Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Brachiosaurus altithorax hi-fi skeletal by Paleo-King Brachiosaurus altithorax hi-fi skeletal by Paleo-King
Brachiosaurus altithorax

Family: Brachiosauridae (intermediate position)
Time: Late Jurassic, Kimmeridgian-Tithonian epochs, ~150 mya
Location: Morrison Formation (brushy basin member), Colorado, Wyoming and Utah, USA

*Now upgraded with additional referred specimens; skull also updated* 

THE SINGLE FINEST QUALITY BRACHIOSAURUS RESTORATION IN THE WORLD! Buy yours NOW while prices are still low!
paleo-king.deviantart.com/art/…

The original, classic namesake of the brachiosaur family, and for a long time the biggest dinosaur known (though much of what was assumed about it was actually based on its more complete African cousin Giraffatitan brancai fav.me/d4sljwd ). First found in 1900 and described in 1903, Brachiosaurus altithorax is based mainly on the type specimen FMNH P 25107, which comprises a partial dorsal column, hip material, a humerus, femur, coracoid plate, and a rib. Despite being downright colossal, this animal, roughly 80 feet long and 37 tons, was still not fully grown.

More recently several isolated bones and a skull (long forgotten in a Smithsonian museum vault) have turned up, which may belong to Brachiosaurus or at the very least, to a closely related genus. There is also neck material from the same quarry at the Smithsonian, which may belong to this individual. The skull is originally from a smaller individual about half the size of the holotype, but judging by other sauropods known from more complete growth series, the proportions of the skull probably didn't change much as the animal grew up. There is also a partial Morrison brachiosaur skull at Yale (just the maxilla and dentary) which was discovered by O.C. Marsh in the late 1800s, well before the description of Brachiosaurus - Marsh incorrectly used this same set of jaws as part of the basis for his bizarre and fanciful "Brontosaurus" skull reconstruction: public.media.smithsonianmag.co… tyra-rex.com/Dinosaur/OBO/Litt… .

The headless juvenile sauropod skeleton known as "Toni" was initially mistaken for a diplodocid, and commercial fossil casting companies still reconstruct it as such, though in 2010 it was redescribed as a brachiosaur in a phylogenetic analysis by Carballido, et. al., falling in most closely with B. altithorax. Indeed the robust dorsals, short sacral spines, and front-heavy ilia of "Toni" are remarkably similar to those of Brachiosaurus, and rather different from what one sees in Diplodocus and Apatosaurus, even in juvenile specimens. The long-shafted scapula is also very brachiosaurid in appearance.

The large Dry Mesa Quarry brachiosaur material discovered by Jim Jensen in the 1980s (including the huge"Ultrasauros" shoulder blade and another, less complete one) is not included here, as it probably belongs to another genus. Other recently found remains, like BYU 13023 (Curtice and Stadtman, 2001) and the LACM humerus, are probably from other brachiosaurid taxa. The Potter Creek specimen, one of the largest North American brachiosaurs on record, appears to belong in Brachiosaurus at least on the generic level. The dorsal vertebra of this specimen was heavily restored in plaster by Jensen, and may have looked more similar to B. altithorax than it currently appears in its restored state. Whether this specimen was fully grown is debatable, as no shoulder material was found. There are roughly 30 or so other partial specimens referred to either Brachiosaurus altithorax or Brachiosaurus sp. though most have never been formally published. A few are even photographically documented: collections.si.edu/search/resu… . I have used some of these (scaled to the teenage holotype) to fill in the major gaps in our knowledge of B. altithorax.

Despite its iconic popularity in books and movies, Brachiosaurus is relatively rare in the fossil record, though many undescribed brachiosaur bones which may or may not belong to it have turned up recently. It appears to have been a highland animal, avoiding the low fern prairies which were dominated by Diplodocus and Apatosaurus. As a result it may be that Brachiosaurus was actually more common than the fossil record indicates, and that a disproportionately small number of Brachiosaurus got fossilized due to being far from the lowland alluvial plains of flooding rivers which preserved most dinosaur fossils. Adults were probably too large for predators to tackle, though younger individuals faced danger from Torvosaurus and large allosaurs like Saurophagnax.

