Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×



Details

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

Stats

Views
2,534 (3 today)
Favourites
44 (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
Add a Comment: