Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
December 27, 2013
Image Size
1.9 MB
Resolution
5488×5376
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
3,127 (1 today)
Favourites
48 (who?)
Comments
66
×
Fusuisaurus zhaoi skeletal by Paleo-King Fusuisaurus zhaoi skeletal by Paleo-King
Fusuisaurus zhaoi

Etymology: "Zhao Xijin's Fusui County lizard"

Time horizon: Early Cretaceous, Aptian epoch? (~120 mya)

Length: ~30m (~100 ft.)

Probable mass: 70 tons

*Now re-scaled - this animal is a bit smaller than previously predicted* Missing portions of described bones are shaded in light gray.

The mysterious, never-before-restored, and downright colossal Fusuisaurus. The first and only true brachiosaur discovery known from China (no, Qiaowanlong and Zigongosaurus are NOT brachiosaurs), this giant is unique in two critical ways: it is unusual in being so basal so late; and it is apparently more closely related to Brachiosaurus altithorax than any other species of brachiosaur. The ilium is extremely similar to Brachiosaurus, and the tail vertebrae follow a similar pattern. This species punches a hole in the notion that basal members of a clade can't grow to gigantic sizes - sometimes they can even exceed the sizes of many derived members. The charcters of all recovered elements correspond well to a late survivor of a basal progenitor lineage for Brachiosaurus. It is evidently not, as has sometimes been claimed, a basal titanosaur or a somphospondylian.

Often labeled in the Chinese press as the most basal titanosauriform known, the reputation is a bit premature. Evidently its distinctively brachiosaur features show that Fusuisaurus was considerably more advanced than the most basal titanosauriforms (Volkheimeria, "Lavocatitan" and the klamelisaurids). Pneumaticity is not very developed in the ribs, so this animal is likely more primitive than Brachiosaurus itself, despite being a far more recent species. It appears to be a living fossil that survived from the mid-Jurassic days of Brachiosaurus' direct ancestors, survivors of which seem to have long outlasted Brachiosaurus itself. How such instances of extremely long survival for such "holdover taxa" and basal bloodlines take place, particularly in a fast-evolving (and fast-turnover) warm-blooded class like Dinosauria, is still not properly understood.


References:

Mo, J., Wang W.,Huang Z., Huang X., Xu X., 2006, "A Basal Titanosauriform from the Early Cretaceous of Guangxi, China", Acta Geologica Sinica, Vol.80 No.4 P.486-489
Add a Comment:
 
:iconkazuma27:
Kazuma27 Featured By Owner Jul 13, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Giant sauropods, giant sauropods everywehere!
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2014  Hobbyist
Happy to see that at least some brachiosaur is in the range of 70 tonnes.Well,i always believed there could be few of them or at least one of their species could weigh 70 or 75 tonnes.Also i believe that some Titanosaur is going to hit solid 120 tonnes plus.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Maybe one of the new beasts from Chubut, Argentina? Or perhaps whatever made the Plagne tracks in France. Those are definitely big enough.
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2014  Hobbyist
The estimated weight of that one is similar to Argentinosaurus and yet they said it is larger than Argentinosaurus.Anyway,but someday a 100 tonne plus Titanosaur is going to show up and then i wonder where those people will keep their face who said that 100 tonnes is the maximum weight for a land animal.A land animal weigh in excess of 100 tonnes will crush itself.             
           We can see about that.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Actually I heard the maximum limit was closer to 150 tons. At 160 tons, some theoretical models (like McNeill Alexander's) guess that the legs would need to be so thick as to almost touch each other. I highly doubt this, but then again we've never seen a dinosaur that big so jury's out for now. A number of tests on different materials in a Discovery channel program showed that the bones of Argentinosaurus could in theory support around 90-95 tons before buckling.
Reply
:iconbrolyeuphyfusion9500:
brolyeuphyfusion9500 Featured By Owner Aug 6, 2014
Well, for what it's worth, here's a study on the theoretical limits for terrestrial land fauna size:

www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/hok…

It presents a theoretical possible range of ~100-1000 tonnes where the limit may lie anywhere in. The conclusion of the study is basically that structural integrity is not really much of a limiting factor, while ecological factors are much more important.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
1000 tonnes ? Wow that's a shocker. But you're right, I think ecological parameters would ever let an animal get that big. Feeding a population of such huge creatures would take too much strain on resources. In fact in my mind, just finding enough food to feed a few Argentinosaurus looks like a difficult feat, but then again conifer forests were far larger back then.
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2014  Hobbyist
I just searched if anyone said a max limit was 150 tonnes.I can't able to find it.I read some info from McNeill Alexander about dinosaur weight problems.Then i read this sentence for Bruhathkayosaurus from this site and it made me laugh.----------( Not all palaeontologists are even convinced that it was a bone at all, rather than a fossilised tree-trunk.)

www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com/n…
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
I have my doubts too. But we probably will never have a final anser about Bruhathkayosaurus. Because in over 30 years of it being known, only a handful of very grainy photographs were taken, and these don't make it at all clear WHAT this find actually was. And the thing wasn't even taken to a museum, just left to sit there at the dig site for over 30 years! Nobody ever bothered to take a digital camera to the site in the past few years, truly sad considering that Yadagiri and Ayyasami were bragging that they had the BIGGEST dinosaur in the world. But then again they had made false claims about finding rare dinosaurs before, such as "Dravidosaurus" being the last surviving stegosaur, well into the Cretaceous - only it turned out it was some very badly damaged sternal plates of a plesiosaur, not stegosaur back plates!

Then according to Dr. Ayyasami, a big flood came in the monsoon season to the Bruhathkayosaurus site and washed it all away! How convenient for his big fish story.... you can read more about it here paleoking.blogspot.com/2012/01… And here: paleoking.blogspot.com/2012/01…
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2014  Hobbyist
There are some bad comments about you in one of the link to your blog.Why you allowed those comments ? Remove them. That guy who commented like that probably should be an Indian.
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2014  Hobbyist
You have a interesting blog. I don't have much knowledge in those skeleton parts that you talk about there as well as here in DA. There is a lot to read ! And i am not much of a reader.Lol.. I might get a headache if i start to read all of them but however someday i will.I have one big image to complete and when if i could finish it someday then from next day after that,i could read about some animals.
                I am not expecting Bruhathkayosaurus to be real but there may be fossils of some or few large Dinosaurs here in this country.And i am living somewhere next to the city where that tree trunk bruhathfakesaurus was known.Lol.
Reply
:iconfragillimus335:
Fragillimus335 Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I think this is my favorite of your skeletals.  It has wonderful, and well-balanced proportions.
Reply
:icondarklord86:
darklord86 Featured By Owner Mar 2, 2014
Very impressive!
Reply
:iconelsqiubbonator:
ElSqiubbonator Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2014
Wasn't there another Sauroposeidon-sized Chinese brachiosaur that you mentioned earlier? 
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Don't think so... a Chinese brachiosaur? Fusuisaurus is the only legit one as far as I know. China has some huge sauropods but most are either titanosaurs (like Ruyangosaurus) or basal somphospondyli (like Daxiatitan and Huanghetitan). Maybe you can find where I apparently said that?
Reply
:iconelsqiubbonator:
ElSqiubbonator Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2014
I was talking about Fusuisaurus.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Well this IS Fuisuisaurus... the picture here that you're posting on :D So yes, technically you're right, Fusuisaurus is the only Chinese brachiosaur we know so far... with the exception of Fusuisaurus :XD:

In all seriousness, it may be possible that Japan's largest dinosaur, Fukuititan, which sounds similar, is a brachiosaur. But that's Japan not China, and Fukuititan is no rival to Sauroposeidon, it's absolutely TINY by comparison... maybe a 30-footer at best.
Reply
:iconelsqiubbonator:
ElSqiubbonator Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2014
I must have seen your earlier reconstruction and thought it was a different animal.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
I did revise it, but only size-wise. It was a bit bigger before but the scaling was off so I fixed it. But in terms of proportions and shape it really didn't change.
Reply
:iconexistoo:
Existoo Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2014
Ok, I appreciate your point that we shared. Now analyze what I read to compare with a study of paleogeography I'm working.

regards
Reply
:iconexistoo:
Existoo Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2014

My two final objections are:

The almost complete lack of ilia of basal Somphospondylia except Tastavinsaurus and Brontomerus and incompleteness in Australodocus, Wintonotitan Astrophocaudia and makes it very easy to fall into the trap of interpretation.

The size does not match in terms of proportions, at least not if we consider the ilium and femur. An ilium of 1.45 meters gives an approximate 2.2 meter femur Brachiosaurus. This gives an animal 25m when compared not as much as 30 meters.

I do not expect follow me, but they were the two issues raised me to see his work.

regards!

Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Here is a challenge: If you can find one ilium of a somphospondylian that resembles Fusuisaurus more than B. altithorax does, along with anterior ribs that are not pneumatized, I may gladly eat my words.

So far there isn't a better similarity with ilium than Brachiosaurus altithorax, and the resemblance is uncanny.

Non-pneumatized anterior ribs further place Fusuisaurus well outside somphospondyli.

You can speculate all you want about evidence we don't have (i.e. not that many somphospondylian ilia) but you are still ignoring the obvious evidence we DO have. Read the description paper, then try to tell my this thing doesn't look scream "brachiosaur". As for the whole Lusotitan shocker... you do realize that scientists write papers and counter-papers that challenge and disagree with each other, right? Mannion reached his conclusions, but not every sauropod expert shares them. In fact the taxonomic conclusions he presents for all the other titanosauriformes are often MULTIPLE contradictory theories, where he doesn't even take sides. It's called debate, not proclamation. The example of Lusotitan is a bit anomalous. Having read the paper myself, my view is that Mannion doesn't weight all the characters properly, and that some of them are merely throwbacks while others are true plesiomorphies of brachiosauridae. In a sense, you need to be able to discriminate and weight the character differently by juxtaposing the largest and most general proportion-based ones with similarly matching species. For example, Lusotitan and Giraffatitan share a lot of similarities in the shape of the caudals and their macro-morphology, even though the largest Giraffatitan caudal series (HMN Fund D) is far more pneumatic than Lusotitan... this does not place Lusotitan in a more basal family however, because guess what? HMN Fund D is a very large and mature specimen, and even most Giraffatitan tails lack the extensive pneumatization of Fund D. Mannion's conclusion on Lusotitan, though well-researched, in my view it tends to not see the forest for the trees. Many brachiosaurs show some character throwbacks to more primitive groups, heck even advanced titanosaurs like Opisthocoelicaudia do that! Yet they remain clearly brachiosaurs as the macro-morphology of the bones indicates, just like Opisthoelicaudia remains a derived titanosaur. Genes and telomeres do get recycled and go through periods of turnover, this does not automatically shunt you into a more basal family.

However the case of Fusuisaurus is rather different.

Is Fusuisaurus just a somphospondylian with brachiosaur-like throwbacks? Doubtful. There is no precedent for a somphospondylian with both B.altithorax-mimic hips AND lack of pneumatization in any of the ribs. Pneumatization is a common plesiomorphy of all titanosauriformes that doesn't exhibit throwbacks in any other known genus, and while brachiosaurs have less extensive pneumatization than somphospondyli (makes sense, they're more primitive), NO somphospondylian thus far has been found which dumped pneumaticity in some of the ribs altogether. However in basal brachiosaurs you do sometimes find this feature. It's technically possible we could be dealing with a somphospondyl here. But a much simpler explanation (which doesn't require ANY speculating about throwbacks) is that it's a basal brachiosaur that invaded China in the Cretaceous alongside the somphospondylian invaders as new land bridges formed. And every scientist knows the principle of Occam's razor; the simplest explanation is always the best.

China was isolated in the middle Jurassic so I would not expect to find a Chinese brachiosaur in middle Jurassic rock layers. Cretaceous brachioaurs in China (like Fusuisaurus) makes a lot more sense because by the cretaceous, China was re-connected to Asia by land bridges, this is why titanosaurs and euhelopodids made it in at that time instead of the middle jurassic, and the same reasoning holds true for brachiosaurs. After all, brachiosaurs, just like titanosaurs, were another group of outside invaders not native to China. There were plenty of derived brachiosaurs in the cretaceous, so why not a few basal types as well? We have already seen basal macronarians coexisting alongside much more derived ones, take Madagascar for example. Everything from basal proto-titanosauriformes to true brachiosaurs to titanosaurs. And don't forget Angolatitan, which lived far later than other euhelopodids in the late cretaceous age of titanosaur domination. Fusuisaurus was doing the same thing in its own time. Extinction doesn't strike all lineages equally fast. We don't know the reasons for this, but the evidence prove it's true again and again.

As for scaling, I used my brachiosaurus silhouette but made the neck a bit longer (this is after all a bigger animal, and giant macronarians usually have longer neck proportions than their smaller cousins). Also keep in mind that my version of Brachiosaurus is a bit longer to begin with than most of the popular versions you may have seen (Greg Paul, Scott Hartman, etc.) this is because I was far more rigorous in scaling the bones, and it turns out that Brachiosaurus had a longer torso and tail (and probably a longer neck too) than how Paul and Hartman restored it. So that is how I got 30 meters by scaling up a Brachiosaurus, with a few necessary changes.

Now of course it's possible this animal may have been smaller than 30m, but I don't find that very likely. Given that it looks so much like Brachiosaurus, and also the fact of its huge size as a high-browser, I don't think Fusuisaurus could have been a short, stocky animal of Atlasaurus proportions. Also, seeing how China seems to produce crazy dragon-necks in totally unrelated sauropod lineages (mamenchisaus vs. klamelisaurs vs. euhelopodids), it's entirely possible that the neck in my reconstruction here is not long ENOUGH, and the creature may have been even longer than 30m. Just some food for thought.
Reply
:iconexistoo:
Existoo Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2014
No use English, but hope to explain well.

It's strange to see an attack only because someone differs from thinking.

I placed the literature because it is good start to what already investigated from the same base. In science, an observation never be an attack if accompanied by strong arguments. Not all applause and admiration, because it can have critical thinking for and against.

Paleograficamente no brachiosaurs in asia and included the Diplodocidae because like these with several fragments have been misinterpreted.

Brachiosauridae Pleurocoelus is no, it is more so derivative is within the group and forms Somphospondyli usually less similar than the Brachiosauridae. I mean, I mean that is rebuilding too from very incomplete bones and create animals that mistake too often exaggerated.

The case was because I spent converting the source program by mistake.

I do not care if they're hard or not, because there are many people who like the exchange of ideas and knowledge, the debate between friends, but others always see attacks or insults.

I placed the literature to avoid the same thing happen to me last time with the theme of the fibula Argentinosaurus. They did not believe me until a colleague came to confirm.

Anyway, I hope not to bother again, expected to discuss a little about the possibility or impossibility of his work, but is very defensive. Other paleoartists are open to different ideas.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
I'm not attacking you. You didn't merely differ in thinking - you basically made an absolute statement, which didn't merely question, but denied the validity of my work. And you committed a logical fallacy (black swan paradox) in claiming there are no brachiosaurs in China. And as for Pleurocoelus... it can be a brachiosaur, the remains are so fragmentary that proving it's anything more derived than a brachiosaur is very difficult. Many sauropods (Cedarosaurus, Venenosaurus, Paluxysaurus) have been placed in both brachiosauridae and somphospondyli, depending on who you ask and whose papers you agree with more. Some of them are probably brachiosaurs, some of them might be somphospondyli, but in most cases it's not clear what they were because many diagnostic parts are missing or eroded. Fusuisaurus is different - its remains, though fragmentary, are very distinctive and clearly show what it was. A brachiosaurid, and on top of that, a primitive brachiosaurine from the same lineage as B. altithorax.

The literature you quoted barely mentions Fusuisaurus, and doesn't analyze its morphology at all. Simply because a paper says something, isn't the be-all end-all of science. I have all of those papers. They make some valid points, but they do a TERRIBLE job of addressing Fusuisaurus. Of course, Fuisuisaurus isn't the main subject of those papers anyway, so quoting them to make a point about Fusuisaurus is a bit hypocritical, since the only paper you don't seem to have read is the description of Fusuisaurus itself! You're making bandwagon claims without having full knowledge of the subject. Fusuisaurus fits in brachiosauridae better than any other group, and it's at the primitive end of brachiosauridae. It literally doesn't have a somphospondylian bone in its body. If you don't believe me, read the description paper. You don't have to trust my word. A few months ago you could still find a free copy in Google books. The bones restored here in white are based directly on the published photographs.

Fusuisaurus clearly has a brachiosaurid ilium, with a large postacetabular blade (the part of the ilium flange behind the hip socket, in case you didn't know) which is very different from the somphospondyli which have greatly reduced or lost this feature (some somphospondylians like Brontomerus lost it completely). Plus the anterior ribs lack pneumatization, a primitive feature which is even primitive for a brachiosaur, and places Fusuisaurus well outside the somphospondyli. Read the description paper, it says this animal is one of the most primitive titanosauriformes known. It's even more primitive than Brachiosaurus. By definition then it CAN'T be a somphospondylian. And the ilium doesn't even look like one!

Why can't there be brachiosaurs in China? They were all over Eurasia and Africa. You find them in Lebanon and maybe even Japan depending on what you think Fukuititan really was (it looks far more like Brachiosaurus than Euhelopus, that much is certain). Somphospondyli weren't even native to China, they invaded it in the Cretaceous from Africa, through the Middle East, when China's tectonic isolation ended due to new land bridges, and then they outcompeted the mamenchisaurs to extinction. So if Somphospondyli mad it into China, why not Brachiosaurs? They were already in Africa, Europe, and parts of Asia, just like somphospondylians. The "no brachiosaurs in China" prejudice stems from the incorrect former classification of Zigongosaurus (a mamenchisaurid) and Qiaowanlong (a euhelopodid somphospondylian) as brachisoaurs. That does NOT mean there were no Chinese brachiosaurs. I was skeptical of the notion of Chinese brachiosaurs too, but Fusuisaurus is NOT another Zigongosaurus - using the same modern scientific character-comparison standards that DISproved brachiosaur identity for Zigongosaurus and Qiaowanlong, you will see that Fusuisaurus actually fits a brachiosaur identity better than any other group.

Keep in mind that what is possible and what is true are two different things. While it's easily possible for there to be Chinese brachiosaurs, I myself actually expected Fusuisaurus to be a somphospondylian (something similar to Huanghetitan or Dongyangosaurus) rather than a brachiosaur, based on the rumors I'd heard... but that was all before I had a chance to read the paper and see the photos. The brachiosaur identity of the fossil material and its primitive nature as described in the paper was a complete surprise to me! The bandwagon consensus on Chinese cretaceous sauropods is they are all somphospondylians, but the actual evidence on Fusuisaurus clearly says something very different. Not a single bone in the specimen looks like somphospondyli. I didn't "want" Fusuisaurus to be a brachiosaur... but it simply IS. Nothing you or I can do about it.

As for diplodocoids in China, maybe they existed, maybe not. Their ranges are more restricted than brachiosaurs. Brachiosaurs have been found on every continent besides Antarctica, whereas diplodocoids were mostly limited to the western hemisphere. I am not a diplodocoid specialist and I never claimed there was evidence for Chinese diplodocids, so I don't care much either way.
Reply
:iconexistoo:
Existoo Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2014
There is no evidence nor Brachiosauridae or Diplodocoidea in Asia, and Fusuisaurus may have a similar appearance to Pleurocoelus, Euhelopus or Huabeisaurus.

Kseptka & Norell, 2010 The Illusory Evidence for Asian Brachiosauridae: New Material of Erketu ellisoni and a Phylogenetic Reappraisal of Basal Titanosauriformes. AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES. 3700

Mannion et al 2013 Osteology of the Late Jurassic Portuguese sauropod dinosaur Lusotitan atalaiensis (Macronaria) and the evolutionary history of basal titanosauriforms. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2013.

Tanimoto M, Suzuki C, Takahashi T, Nabana S, 2006. Nemegtosaurid fossils
from Japan. Chigakukenkyu 54: 223–227.

Whittlock, D´Emic & Wilson, 2011. CRETACEOUS DIPLODOCIDS IN ASIA?
RE-EVALUATING THE PHYLOGENETIC AFFINITIES OF A FRAGMENTARY SPECIMEN. Palaeontology, 2011, pp. 1–14
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Actually there is evidence for brachiosauridae. It's this specimen. Ksepka & Norell, 2010 strictly deals with the controversy around Qiaowanlong. So yes they were right about Qiaowanlong. But the paper isn't about Fusuisaurus, and doesn't address it's unique characters, so your logic is invalid. Ksepka & Norell weren't trying to disprove the existence of Asian brachiosaurs (that would be a major black swan paradox), they were simply arguing that Qiaowanlong wasn't one. A quick tip: read the abstract of papers once in a while, not just the title.

"
Fusuisaurus may have a similar appearance to Pleurocoelus, Euhelopus or Huabeisaurus."

First of all, look at the ilium and the caudals - they look far more similar to Brachiosaurus than to
Pleurocoelus, Euhelopus or Huabeisaurus. The odd bent shape of the preacetabular shelf alone is unique to only one other titanosauriform - Brachiosaurus altithorax. And just what is Pleurocoelus? A brachiosaur. Thanks, proves my point precisely. And Fusuisaurus is far more basal than either Euhelopus or Huabeisaurus. Did the description paper's mention of Fusuisaurus's relatively limited internal pneumaticity (i.e. NOT a somphospondylian) simply pass you by, somewhere between Control+Paste and the CAPS-lock key?

The other references you provided don't analyze Fusuisaurus in any detail, they only speculate on other genera. The Lusotitan paper is 90% about (you guessed it) Lusotitan. Its table of other sauropod genera only lists the arguments of other authors, it doesn't propose any new ones. And it barely mentions Fusuisaurus at all. I have yet to see a single paper that analyzes the actual fossil material and disproves a brachiosaurid identity conclusively. By definition, Fusuisaurus is a titansauriform, that much is obvious from the description. It's also too basal to be a somphospondylian in terms of pneumaticity and a host of other factors... so by process of elimination that doesn't leave too many more choices besides brachiosauridae (and none that are a better fit). And looking at the published photos, it actually makes a lot of sense. How anyone can look at that bizarre ilium and see anything other than a brachiosaur is beyond me. It doesn't look anything like Euhelopus or Huabeisaurus.

And as for diplodocids - I never said there were any diplodocids in Asia, so I don't see your point. Go back and do some hard research on the features of Fusuisaurus instead of merely regurgitating other people's paper references or inventing straw men to attack. Yeah, I know I'm harsh. I'm always that way when unknown people start pretending to be experts and claiming "there is no evidence of this or that" and show no signs of independent critical thinking. Even scientific papers contain mistakes now and then, and sometimes make overly broad generalizations. Having copies of over 300 published papers on sauropods, I should know.
Reply
:iconexistoo:
Existoo Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2014
Hi Paleo King

I have not felt attacked , rather I felt that sometimes interprets any contrary point as an attack. This is the third comment I sent so far , because I am interested in your artwork and interpretations although not always agree with them , and talks always learn something .

No really believe that is the only person who has read hundreds of articles and knows the anatomy of sauropods .

My statement is based on the Paleogeography and what you interpret as Brachiosauridae , which is more extensive than most of the authors accepted within Gregory Paul that if covers more than usual .

Focusing on Brachiosauridae , this group is more limited than you 've seen fits . Atlasaurus , Bellusaurus Klamelisaurus or are identified as a basal Neosauropoda with similar convergences between the two groups, although any new interpretation is acceptable if sufficient phylogenetic studies . Australodocus , Astrophocaudia , Sauroposeidon , Paluxysaurus and almost all skeletons Pleurocoelus is Somphospondyli happen to be , so they would be out of Brachiosauridae .

<span title="'La anatomía " lusotitan.'="" es"="" como="" idénticos,="" no="" mas="" semejantes,="" son="" parecer="" al="" familia="" la="" de="" fuera="" encuentran="" se="" que="" saurópodos="" otros="" pues="" exclusiva,="" es="" brachiosauridae"="">The anatomy " Brachiosauridae " is not unique , as other sauropods that are outside of the family appear to be similar , but not identical, as is Lusotitan .
What I mean is to put a completely similar way can be a mistake , since basal animals are often not as well developed . If it was then we have a more basal anatomy conservative , hence my first suspicion.

We both know that Fusuisaurus is not quoted by the incomplete and because it was not used for more detail, but in the works that I sent if listed Fusuisaurus as next to another group outside Brachiosauridae or presnetan the position of what is meant by Brachiosauridae between other sauropods . But paleogeography showing the absence of several sauropod taxa shared between Asia and the rest of the world from the Late Jurassic until the Titanosaurs broke that pattern.

The problem is known only in the Cretaceous Brachiosauridae that are complete enough to say for Cedarosaurus , Abydosaurus among others. The others are indeterminate Titanosauriformes as teeth and bones scattered little support inclusion or discard . It is more like a Brachiosaurus Fusuisaurus has Lusotitan that is outside of the family? Studies Mannion et al 2013 show Lusotitan and Dongbeititan Brachiosauridae outside , although they are basal forms and could be related to Fusuisaurus too.

Convergence and fragmentary bones make mistake very often. While that is a plus too is against. Geography greatly limits the possibility that China would Brachiosaurus , since you mention the remains are fragmentary and may or may not Brachiosauridae , you just apparently extends to all sauropod family indeterminated titanosauriform .
.
The diplodocoids are important because to understand the limiting step between Asia and other continents as whether there was such a strong filter that prevented the passage . If all wildlife Sauropoda prevents a possibility, then it is very likely to be wrong, incomplete remains . But it is admirable to try to do the exercise .

In conclusion to what we discussed , I conclude that , the possibility of it being a Brachiosauridae is possible especially if it occurred in the Middle Jurassic and at that time there was a connection between Asia and family there . We can not say that it is to dismiss the similarities Lusotitan or basal Somphospondyli . Then you can go only so tying ropes .

The evidence and arguments lead us to an answer, I will analyze the bones for myself reviewing these possibilities. Whether or not a Brachiosauridae , is not something that I want to or not , but what is interpreted by several arguments.

Thanks and great job.</span>
Reply
:iconexistoo:
Existoo Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2014
There was an error in sending the text but to ignore what is within <> is enough. Never happened to me.
Reply
:iconcarcharodontotitan:
Carcharodontotitan Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2013
That's quite strange; do you think that Brachiosaurus altithorax crossed into China from North America?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
It's possible, but I doubt it. Fusuisaurus is a cretaceous dinosaur. So I think it's more likely that brachiosaurs first evolved somewhere outside of China (most likely southern hemisphere) and then spread out all over the planet... and that Fusuisaurus was one late-surviving basal brachiosaur whose lineage (which was very close to that of B. altithorax) made it into China once the dominance of mamenchisaurs was broken at the J-K boundary extinction. Most macronarians in Cretaceous China were invaders... the Huanghetitanids, Euhelopodids, acrofornicans, etc. So it's not unusual that the odd brachiosaur made it in.
Reply
:iconcarcharodontotitan:
Carcharodontotitan Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2013
What made the Mamenchisaurids die out at the end of the Jurassic period?
And was Fusuisaurus really 75 tons in weight if the larger Sauroposeidon weighed only 60+ tons?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Oops, I forgot to update the mass to reflect the new smaller skeletal dimensions. Fixed it.

Overall I suspect this creature was still more massive than Sauroposeidon, because Sauroposeidon is known from very long neck vertebrae, not very thick ones. Overall neck material (aside from centrum circumference) is not a good indicator of size or mass. Hip material is much better, since the center of gravity is near the hips, and we actually have hip material for Fusuisaurus. For the "adult" Sauroposeidon, there is no hip material known, only 4 neck bones. The juvenile Sauroposeidon material may make it easier to accurately scale the "adult" and predict its mass, but that is another project for another day.

Also Fusuisaurus appears to be built like Brachiosaurus, which means it has a greater torso-to-hip length ratio than more derived brachiosaur lines (or potential basal "brachiosaur-mimic" somphospondylians). So this indicates it was probably more long-bodied and heavier than Sauroposeidon.
Reply
:iconelsqiubbonator:
ElSqiubbonator Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2014
That said, it DOES feel like China's answer to Sauroposeidon, living at almost the exact same time, being nearly the same size, and both being late-survivng brachiosaurs. China's habit of ripping off American products must go a long way back!
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Hah, that's hilarious :XD:  It is an odd coincidence that super-sized brachiosaurs arose so far apart simultaneously. But there's increasing contention that Sauroposeidon wasn't a true brachiosaur (my view is either it was a derived brachiosaurs or a VERY basal somphospondylian like Chubutisaurus. Nobody's talking "euhelopodid" here.)