*Note: NO GSP. This is an entirely original skeletal based directly off of photos of the type and referred material. Many Thanks to Mike Taylor of SV-POW for the photos of the referred BYU neck vertebrae. No Greg Paul skeletals were used or injured in the making of this far more accurate schematic 8-)

References:

Carballido, J., Schwarz-Wings, D., Marpmann, S. & Sander, P.M. (2010) "Systematic reevaulation of “Toni“ the juvenile sauropod from the Morrison Formation" Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Abstracts with Programs, 69A

Carpenter, K. and Tidwell, V. (1998). "Preliminary description of a Brachiosaurus skull from Felch Quarry 1, Garden Park, Colorado." Pp. 69–84 in: Carpenter, K., Chure, D. and Kirkland, J. (eds.), The Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation: An Interdisciplinary Study. Modern Geology, 23(1-4).

Curtice, B. and Stadtman, K. (2001). "The demise of Dystylosaurus edwini and a revision of Supersaurus vivianae." Mesa Southwest Museum Bulletin 8: 33–40.

Riggs, E.S. (1901). "The largest known dinosaur". Science 13 (327): 549–550.

Riggs, E.S. (1903). "Brachiosaurus altithorax, the largest known dinosaur." American Journal of Science (series 4) 15(88): 299-306.

Riggs, E.S. (1904). "Structure and relationships of opisthocoelian dinosaurs. Part II. The Brachiosauridae" books.google.com/books?id=9y2P…

Taylor, M.P. (2009). "A re-evaluation of Brachiosaurus altithorax Riggs 1903 (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) and its generic separation from Giraffatitan brancai (Janensch 1914)." Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 29(3): 787-806. www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/pub…
Add a Comment:
 
:iconvasix:
vasix Featured By Owner May 22, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I just read in some of the comments that Toni the Brachiosaurus is probably around one or two years old, but do tell me, because I'm curious and having seen that Apatosaurus growth curve...do you think it could go for other sauropods too? Like, for instance Brachiosaurus as well or does the curve only attest to the A. excelsus that was used in that study? What do you think of it?
Reply
:icondinomariozilla:
DinoMarioZilla Featured By Owner May 11, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Man, your skeletals are epic! Love this Brachio!!! :) Your gallery is a great reference source for sauropod representations
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2015  Hobbyist
You have updated this image..I am not sure,i think that you have reduced the length of it's neck.I remember like seeing both your Giraffatitan and Brachiosaurus to have long necks and i guess both were standing at 50 feet high.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2015  Professional Traditional Artist
I didn't reduce the length of the neck, in fact the only time I changed it , I increased it!
It was actually quite a bit shorter in Mike Taylor's version (which is basically a mishmash of Greg Paul skeletals and drawings of the type material).

Brachiosaurus did have a shorter neck than Giraffatitan PROPORTIONAL to its body length. So both the Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitna teenage type specimens are around 50 feet tall, but the Brachiosaurus has a longer torso and tail, and is almost 10 feet longer overall.

And I am revising my Giraffatitan too, it will have even MORE extreme proportions, it turns out the tail of the type individual (long labeled separately as HMN Aa) was actually a good bit smaller than the the "HMN Fund D" tail that is frankensteined onto the Berlin mount (and it's the same tail that has been used on the display ever since the 1920s, it wasn't switched out for HMN Aa despite the 2007 remount). So expect a Giraffatitan that's even more front-heavy and has an even smaller tail (but oddly, slightly bigger ischia and pubes than previously restored - it turns out nobody doing the skeletals had actually bothered to cross-scale them with the more complete hips of HMN J2, they just guessed how big the missing bits for SII must be!).

HMN Fund D is probably from an adult or near-adult of 85-90ft. in length, Whereas HMN SII/Aa is most likely around 75ft. long (same length estimate as before despite the shorter tail, because the neck also turns out to be longer than Greg Paul though it was - Paul's version of the neck is a whole 'nother can-of-worms frankenstein job that I reject).
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2015  Hobbyist
I used the Mike Taylor's version as reference.

It just seemed kind of weird for me to see a slight lengthy body for Brachiosaurus in that reference.But i will increase it's neck length and then the lengthy body will look better compared to that.This is the same body length for Sauroposeidon given in some images except the fact that it's neck was much longer.  
Reply
:iconmystierodan:
mystierodan Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2015  Professional Traditional Artist
I work at The Field Museum and am very impressed with your work!  I get to hang out with the Brachiosaurus holotype every day. I look forward to more graphics!
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2015  Professional Traditional Artist
Thank you very much! Best compliment I can receive is from people who actually get down and dirty in the museum - I must be doing something right :D. Look out for more skeletals, Cedarosaurus and Sonorasaurus are in the works, and I am revising my Giraffatitan next. It turns out that beast is even MORE different proportion-wise from Brachiosaurus than anyone thought........
Reply
:iconkazuma27:
Kazuma27 Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
WWWWOOOOOOOWWWWW!
Super-amazing, man! Love how you basically listed ALL we know about this guy :)
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2015  Professional Traditional Artist
Yes, true, I really pulled out all the stops on this one. Good thing that for my revision of Giraffatitan, the specimens are all listed in a couple of papers by the same author. Tracking down all the Brachiosaurus pieces in various museums (and this may not even be all of them - I've heard there are more than 30 specimens, some in private hands) was a real pain. :XD:
Reply
:iconturtleosaurus:
Turtleosaurus Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2014
What's the neck length difference between Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan just out of curiosity because on sv pow the cervical vertebrae comparison (of Sauroposeidon Giraffatitan Brachiosaurus and Angloposeidon) showed Giraffatitan vertebrae as being only 33mm longer than Brachiosaurus's  I know they state the Brachiosaurus's vertebrae as being a c10 whereas Giraffatitan is a c8 but still surely the total neck wouldn't be massively different or am I barking up the tree. I've still got a lot to learn about anatomy so just tell if I'm completely off the mark.  
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
I think you're overall on the right track. Giraffatitan's neck proportions are indeed more elongated than those of Brachiosaurus, but not by some radically high amount. It's not that Giraffatitan has a shorter neck than previously thought - quite the OPPOSITE in fact! It was longer than even Greg Paul restores it, since he inexplicably leaves out some of HMN SII and similar-proportioned specimens, and instead frankensteins HMN SI (probably a different and shorter-necked species) onto the top of the neck. But rather, what happened is that Brachiosaurus turns out to have a longer neck than most authors assumed.

Right now there is neck material of Brachiosaurus known from at least 3 specimens (4 vertebrae in total). One is a teenage specimen (the thick BYU 10th cervical that SV-POW sometimes posts pictures of) similar in size to the holotype. The second is an anterior cervical from BYU that's from a smaller animal. The third is a specimen at the Smithsonian/USNM (two vertebrae) which is even smaller than that one! Since none are fully grown, it's possible that even the rather long neck in my skeletal here (which is based on both specimens) may actually have been even longer on the holotype, not to mention an adult like perhaps the Potter creek specimen. It is known that adult sauropods tend to have proportionally more elongated necks than half-grown ones. But how rapid and extreme the change was, it hard to say. It may be that since the neck proportions don't seem to change much between the USNM and the anterior BYU cervicals, that perhaps adults didn't elongate that radically in a final growth spurt.

All the same, even these immature specimens indicate that the neck was already very long by the time the animal was around 50% adult size. Much more elongated than the hypothesized "camarasaur-like neck proportions" that many authors have been bandying about without actually studying the bones. And the large BYU vertebra is already holotype-sized so I doubt the adults would have much more extreme proportions than that. That would mean my skeletal is accurate for adult Brachiosaurus proportions too. It does rival Giraffatitan for neck length more than, say, Mike Taylor's version... So it depends on WHICH Brachiosaurus and Which Giraffatitan you compare. Assuming the holotype + the larger BYU vertebra represent animals of similar age to HMN SII, then you have teenage Brachiosaurus with a neck only a little shorter than teenage Giraffatitan.

Then again it's possible that the comparison you see may be off..... the big BYU cervical appears to have a thicker centrum than Giraffatitan HMN SII. So we may be looking at a bigger Brachiosaurus and a smaller Giraffatitan. And even then, the Giraffatitan has a longer neck. If both animals had the same centrum thickness, there would be a greater difference in neck length. But if you scale the two animals to the same overall length (not to centrum diameter) then the Brachiosaurus will have less extreme neck length, a bigger tail and longer belly, and bigger centra in both cervicals and dorsals. So that's why simply comparing vertebra length can be misleading, the centrum thickness could indicate rather different-sized animals. Giraffaittan has shockingly small centra in its dorsals. You get the idea that the top-heavy neural arches/zygapophyses are taking most of the weight, especially in the last few dorsals. D9 and D10 of HMN SII actually exhibit a very bizarre "lordosis" kink in their articulation which appears totally natural and makes the joint much stronger at the zygapophyses, to reduce stress on the centrum of D9. This feature isn't found in any other brachiosaur or any other sauropod for that matter!
Reply
:iconturtleosaurus:
Cool thanks for reply. Can't wait till you finish Giraffatitan and Lusotitan reconstructions. Just thinking could the squatter, thicker Cervicals of Brachiosaurus mean it had a more flexible neck than the more elongated ones of Giraffatitan resulting with Giraffatitan having a stiffer straighter neck, or are the differences in the cervicals to slight to affect the neck physiology in any major way.  
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Thicker cervicals do not equal a more flexible neck. Quite the opposite in fact. The most flexible longs necks in the animal kingdom are those of ostriches, which have very slender cervicals relative to body size.
Conversely, Apatosaurus has very thick cervicals (and deep) and because of this, the range of motion is far more limited - they can't turn too far without colliding with the cervical ribs or other protruding parts of another vertebra.

In the comparison of Brachiosaurus vs. Giraffatitan, it's therefore likely that Giraffatitan had the more flexible neck, but probably not by much. Both animals had long cervicals and relatively flexible necks. However, the larger BYU cerivcal, if it's Brachiosaurus, indicates that this animal had a bit less flexibility than Giraffatitan for another reason - the cervical rib's anterior portion is much thicker and therefore less flexible. Something similar is present in the cervical ribs of Euhelopus, yet its higher vertebra count makes up for this in flexibility. The real secret of flexible necks appears to be slender cervicals, and lots of them.
Reply
:iconturtleosaurus:
Turtleosaurus Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2014
I wonder why Giraffatitan and Brachiosaurus had these different adaptations with Giraffatitan obviously being more height oriented  with being a more "extreme animal" "longer arms, longer neck" and Brachiosaurus being stouter and tubbyer, probably a reflection of their environmental pressures?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Possibly. Giraffatitan was a more tropical-latitude animals, and it was coastal, whereas Brachiosaurus was a highland dweller. Different types of forest, different environments.

However this by itself is not enough to explain the difference. There are some Giraffatitan-like (and some Archbishop-like) vertebrae known from the Morrison formation, so Brachiosaurus was not the only brachiosaur species in the formation. In fact there were probably at least 3 or 4 others, obscure but distinct from each other.

The difference in proportions may be explained by the fact that Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan were from different branches of Brachiosauridae to begin with. And the Archbishop and some of the North American forms (including the shoulder material "ultrasauros" perhaps) belong to yet a third, narrow-bodied branch. And Astrodon/Pleurocoelus, Abydosaurus, and Cedarosaurus, may form yet another branch, which only became common in the Cretaceous.
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2014
Great work Nima!
Now I am waiting for the updated Giraffatitan (after your blog post about G.brancai dorsals).

Ps- Can I have your e-mail adress to send you "my" M.sinocanadorum (it s finished)?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Yes. It's Paleo_King@hotmail.com.

Thanks! I'm updating both Giraffatitan and Lusotitan. Giraffatitan is planned to be a multi-view. And yes the dorsals are even steeper than before. This animal was so steep the only logical conclusion is a vertical neck.
Reply
:icondontknowwhattodraw94:
Dontknowwhattodraw94 Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
This really nice, didn't know Brachiosaurus grew that big. I always thought he wasn't taller than 13 metres. 
About the juvenile specimen: are there any estimates about how old he was? 
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Not yet. There hasn't been much histological work done on the bones to see its age. My best guess is that "Toni" was only 1 or 2 years old max.

Most "official" brachiosaur height figures are too low. It's because they were calculated decades ago based on outdated thinking - with the dorsals not tilted high enough, or a droopy neck, like you see in old books from the 1950s.
Reply
:icondontknowwhattodraw94:
Dontknowwhattodraw94 Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Well, then he's already pretty big for his age or were Sauropod hatchlings already at least a metre long?

Ah okay :)
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Not hatchlings. A 1-year old sauropod is not a hatchling. In their first year they grew very rapidly, eating all the time. By 5 years old they weighed over a ton. At least that's what juvenile diplodocid remains indicate, perhaps brachiosaurs grew faster or slower, but not by much difference.
Reply
:icondontknowwhattodraw94:
Dontknowwhattodraw94 Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Wow, that's really fast. How long do you think would it take to reach their adult size?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Probably 25-30 years. Assuming that the Potter Creek specimen is "adult".
Reply
:icondontknowwhattodraw94:
Dontknowwhattodraw94 Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Ah okay and do we also know how old a Sauropod could get?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Hard to say. We know one specimen of Lapparentosaurus paleo-king.deviantart.com/art/… was determined to be about 45 years old when it died... But it wasn't the biggest one apparently.

Not enough histological studies have been done on sauropods, which is strange given that there is so much sauropod material in museums.

My best guess is that some of them could live 100 years or more once they got to adult size. There really wasn't much that could hurt them at the sizes that Brachiosaurus, Futalognkosaurus, etc. not to mention Puertasaurus reached. These were fast-growing warm blooded animals, but being herbivores that didn't need to hunt, they were not bound by the same kind of short violent lifestyle as T. rex. The oldest and largest T. rexes found (Sue and MOR-008) were maybe in their early 30s at most.
Reply
(2 Replies)
:iconfragillimus335:
Fragillimus335 Featured By Owner Jun 19, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Is that USNM humerus a very large individual?  It looks about 223cm long.
Reply
:iconblazze92:
bLAZZE92 Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2014
Taylor et al. (2009) mentions a length of 213cm based on personal observation, if true that'll make it only 4.4% larger than the femur of the type specimen.
Reply
:iconfragillimus335:
Fragillimus335 Featured By Owner Edited Jun 23, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
That was a mistake he later corrected.  The femur is only 203cm long, as stated in… svpow.com/2014/05/19/the-new-a…
Reply
:iconblazze92:
bLAZZE92 Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2014
That's for the femur of the holotype, not USNM 21903 which is the one Taylor et al. (2009) claimed was 213cm long.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 19, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
It's pretty huge, no doubt. Probably the largest single bone in the USNM/Smithsonian. It's part of the Potter Creek material, and was at one time lumped into "Ultrasauros" although now we know that it doesn't match the famous BYU shoulder blade, which was from a different and smaller brachiosaur genus. That said, it's only around 15-20% larger than the Brachiosaurus holotype, so it may be an adult B. altithorax or at least another species of Brachiosaurus.
Reply
:iconfragillimus335:
Fragillimus335 Featured By Owner Jun 19, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
:0 Only 15-20% bigger!?  We're talking about a near 30 meter Brachiosaur here, and one that is back in the classic 50+ ton range of old!
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
True... but it's still not in Breviparopus or "B. nougaredi" territory.
Reply
:iconturtleosaurus:
Turtleosaurus Featured By Owner May 26, 2014
How tall is an adult B. Altithorax 13 m or more? Whats the tallest sauropod in your opinion? Sauroposeidon? Cool great work always loved B. Altithorax.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner May 26, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks, I was always a fan of B. altithorax too. But until I made this restoration, can you believe there really weren't any totally accurate skeletals - and remember this is one of the most famous dinosaurs, an all-American discovery, which has been known for over 100 years. A bit sad actually someone didn't do an accurate image sooner rather than just copying Giraffatitan. Greg Paul's version (published in his 1995 terremgathermy paper) was basically a Giraffatitan clone. Mike Taylor's version is basically a kitbash of Greg Paul's Giraffatitan (with all its composite errors) and some tracings of Riggs and Carpenter & Tidwell. Scott Hartman basically did the same sort of half-Giraffatitan kitbash, only cleaner. Mine is the first skeletal of B. altithorax that actually goes straight off all the published bones of B. altithorax, as well as the most referred specimens, including a completely revised neck and skull, and REALLY shows how different it was from Giraffatitan (I still struggle to see many differences between Harman's skeletals of both).

As for adult height.... Well this one (the holotype) scales up to a height of around 15m, so the adult would definitely be taller than 13m. Remember this one is not an adult, the coracoid wasn't fused to anything.

The tallest sauropod ever... that depends on how much guesswork you're comfortable with. If we're talking creatures known from neck material, then probably either Sauroposeidon, Puertasaurus, or Daxiatitan was the tallest.

But if we're talking the tallest sauropod that we know exists, then there are potentially even taller ones that we don't have neck material for. "Brachiosaurus" nougaredi and Breviparopus may both be taller and longer than Sauroposeidon. And whatever made the huge Plagne and Broome tracks (likely a titanosaur) may have a good chance of being tall than them too. And then there's the French Monster, which isn't a record-breaker in femur length, but increasingly looks like it may be a euhelopodid or an acrofornican based on femur shape - which likely means... a REALLY long neck, and great height. And lets not forget the new "biggest dinosaur" found in Argentina paleo-king.deviantart.com/jour… . If it's a lognkosaurian, as its femur shape suggests, it may have the same very long neck of its cousins Futalognkosaurus and Puertasaurus, only on an even bigger scale.

And it's also possible that the tallest of the tall may not be a brachiosaur or titanosaur at all, but rather a mamenchisaur, like the fragmentary M. sinocanadorum, and not far behind are the similarly huge Chuanjiesaurus (known from two very good specimens) and M. jingyanensis.

The one thing I can promise you is that the tallest dinosaur was almost certainly NOT a diplodocid. Unless it was rearing of course. :XD:
Reply
:iconfragillimus335:
Fragillimus335 Featured By Owner Jun 19, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Amphicoelias might have made a good showing… :)  I'm going to be about 30 miles north of the Amphicoelias frag. quarry in a few weeks.  It will immensely tempting to not try and dig around a bit.
Reply
:iconturtleosaurus:
Turtleosaurus Featured By Owner May 27, 2014
Cool thanks for reply? Out of curiosity whats wrong with Scott Hartman's reconstruction of B. Altithorax? Is his reconstruction mainly based on Giraffatitan, but with the minimal remains of B. Altithorax isn't that the best option?

Anyway between Lusotitan, Giraffatitan, and Brachiosaurus is there much difference in height or are all of them a much of a muchness at about 15m tall.

Great work, fabulous skeletals I also like the more s shaped posture of their necks compared with the straight stiff necks that others do, seems more natural than the alternative and probably more realistic based on my understanding of Taylor, Wedel and Naish's paper on Sauropod neck posture.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner May 27, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Well as for Hartman's, it is , and it isn't.

Enough is known from B. altithorax to do a decent skeletal without too many gaps to fill in. The only problem is that he's essentially cramming B. altithorax into a Giraffatitan's body, using the exact same tail, the same ischia and pubes, and even the same upper neck material as Greg Paul's Giraffatitan.... which is a bit odd, seeing as Brachiosaurus should have more robust and angular components, and Greg Paul didn't get Giraffatitan right to begin with. He used HMN SI for the upper neck, instead of SII and scaling up HMN Be. SI has rather different proportions that either SII or juvenile Giraffatitans, and is probably a different species (whether it's a good mashup fit for B. altithorax is hard to know). I think there's more to Brachiosaurus than just a Giraffatitan with a longer belly. The vertebrae are about as different from Giraffatitan as a brachiosaur can be, so the unknown parts almost certainly were as well. In fact if I believe that if Janensch really wanted to lump his African material into any pre-existing genus, Eucamerotus/Ornithopsis would have been a better match, going off the two fairly well-preserved Wealden dorsals. svpow.com/2008/11/06/mystery-s… . Then again, these share some aspects of Brachiosaurus too, but at least have upswept diapophyses like Giraffatitan.

Also another issue with Harman's reconstruction is that he uses the BYU shoulder blade of "Ultrasauros" which as it turns out in Taylor (2009) is NOT the same animal as Brachiosaurus. It's a slimmer creature which reached adulthood at a smaller size. The coracoid of B. altithorax is a lot bigger. And that's comparing adult "Ultrasauros" (fully fused scapula and coracoid) to a teenage B. altithorax (unfused). So he's basically cramming a bigger animal into the shoulder/chest space of a smaller one which had almost no more room for growth.

Other than that, Hartman's Brachiosaurus is actually pretty good. But in my mind, it looks too stylized and too similar to his Giraffatitan (just as his Futalognkosaurus looks too similar to Malawisaurus, instead of using more closely related lognkosaurs like Mendozasaurus and Drusilasaura as gap filler)... and as far as brachiosaurs go, I have doubts Giraffatitan is the best gap-filler for B. altithorax, aside from being pretty complete. There are remains of other brachiosaurs from North America and Europe which are probably better gap-fillers judging by B. altithorax's robust proportions. Unfortunately they are buried in obscure papers and hard to come by.

Giraffatitan was most likely taller than Brachiosaurus or Lusotitan. Mainly because it has a longer neck than Brachiosaurus, and is bigger overall than Lusotitan (at least based on the specimens we know). Keep in mind that all three are known from teenage type specimens, so the maximum adult height is still unknown. Also I've been re-examining Lusotitan (based on Mannion's new paper) and it appears to be a good deal smaller, volume-wise, than the colossus I had previously thought. But the unusually long (for a brachiosaur) tail keeps the length similar to before.
Reply
:iconturtleosaurus:
Turtleosaurus Featured By Owner May 26, 2014
h
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2014
Hi Nima actuallly many fonts cites 30 tons as probable mass for both Giraffatitan and Brachiosaurus.... What do you think?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Many fonts? what does that mean?

Brachiosaurus was a bit more robust and heavier, also it had a longer torso which added more mass. 30 tons is low for the Brachiosaurus holotype, and also probably too low for HMN SII. And also remember that Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan both got bigger than these two famous (teenage) specimens. So the masses estimated in these skeletals are not the maximum-sized animal.
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2014
Sorta that was reliable suorce :)
Anyway Thank you, I asked because I noticed  a mass est. In many Yours skeletal but not in both Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan and personally I consider 30 tons a bit. too low.

Thank you again,and have a nice day.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks. The adults got bigger than these estimates though. The most complete specimens we have are still teenagers.
Reply
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2013
Brachiosaurus by Scott Hartman

[link]
Reply
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2013
Brachiosaurus by Gregory S. Paul
[link]

Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
That is actually a Giraffatitan. Gregory Paul didn't do a full skeletal for Brachiosaurus, just a silhouette with a few bones, that looked different from his Giraffatitan, but it wasn't published in any books.
Reply
:icondinosaurman1998:
dinosaurman1998 Featured By Owner May 3, 2013
thanxs. just wondering how can you say that giraffititan had a longer neck, if only very minimal neck remains of brachiosaurus have been found.also what is the adult shoulder height and neck length of brachiosaurus and giraffititan.thanxs for your expertise
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
The neck of Giraffatitan was probably longer due to the proportions of its vertebrae. Of course it's possible that Brachiosaurus had some abnormally long ones that we haven't found yet, but the ones we do know of are not as elongated relative to their centrum width as those of Giraffatitan (and by Giraffatitan I mean HMN SII and whatever can be scaled up from similarly proportioned smaller specimens like HMN Be - NOT the shorter truncated neck of HMN SI, which probably belongs to a different species).
Reply
:icondinosaurman1998:
dinosaurman1998 Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2013
who was taller brachiosaurus altithorax or giraffititan brancai?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Giraffatitan is looking like the winner. It had a longer neck and longer arms so it was probably taller. They probably reached similar length as adults, Brachiosaurus had a longer torso and tail. And so Brachiosaurus probably was heavier.

Most books tend to publish a length of 75 feet for both Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan, but this is based on teenage specimens with immature, unfused shoulder blades. The adults (based on the few fragmentary remains of larger individuals known) may have reached 90 feet or more.
Reply
:icongrroselli:
grroselli Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2012
u seem very knowledgeable with sauropods so hopefully u can answer my question: did diplodocus hallorum [formerly known as seismosaurus] live during the kimmeridgian or tithonian epoch?
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
  • Art Print
  • Canvas
  • Photo
  • Art Gifts




Details

Submitted on
March 11, 2012
Image Size
12.0 MB
Resolution
7528×7556
Submitted with
Sta.sh
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
11,775 (5 today)
Favourites
164 (who?)
Comments
119
×