Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
December 8, 2013
Image Size
810 KB
Resolution
2544×3968
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,325 (1 today)
Favourites
42 (who?)
Comments
12
×
Klamelisaurid skull comparison by Paleo-King Klamelisaurid skull comparison by Paleo-King
Reconstructions of the skulls of all three currently described species of Klamelisauridae, to scale. That of Klamelisaurus itself is largely based on the Tokyo mount's skull reconstruction (which is in turn apparently based on some undescribed material in ZDM and IVPP collections).

This family is closely related to the base of Brachiosauridae, despite the fact that their overall proportions tend to be more like mamenchisaurids.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconnicolft:
nicolft Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2013
._. Wonder why everything got smaller.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
 what do you mean? :o
Reply
:iconnicolft:
nicolft Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2013
xD Sorry, I meant...like...with each era or something, everything gets smaller and smaller.... ._.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
But they're not from different eras. The image isn't an evolution sequence or a time-line. Klamelisaurus and Abrosaurus are both from the Middle-Jurassic. Daanosaurus may be Late Jurassic but it's a juvenile specimen, so it's not even close to maximum size - how big the adults got is anyone's guess. And Abrosaurus is known just from skull material, which isn't a good indicator of age - so the Abrosaurus material may be from an immature specimen too.

In fact, most sauropod families had an assortment of both large and small species, regardless of what time period you look at. There certainly wasn't a trend of "everything getting smaller" as time went on. Alamosaurus and Puertasaurus were two of the last sauropods (both date from the Maastrichtian epoch, the last part of the Late Cretaceous), and they both topped 100 feet long and 90 tons.
Reply
:iconnicolft:
nicolft Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2013
Well.
Then.
That's a lot of info X3. Thanks for clearing that up then, I guess? d:
Reply
:icondinobirdman:
DinoBirdMan Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2013  Student Artist
Wow, it looks like a growth pattern.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Indeed it does look like one.... but it isn't. Conveniently the Klamelisaurus holotype is an adult, while the Daanosaurus skull material is from a juvenile skeleton, but it's distinctly different from any of the known Klamelisaurus juveniles (which are often labeled "Bellusaurus sui").

Abrosaurus is also different from both of them. The maxillary bone of Abrosaurus doesn't resemble Daanosaurus at all, it's got a much flatter gum line and straighter postnasal strut. And it's in the wrong formation entirely. Abrosaurus is from Dashanpu quarry in the Sichuan, hundreds of miles away from the Gobi Desert where Klamelisaurus was found.
Reply
:icondinobirdman:
DinoBirdMan Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2013  Student Artist
Whoa, that's a little bit different.
Reply
:iconstuchlik:
Stuchlik Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2013
How was big Daanosaurus?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Small. Smaller than even Europasaurus. Probably weighed less than 400kg. But this is only a juvenile animal (it's known from several vertebrae which are incompletely fused on the neural arch), and no adult Daanosaurus bones have yet been found. So they probably got much, much bigger.
Reply
Add a Comment: