaurus, or even smaller... (I can't think about 26-27m long Argentinosaurus). 
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Apr 1, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
Hartman's Puertasaurus is also too small... mainly because it's a clone of his Futalognkosaurus, which itself is around 50% cloned from Malawisaurus as gap-filler (instead of from more derived and bigger lognkosaurs)... hence the short proportions.

While it is probably true that Argentinosaurus was a bit smaller than Puertasaurus, it bears remembering that Puertasaurus literally has some of the biggest bones on record, and probably had different proportions from Futalognkosaurus as well (a more elongated neck for one thing, as well as a wider torso). So with a bigger Puertasaurus, you also get a bigger Argentinosaurus. Making either of them look like small titanosaurs cloned up is misleading, because the smaller ones generally had more modest proportions as well (shorter neck, shorter tail, usually a slimmer body).
Reply
:iconbleskobleska-yandere:
Bleskobleska-Yandere Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2016
Wow. Amazing reconstruction. You're so talented! O.o
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2016  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks! This was one of the harder species to restore because of the incomplete material, even though it's so famous.... so it's good to hear feedback :D
Reply
:iconbleskobleska-yandere:
Bleskobleska-Yandere Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2016
You are welcome :)
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner May 19, 2016
So it is likely it was thinner than Puertasaurus (proportionally)?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner May 19, 2016  Professional Traditional Artist
Yes.  Its cruciform vertebrae and the slender fibula (more gracile than in lognkosaurs) suggest a thinner animal. Which makes sense as basal titanosaurs were slimmer than the intermediate and derived ones. Though they were still somewhat "chubby" by brachiosaur and euhelopodid standards.
Reply
:iconbhut:
bhut Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2015
Very professional!
Reply
:iconzoobuilder21:
zoobuilder21 Featured By Owner Jun 16, 2015  Student Traditional Artist
what did you use for the head refrence and what would a Argentinosaur head look like
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2015  Hobbyist
Still i didn't reduced it's weight from 100 tonnes.The confusing part is ,it was reduced to 75 tonnes and then once again some other estimates put it to 83 tonnes or so based on Dreadnoughtus.
     I think you have given the same shoulder height for both Argentinosaurus and Puertasaurus,i wondered why because you mentioned it as 80 tonnes that is being smaller than Puertasaurus. The
Argentinosaurus reconstruction image from Coria in your blog which doesn't even seem to cross 20 or 21 feet at shoulders.
                   While they reduced this animal's weight or not,still almost many sources say Puertasaurus was rivaled only by
Argentinosaurus.( and also Alamosaurus.)
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2015  Professional Traditional Artist
Not sure about your question, but I would say around 75-80 tons for Argentinosaurus makes sense. Dreadnoughtus IMO was probably 55-60 tons, it's smaller than it was hyped out to be (still pretty long though).

Puertasaurus is heavier than Argentinosaurus because it is considerably wider, not because of its shoulder height. Argentinosaurus has the classic cross-shape vertebrae in the back, taller than wide, but Puertasaurus has the super-wide double-anvil type with 2/3 of the width being the diapopyses, which are extremely deep and wedge-shaped to support a much wider rib cage than Argentinosaurus. The neck of Puertasaurus is also very wide so this gives one more clue that this animal looked very "fat" even compared to Argentinosaurus.

With these proportions it's not surprise Puertasaurus is heavier.

Puertasaurus, Argentinosaurus, Alamosaurus, and Ruyangosaurus are currently the biggest titanosaurs known. "Huanghetitan" ruyangensis and Fusuisaurus zhaoi may also come close, but they are not true titanosaurs.
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2015  Hobbyist
I can see that the Puertasaurus vertebra is wider and very different,i like it. Honestly some Chinese names are confusing sometimes for me. Like those you said, Ruyangosaurus Giganteus and Huanghetitan ruyangensis. Now the last name for Huanghetitan is ruyangensis which is similar to the first name of Ruyangosaurus. Sweating a little... 
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Sep 10, 2015  Professional Traditional Artist
yes there are other cases of that too. Greg Paul renamed Iguanodon mantelli to "Mantellisaurus"....

But in the case of Ruyangosaurus we know it's a completely different animal from Huanghetitan ruyangensis. While there isn't a lot of overlapping material to directly compare, it does appear that Ruyangosaurus was even wider and more massive based on comparisons of its last dorsal vertebrae to the sacrum of H. ruyangensis. Also Ruyangosaurus has thicker ribs... which is definitely saying something, given that those of H. ruyangensis are some of the biggest on record.
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2014
I m working on Argentinosaurus skeletal and your diagrams are part of my reference, if I Will post it you ll be in credits !
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2014
wow nima your work is Great!

Are you ever think to' do M.sinocanadorum or a Argentinosaurus skeletal ?

Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Wow another personal request for an Argentinosaurus skeletal! I like the idea, it will take time. And not all the bones can be reliably approximated since Argentinosaurus is so incomplete and it's actually very different from most titanosaurs. So a lot of it will be blacked out.

M. sinocanadorum is tricky because there are only two existing source materials - the photos of the Tokyo mount (all of them from terrible angles), and the Greg Paul skeletal (from a terrible litigious man who thinks he's great).

But if it's ever formally published or better photos turn up (revealing how much of the mount and Greg Paul's skeletal are imagination) then I will be jumping on it. At some point I have to restore most of the Mamenchisaurus and Omeisaurus species, they are actually very diverse and fascinating... I have good source pics for most of them, just not much time.
Reply
:iconvasix:
vasix Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
On that note I find it bizarre that something as supposedly monumental as M. sinocanadorum would be overlooked after Paul told the entire world that it was the largest of all dinosaurs. It always feels fishy when things seem to get the same treatment that poor Amphicoelias got and whatever the heck "Xinghesaurus" is. Do you have any links to any more resources he might have published on this Mamenchisaurus specimen? For one I've never seen his skeletal though. How does the creature look according to his view?
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2014
As possible for a not-worker I study mamenchisaurus material too and I agre with you about diversity but I love them!!

Again compliment for your excelent work and I ho pento see new skeletal soon !
Reply
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2013
Dear Nima

Do you draw Argentinosaurus skeleton in black flesh until now????
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Oct 2, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Yes, now you got it!!!! 
Reply
:iconmegalosaurid:
Megalosaurid Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2013
And I thought Scott Hartman was the only professional artist on deviantart, but I was wrong, Impressively excelent work!!!!
Reply
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Jul 10, 2013
really beautiful!
Reply
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner May 28, 2013
Dear Nima
I hope you add your illustration about Argentinosaurus skeleton in black flesh to your deviantart!
Reply
:iconmesozoic0906:
Mesozoic0906 Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2013
A question: You seems to draw Sauropod -even massive ones- with neck held high.

What is your thoughts about idea that putting sauropod neck low due to "Blood pressure?"
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
That's not a valid reason to put necks low. Even the advocates of low necks due to blood pressure (such as Roger Seymour) are admitting that in order to sustain a vertical neck, a sauropod needs a 1-ton heart to generate enough pressure. Well, most of these really huge sauropods probably had a heart that was even bigger than 1 ton, so that was no problem for them!

The problem is that the "low neck" people believe that sauropods had very small reptilian hearts that couldn't generate the pressure needed to feed oxygen to a vertical neck. That's not true, they had big hearts like mammals today, in fact even bigger proportionally since sauropods chest cavity was much larger than a mammal scaled to the same length. With a big heart, it was easy to generate the necessary pressures. I would advise Kent Stevens, Roger Seymour, etc. to look very closely at the chest cavities of sauropods (most of the museums don't reconstruct them correctly, which is a big problem that can mislead any volume estimates). The chest cavity is a lot bigger than anything you see in mammals, and a 1-ton heart for something the size of a Giraffatitan is actually very likely. The space is definitely there. The physics requiring a 1-ton heart are more or less sound, but those guys are just plugging in the wrong speculative models for heart size, models that are TOO SMALL. Heck, some of these guys still believe they were cold-blooded and have never seen a slice of sauropod bone under the microscope (hint: it actually looks more warm-blooded than mammal bone!). What century are these folks living in anyway?

The only sauropods with low necks were diplodocoids and a few specialized titanosaurs like Saltasaurus - and this is because of their feeding habits, it has nothing to do with blood pressure. Notice that the horizontal feeders have shorter necks than other sauropods, this was to reduce strain since a horizontal neck suffers a lot more gravity stress than a vertical one.
Reply
:iconmesozoic0906:
Mesozoic0906 Featured By Owner Jun 6, 2013
Thanks so much. Can I just ask one more question?

There would have been time when they should have lowered the neck (ex- drinking) in their lives.
If they lower the neck, the blood might flush the the head.

How did they solved this problem?
I know the internal organ and macanism of mesozoic sauropods are very hard to explain, but please answer this if you can do.

One of the person I know are very negative about "high neck" because of this reason.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 8, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Well there are three ways that sauropods could have solved this problem.

a) there was a valve system or a system of constrictor muscles around the neck arteries that prevented blood from rushing to the head too fast when the neck was lowered. This theory has near-universal neck-lowering application, not just for drinking. Giraffes already have constrictor muscles in their neck vessels, but not a valve system. But they also have a much shorter neck than most sauropods, so they are still not a totally adequate model. Proving that sauropods had or didn't have such a valve system going based on living animals is going to be nearly impossible. There would have to be better experiments done and perhaps finding a sauropod mummy may be necessary to explain how they did it. However, the constrictor muscle system seen in Giraffes is already a well-documented possibility.

b) sauropods manually changed elevation, i.e. drinking from waterfalls or going into a lake to drink so they didn't have to lower their head so far. This makes some sense because once a sauropod lowers its head to ground level, sucking up the water against gravity is not easy. you have to raise and lower like a dipping bird to let gravity help you swallow. However it doesn't explain how sauropods took care of their babies, fed them their first leaves, etc. with the nests being at ground level.

c) since the systolic and diastolic circuits are fully separated in a warm-blooded 4 chamber heart (like we now think sauropods had), then the systolic circuit may have been able to adjust the pressure lower when the neck was lowered, to avoid putting too much blood to the head. Giraffes appear to be able to manage without this adaptation, but a big sauropod may have needed it. There's a more extreme variant of this hypothesis, which says that there may have been a fifth chamber, or a sub-compartment of the fourth, to adjust to the lower pressures needed for the neck alone when it was lowered, so that the entire systolic circuit would not be de-pressurized for all the extremities.

You might want to tell these people that just because we don't know HOW something works, doesn't mean that it can't work. For many centuries people didn't understand why plants show retrograde motion when observed from Earth. They came up with all sorts of ways to explain it, most of which turned out to be wrong. But that didn't mean that it wasn't happening.

With sauropods necks, they were so long for a reason, and for most of them (as you can tell from the teeth and mouth shape) the reason was treetop browsing. And the articulation worked for vertical necks in many sauropods, as long as you reconstruct the back properly. If they were feeding low to the ground, they would not need long necks. After all low-feeding duckbills didn't have long necks, and some of them like Shantungosaurus and Lambeosaurus reached the same size as mid-sized sauropods. And the high shoulders of some sauropods like brachiosaur and basal titanosaurs don't make sense for a low-grazing animal, they had to be feeding high in the trees (their tooth shape supports this theory). Look at Atlasaurus [link] , its shoulders are very high but its neck is too short to reach he ground without crouching - and crouching your arms is not a normal feeding posture for any big animal. This animal was clearly NOT built for low-grazing, it was a high elevation tree feeder. So the evidence does favor vertical or semi-vertical necks in macronarian sauropods at least.

But diplodocids are a whole different animal, most of them had low shoulders and square mouths, and were designed for horizontal neck posture and ground feeding (with the exception, perhaps, of the long-necked barosaurines and Supersaurus, and maybe Apatosaurus ajax).
Reply
:iconexpiredthoughts:
expiredthoughts Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
Excellent. Looking at the drawing, I'm wondering whether this sauropod really had more skin drooping and covering the "limb folds" so that it would look less nimble and slender. However, I would really love for them to look like the drawing; they look so massive and slender at the same.
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Jun 15, 2012
Argentinosaurus is a Antarctosaurid, so I don' t think the neck will be at all vertical. Walking With Dinosaurs got it right - Argentinosaurus was not a Longkosaurian or an Andesaurid

Argentinosaurus would have looked more like this: [link]
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 15, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Dude, to be perfectly honest you got your info all wrong.

First off, Walking With Dinosaurs never featured Argentinosaurus. Argentinosaurus only appeared in Nigel Marven's spinoff series "Chased by Dinosaurs". But that's a small side note compared to the real issue.

Second, Argentinosaurus doesn't even look like an antarctosaurid. Where did you hear that rumor? Have you read the description paper and seen the original figures of the bones? The ones here are based directly on them. The vertebrae are very simple and point to a basal titanosaur, not something derived like Antarctosaurus or Ampelosaurus. The neural spines, the zygapophyses, the transverse processes... all of them are different from any antarctosaurids. The femur shaft is very robust and of uniform width (similar to Andesaurus, Chubutisaurus, and Traukutitan), not at all like antarctosaurids (A.wichmannianus, A. giganteus, Lirainosaurus, etc.) which have slender femur shafts that are slimmer distally than proximally.The sacrum is rather different from derived lithostrotian sacra as well.

Third, I never claimed Argentinosaurus was a lognkosaurian. Its vertebrae clearly point to something more primitive, maybe an "andesaurid", or maybe its own family.

Fourth, your pic you linked to is of Rapetosaurus, a Nemegtosaurid - not an antarctosaurid at all. Second, that pic is wrong anyway, it's Mark Hallett's skeletal which was done before the description of Rapetosaurus was published. Rapetosaurus actually had a much longer (and more vertical) neck than that image shows. The real Rapetosaurus had a neck that was longer than its body and tail put together, look up Scott Hartman's version [link] if you want something really accurate for that animal.

In any case it's an established fact that very long necks evolved several times in titanosauria, as did shorter necks. So simply knowing which family a certain titanosaur belonged to may not give you any clues about its neck length. However its size usually does - all the really BIG titanosaurs that are known from neck material (Futalognkosaurus, Puertasaurus, Alamosaurus, Ruyangosaurus. etc.) had very long necks that articulate semi-vertically at least. So there does seem to be a correlation between body size and neck length in titanosaurs, basically the higher they feed, the bigger (and taller) they tend to be. So long, vertical necks make sense for the really big titanosaurs. The ONE possible exception may have been A. giganteus, but until neck material is found there's no way to know. Even some antarctosaurs may have had very long and vertical necks.
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Jun 15, 2012
and btw, it was called an Antarctosaurus skeleton by the url, and the description is that of an Antarctosaurus: [link]

Are people really even looking at the fossils anymore?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 15, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Nope :X Most fan sites and wikipedia are edited by people who never saw even a picture of the fossils.

The fact is, the only reliable sources are the original papers (if you can get them) and the blogs of paleontologists (like SV-POW) who write them. And even those sometimes get things wrong. A lot of times you're better off searching for photos of the fossils on Google Images, than trusting what you read on wikipedia. Wikipedia has some okay info on tims, places, formations and contemporary species, but for taxonomy it SUCKS. I edited some of their dinosaur articles, and they "corrected" my corrections and put the old mistakes back! So I don't edit their crap anymore, it's a waste of time arguing with people who think they know everything.

It's crazy that someone labeled that skeletal as Antarctosaurus. Nobody has EVER done a full skeletal of Antarctosaurus since most of the bones have never been found, it's very fragmentary. Rapetosaurus is far more complete, but Mark Hallett got it very wrong.
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Jun 15, 2012
I'm really starting to hate wikipedia...
Reply
:iconteratophoneus:
Teratophoneus Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2012
ow, there are ten contenders !? for the title biggest dinosaur. Which ones?- Futalognkosaurus, puertasaurus, seismosaurus(if you go by its length), alamosaurus and supersaurus(if you go by its length)and bruhathkayosaurus. These are jst 6, which are the other 4?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Mar 23, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
No, not Supersaurus and Seismosaurus. I'm just going by mass here, not length, though even if you go by length, Seismosaurus is only 110 ft. long max according the most current restorations.

Ten contenders for biggest (most massive) dinosaur known from fossil bones (BESIDES Argentinosaurus):

Puertasaurus
Alamosaurus
Ruyangosaurus
Huanghetitan ruyangensis
Argyrosaurus
Paralititan
Futalognkosaurus
"Antarctosaurus" giganteus
"Brachiosaurus" nougaredi
"Mamenchisaurus" sinocanadorum

Of course the lineup of top 10 may change in the future. Sauroposeidon MAY be among them, but only the neck bones are known, you really need limb and torso elements to get a good idea of the animal's mass. Also some undescribed sauropods may be in the same league as the top 10 (for example the French Monster titanosaur and Lacovara's titanosaur).

"Brachiosaurus" nougaredi is much bigger than any known remains of the real Brachiosaurus. Its sacrum alone is 1.3m long, but that figure is misleading because the first sacral vertebra is missing. When it was complete, the sacrum would have been 1.6m long. Scaling up, that's an animal 60% bigger than the type specimens of Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan (and even though both are teenagers, it's unlikely that they got 60% bigger as adults!) That's a brachiosaur around 125 ft. long and probably 70-80 tons. Of course some sauropod species only known from footprints (like the Plagne and Broome tracks, and Parabrontopodus distercii) may have been even larger.
Reply
:iconelsqiubbonator:
ElSqiubbonator Featured By Owner May 12, 2012
What about Amphicoelias? That thing had a seven-foot-long vertebra!
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner May 12, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Yeah but you know how it is with animals based on remains that no longer exist. Maybe it was really that big, or maybe Cope was embellishing a bit. It happened quite a lot in his time. Remember, it was the era that spawned P.T. Barnum and Ripley's believe it or not. Not to say Cope was a scammer, but he DID make some weird mistakes before (interpreting Dimetrodon's sail as a literal "sailing" sail like on a boat to catch the wind - even though it was not aquatic; and also putting the head of Elasmosaurus at the wrong end of its body.) I'd like to believe A. fragillimus was real, but why have no more remains turned up in over 100 years? Ken Carpenter keeps looking for more, and he has a lot of grad students working under him. Perhaps it was just very rare, but the Morrison formation is HUGE, maybe there's more evidence of it elsewhere in the formation.

As for Amphicoelias altus, the type species, that animal is no bigger than Diplodocus, and the fossils are still in pretty good shape. So to that extent Amphicoelias is legit.
Reply
:iconteratophoneus:
Teratophoneus Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2012
and what about bruhathkayosaurus? Okay,the description isnt completely finished,but it seem this animal was a giant as well.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Bruhathkayosaurus is a bit suspicious. Currently my thinking is that it's either a hoax (the only photos are very poor quality, as are the field drawings which do not resemble any known dinosaur, and all the bones seem to have conveniently gotten lost in a monsoon flood!) or that it's a chimera of two different-sized sauropods (the smaller one roughly the size of Argyrosaurus, the larger one possibly more like Argentinosaurus, if you can trust any of the crappy photos). You can read all the facts on my blog: [link] [link]
Reply
:iconteratophoneus:
Teratophoneus Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2012
interestinf, thanks for the infos. I have never heard of this nanotyrannus vs chasmosaurine fossil. Could you tell me more about it?
Reply
:iconcaprisaurus:
Caprisaurus Featured By Owner Oct 15, 2012
All i can say is, it was found in Montana and they killed each other and i think the Nanotyrannus had skin impressions.
Reply
:iconteratophoneus:
Teratophoneus Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2012
wait-skin impressions- do you know if scaled or feathered?
Reply
:iconriygan:
Riygan Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The size is wrong, Argentinosaurus was 45-50 meters long, matching the other Giant Seismosaurus
Reply
:iconcaprisaurus:
Caprisaurus Featured By Owner Oct 15, 2012
WHAT? The Argentinosaurus is somewhere in the 30-metre range. Seismosaurus is 34 metres.
Reply
:iconriygan:
Riygan Featured By Owner Oct 15, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
fucking book, get your shit together
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
50 meters? Are you serious? Where do you get those numbers from? I've NEVER seen estimated of 45-50m published anywhere for either Seismosaurus and Argentinosaurus. Before you say "the size is wrong" in my reconstruction, please go read Bonaparte and Coria's original 1993 description paper (cited above) and check the measurements of the bones - ALL of my measurements of the bones are taken straight from the paper. Everything else is based on the general proportions of related titanosaurs and titanosauriforms, and my 33m Argentinosaurus is not too small - it falls within the general range of length estimates proposed by peer-reviewed paleontologists, and in fact is larger than many of those estimates.

Unlike most "dino-experts" who just throw random numbers out there, I actually go by the real measurements based on the bones, and I cross-scale all the bones and scale bars just in case. And based on the bones (which are ALL scaled correctly in this image) it would be impossible for Argentinosaurus (or at least any of the two KNOWN specimens of Argentinosaurus) to be 50 meters long, unless it had some crazy-abnormal proportions not typical of a big titanosaur. 50m is 165 ft, are you sure you know how long that is? There's no dinosaur in that length range unless you count Amphicoelias fragillimus, which being a diplodocid would be mostly tail anyway.

You're wrong about Seismosaurus too. The longest estimate EVER given for Seismosaurus by any scientist was 130 ft. (39m) by David Gillette himself. And it turned out this estimate was too high, Seismosaurus probably was no more than 33m (110 ft.) long, it was basically an oversized Diplodocus. So at 110 ft, it WAS the same length as Argentinosaurus (just a lot lighter), but both were just 33m long, NOT 45-50m (which is an estimate I've NEVER seen published anywhere).

BTW, Seismosaurus is not the only "other giant" besides Argentinosaurus. Read my blog or look at my gallery, there are PLENTY of other giant dinosaurs far more massive than Seismosaurus (which is a very badly named animal - at 20 tons max, it was hardly an "earth-shaker" compared to things like Argentinosaurus, Argyrosaurus, or even plain old Brachiosaurus).
Reply
:iconriygan:
Riygan Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Men i have tons of paleontology books in my house, i'm going to study paleontology in the future, i'm not lying, these two, along with the Ultrasaurus are the biggest dinosaurs, the sizes aren't worng, besides, the size of the Dinos vary in the books so i really can't tell you the EXACT size
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
I'm not calling you a liar dude. I'm just being brutally honest and blunt. :D

I'm questioning your sources and your knowledge - your info is exaggerated and WAY out of date. I've never seen any source I would call credible giving the length of either Argentinosaurus or Seimosaurus as 50m. Just because it's printed in a book, doesn't make it true. ANYONE can write a book. Any publisher can print a dinosaur book - and since there's no real scientific standard in the book market, a lot of junk gets printed as "fact" by ignorant authors and publishers. Literally only about 1% of dinosaur books at any given time are accurate to the best up-to-date research. Books are great to get people interested in dinosaurs and a few of the more technical books are pretty good - but if you want to verify actual sizes of dinosaurs and fossils, why not try looking at actual scientific papers printed in journals like JVP, APP, Amenghiniana, or PLoS One where the REAL paleontologists publish their research and measurements?

"Ultrasaurus" isn't even a valid dinosaur genus anymore. That is, assuming you're actually referring to Jensen's "Ultrasauros" with the 9-foot shoulder blade, not the original "Ultrasaurus" which was a small and unimpressive non-diagnostic sauropod limb bone found in Korea by Hang Mook Kim, who wrongly thought it was a real record-breaker. Jensen's "Ultrasauros" isn't valid because it's really a chimera of TWO different animals: the shoulder blade is from a brachiosaur but the type specimen was a vertebra that's actually from a diplodocid, Supersaurus (have you heard of that one?) What's more, the Jensen shoulder blade may have been long, but its fused coracoid is unusually small which means the animal it belonged to - even as an adult - was slimmer and probably lighter than even the teenage type specimen of Brachiosaurus - yep, Jensen overestimated the size and even sculpted a fake arm for the thing that is about 20% too big! Ever since 1988 the term "Ultrasaurus" has been discarded. Don't believe me? Look up Greg Paul's 1988 paper on brachiosaurs. There's a PDF version on his website. Even better, there's Mike Taylor's 2009 paper on brachiosaurs: [link] . Since you are such an expert, I'm sure you'll have no trouble understanding the scientific terminology in the paper - it does mention the 'Ultrasauros' shoulder blade and its true proportions somewhere in there, I'll leave you to find out where. Or if you really want to look sharp, I could just challenge you to explain what a bifurcated postzygadipophyseal lamina is, but given where you're at I won't bother.

You may have a lot of books and plan to study paleontology in the future - but I've got the actual scientific papers by published PhD authors and I'm studying it NOW. Seriously, I don't mean to be arrogant, but the sort of information and knowledge I have on dinosaurs (or at least sauropods) is in a whole different league than what you can merely buy in a bookstore or see on TV. You're roughly where I was at 10 years ago. Books on their own don't prove much - there are plenty of inaccurate dinosaur books that aren't even worth the paper they're printed on. Now if your books include bone diagrams republished from the scientific papers (as mine are) or mention the actual museum catalog numbers of the bones (as I always do) THEN you may have some hard-science dinosaur books. Otherwise you're just looking at watered-down popular literature by commercial authors who don't much care whether their length estimates are off or whether their taxonomic info is outdated.

And judging by the sort of wishy-washy claims you are peddling as absolute truth ("your sizes are wrong but my sizes aren't wrong, but they vary in different books so I don't know the EXACT size") I'd say you need to read more current material and some actual scientific papers in respected journals with actual measurements of the bones - as well as reading up on what the actual standards of scientific credibility for research and theories actually are. You claim Seismosaurus and Argentinosaurus were 50m long? PROVE IT with references from peer-reviewed journals and paleontologists. I've cited all MY sources for my data and measurements, revised and checked my work many times, and listed all the specimen numbers. I've done a lot of hard work here and you're basically dismissing it on a whim based on some book you read somewhere. I hope you take the science more seriously than that if you truly hope to be a paleontologist some day (and believe me, we ALWAYS need more paleontologists).
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
  • Photo
Photo Prints: High-quality prints in glossy, matte and lustre finishes. learn more...
FINISH:
IMAGE SIZE:
IMAGE SIZE:
IMAGE SIZE:
$35.51 or 2,841
All prices in US Dollars (change)
Estimated Shipping Rates
×
  • Photo




Details

Submitted on
October 15, 2010
Image Size
2.2 MB
Resolution
4872×3532
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
45,947 (9 today)
Favourites
253 (who?)
Comments
139
×