Although if you ask me, Fusuisaurus is more likely the descendant of a Middle-East product.... that was ultimately descended from an African product. A lot of gondwanan dinosaur lineages ended up in China in the Cretaceous, my hypothesis is that they "island-hopped" east across the rising peaks of the Zagros range (southern Iran), which were then little more than island chains, as the Afro-Arabian plate collided with the Asian plate. Some spinosaurids and carcharodontosaurids have also been found in China, these groups were not native to China so they probably got there by the same route.
Reply
:iconcarcharodontotitan:
Carcharodontotitan Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2013
Ah, OK, thanks! BTW, have you heard of the more obscure Isle of Wight brachiosaur that was apparently in the same size range as Breviparopus, Brachiosaurus nougaredi, Sauroposeidon, and Fusuisaurus? If so, do you have plans to draw it for your Brachiosaurid series? 
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
I have heard of it.... the Isle of Wight brachiosaur is pretty obscure. It may refer to "Angloposeidon" or to the Barnes High brachiosaur. The latter is in private hands, and Angloposeidon may not be a brachiosaur. If there's another giant Isle of Wight brachiosaur besides these two, I haven't seen any photographic evidence for it.

If you have pics or links, please send.
Reply
:iconcarcharodontotitan:
Carcharodontotitan Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2014
What's the Barnes High brachiosaur?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
On SV-POW there's some mentions made of it. It's a large (though apparently not record-breaking) brachiosaur that's the best preserved one in the UK. But it's privately owned and has never been published or analyzed in peer-reviewed papers. Photos of it are very scarce, and the only diagram of the bones is very stylized and frankly cartoonish, imparting nothing of the real shape of brachiosaur bones. Even the few blurry photos are more useful than that diagram.

But since I don't have good info on the sizes and relative proportions of the bones, I probably won't be reconstructing this one any time soon.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconvasix:
vasix Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Wow, I don't think anyone actually even represented this brachiosaur artistically, being so mysterious. It's the first time I even saw a reasonable skeletal diagram, heck any sort of artwork of it
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
You're right, evidently I am the first one. :D
Reply
:iconvasix:
vasix Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
It must be a nice feeling. Although Fusuisaurus does seem like a likely "Forgotten Giants" candidate
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
You're right. I've restored many dinosaur "firsts" (Puertasaurus, Lusotitan, Volkheimeria, Lavocat's sauropod, Daanosaurus, the Archbishop) and am not shy in exploiting the bragging rights :XD:

Alas it would be a great Forgotten Giant.... but it's not a titanosaur or somphospondylian so it doesn't fit with my plans for that series. No worries, I have already done skeletals for most of Brachiosauridae. Soon I will have enough to make a visual family tree.
Reply
:iconvasix:
vasix Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Wow, that's actually a LOT to boast about actually :)
Reply
:icongrroselli:
grroselli Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2013
now if we could just recover some more amphicoelias remains we might be able to see if he's around this length... or ridiculously large!
Reply
:icontitanorex:
TitanoRex Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2013
dem late surviving basal sauropods... 
Reply
:iconfragillimus335:
Fragillimus335 Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Sweet lord! How confident are you of this size?  This would make Fusuisaurus the largest known Brachiosaur!!! Other than Brachiosaurus n. and Breviparopus.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
It's actually a bit smaller than I though at first. I rescaled it now, scrutinizing the description paper more closely. Still huge though. The hip elements are a bit crushed which artificially compacted their dimensions, but the first version had some excess scaling errors and even with "uncrushing", the animal comes out at only 100ft long with the same body proportions. Still, it remains one of the biggest dinosaurs in overall dimensions.
Reply
:iconstuchlik:
Stuchlik Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2013
In paper ilium was 145 cm , compare to 116 cm long ilium Giraffatitan brancai (22,5 long berlin specimen) Fusuisaurus could be ~28 m long.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
In the paper yes, but the rear half is fragmented and somewhat crushed. If "uncrushed" it would bring the total length of the ilium a bit closer to 160 or 170 cm, depending on how much you think it needs to be "uncrushed" to match the shape it had in life. That's what I did here.
Reply
:iconyty2000:
yty2000 Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2013
It would be a bit more massive if based on Brachiosaurus, which had a proportionally longer torso and tail than Giraffatitan.
Reply
Add a Comment: