Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Puertasaurus reuili by Paleo-King Puertasaurus reuili by Paleo-King
FORGOTTEN GIANTS: Species #1 - Puertasaurus reuili

2009 Paleo-King

The recently discovered mega-titanosaur Puertasaurus reuili, a giant to dwarf the giants - in high-fidelity TRIPLE axial view, for the very first time!

NOTE: this image is outdated. The corrected, revised version of my Puertasaurus can be found here: [link]

This is the very first high-fidelity reconstruction of Puertasaurus ever done, and was featured on the awesome sauropod blog SV-POW: [link]

This ground-breaking reconstruction also inspired T-PEKC's excellent painting [link] , Teratophoneus's drawing of Puertasaurus [link] , as well as Rexisto's titanosaur silhouettes [link] on Mesozoico.com.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Puertasaurus:

Taxonomy: Sauropoda; Macronaria; Titanosauria; Lognkosauria

Known only from a lower neck vertebra, a front dorsal, and two as-of-yet unpublished tail vertebrae, this creature was colossal, and could easily have been 130 feet (40m) long, perhaps longer depending on the size of its tail. In that respect, this reconstruction is actually pretty conservative.

Dr. Fernando Novas described and named this king of the titans in 2005, and quickly it became clear that even Argentinosaurus was no match for it in the lineup for "biggest dinosaur".

Puertasaurus is a very late-evolving member of Lognkosauria, a strange family of intermediate titanosaurs with extremely massive vertebrae with massive processes, and super-wide hips and rib cages.

I would even go so far as to say this was probably the widest and most voluminous rib cage of any animal known to science - although the ribs are missing, the huge width of the wing-like diapophyses of the dorsal indicates an unusually wide rib cage, perhaps as wide as 7 meters. When alive, the whole animal probably weighed well over 100 tons.

A particularly odd feature of this species is its unusual neck shape - wider than it is deep, and with very squat centra, this design made possible a downright insane range of vertical motion, even perhaps leaning the head back past vertical, but also likely limited horizontal/lateral neck motion to some degree.

Puertasaurus appeared in Argentina some 69 million years ago, long after the first Lognkosaurians, which date back to the mid-Cretaceous - in fact, it's one of the last sauropods to have lived, and certainly the last of the truly gigantic ones.

As with most dinosaurs known from so few remains, any reconstruction is largely speculative. Still, what you see here is the first truly high-fidelity restoration of Puertasaurus and the only one done from multiple views to really give a sense of the animal's 3D form.

Giganotosaurus (though it lived earlier) is included for scale as it was the largest meat-eater.

Pencil on paper, 11x17" 2009.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconbrettforsyth:
Brettforsyth Featured By Owner Jul 24, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
:O THAT'S A HUGE BEAST!
Reply
:icondannyp96:
Dannyp96 Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
The thing that gets me about this, and don't misinterpret this as dislike because it's a fine drawing, is that it looks like a zombie. The piece excellently illustrates the massive proportions of the animal, but it looks like flesh thinly draped over bones, and makes it come across as unrealistic. I love the work and effort put into portraying the scale, but it looks aesthetically as if museum curator draped a canvas over a skeleton and forgot the muscle and organs.
 I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, because if you were going for something other than life restoration, that's perfectly cool. But as a life restoration paleoart piece that's what seems lacking. Though, fine work nonetheless :)
Reply
:iconjonagold2000:
JonaGold2000 Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
*Giganotosaurs jump out of bushes attack and kill Puertasaurus* ITS TITANIC 0.1 !!
Reply
:icongiganotosaurinae:
Giganotosaurinae Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2013
How much was long your Giganotosaurus?
Reply
:icontombola1993:
tombola1993 Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2013
Wow! That dino is huge!
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Yes it is. Check out the revised version :[link]
This is a better idea of what it really looked like.
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Jun 7, 2012
Giganotosaurus isn't the largest meat-eater, Spinosaurus is

(but Spinosaurus would make the sauropod seem less majestic as the upper parts of the sail would reach Puertasaurus' tail)
Reply
:iconkoopalings98:
koopalings98 Featured By Owner May 11, 2013
I agree with you.

PS: Nice work! So it is Puertasaurus the biggest dinosaur?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 11, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Spinosaurus may be longer, but Giganototsaurus was probably heavier (more massive legs and torso, more volume in the head too). Spinosaurus is a pretty slim animal for its size. All the same, T. rex, Giganotosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus and Spinosaurus all max out around 45 ft. or so. Their sizes have often been overestimated based on pretty fragmentary evidence, and the largest of their specimens can all be reasonably rescaled to about 45 ft. The Jack Horner rumors of a 60-foot Spinosaurus are bunk. The only evidence of a really big Spinosaurus is a single fragment of jaw, which indicates an animal 45-47ft. long at most if you actually bother to scale the thing properly. Keep in mind that skulls got proportionally bigger in theropods as they matured, so the body was not so big relative to the head as has often been depicted. Scaling an adult from fragments using a younger animal to calculate proportions can sometimes give an estimate that's too big. This is known to happen in T. rex, their linear growth leveled off at around 30 years of age. Instead of getting longer, at that point they just got bulkier and gnarlier-looking in the facial bones, the head got really huge and lumpy (super-gnarly mature specimens like Sue and MOR 008 are rare because most rexes didn't even survive that long).

But you're right about the sail, it might hit Puertasaurus' tail. Plus I also figured I'd throw Giganototsaurus in there for comparison because it's South American like Puertasaurus (although it's far older), and its body plan is easier to compare with T. rex than Spinosaurus is.
Reply
:iconkoopalings98:
koopalings98 Featured By Owner May 11, 2013
No, sorry, I was wrong, I accidentally replied to comment brolyeuphyfusion9500. I wanted to say that I think Spinosaurus was not to 18m, but more like 14m. However, you really Puertasaurus was the largest dinosaur? I knew it was the largest Amphicoelias.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner May 12, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Amphicoelias fragillimus has just one problem - it's lost, and there are no photographs. Only a drawing by Cope. And it could be 100% legit but nothing that big has been dug up since then. So we don't have direct fossil proof. And there are a few trackways in other parts of the world that indicate similar-sized animals (like the Plagne tracks or "Parabrontopodus distercii"), but that's "indirect" proof since scaling a sauropod based on footprints is very tricky business. Foot to body size for diplodocids like Amphicoelias can be extreme, as in apatosaurines, or modest as in diplodocus itself. Apart from this variance, there's also the problem that sauropod heels were padded, and expanded as the animal put its foot down. Footprints may make an animal seem bigger than it was.

So Puertasaurus may not be the biggest dinosaur, but it's the biggest that we have fossil bones for right now. Maybe there are bigger species out there (it's pretty much tied with Alamosaurus for the record at the moment), or maybe Puertasaurus is the biggest dinosaur, as big as A. fragillimus or more, but the specimen we have now just isn't the maximum size that it reached. At this point the "biggest" dinosaur is always going to be the biggest specimen known from actual bones or at least peer-reviewed photographs of bones.
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner Feb 18, 2012  Hobbyist
When i first know about this Sauropod,i was wondering how large it will be.Then oneday i saw this drawing of yours.I was like..wow...But Titatanosaur sauropods dont have that much longer neck ? I was wondering is this is a Titanosaur or not.When i made image of Puertasaurus for me, i made it taller longer by seeing yours.I put a Blue Whale size comparison recently.Let's see what you think about it..
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
It is indeed a titanosaur. And some titanosaurs DID have very long necks. Look at Rapetosaurus: [link]

Huabeisaurus: [link]

Xinghesaurus: [link]

There were all sorts of titanosaurs some of them had long necks like these, others had short necks like Saltasaurus and Bonitasaura: [link]

The thing is, titanosaurs filled many niches, they were the most diverse sauropod group. So there were both long-necked and short-necked forms that fed on different plants. Most of the giant ones had really long necks to reach high into the trees. Futalognkosaurus, a 100-foot (30m) giant, is one good example: [link] and it's actually a pretty close relative of Puertasaurus.

However I hope you realize you are commenting on the old outdated version of my Puertasaurus. I have fixed the proportions since then, and I have a new version posted up: [link] The neck is still very long, but the torso is shorter than before, the tail is longer, and the limbs thicker and more balanced. Please comment on the new version in the future :)
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Mar 25, 2012  Professional General Artist
Wait just a MINUTE!!!!! AHA! I see the conspiracy now! Lognkosaurs! Long-NECK-o-saurs!!!! I see what's going on! As always, your Puertasaurus is awesome....
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2012  Hobbyist
I mailed about this to a paleontologist.He said Puertasaurus neck is not that long.He said don't trust drawings, trust fossils.There is a point.But also i understand that you said -- There were all sorts of titanosaurs some of them had long necks like these, others had short necks.Anyway.. I did saw your new version of Puertasaurus.What can i say,your work always great.:) So did you saw my blue whale size comparison.What you think about it ?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Looks pretty cool. The blue whale is huge even compared to many sauropods.

I'm not sure who your paleontologist is, but he IS aware that I went based on the fossils to estimate the Puertasaurus neck, RIGHT?
That's a funny phrase, "don't trust drawings, trust fossils". In fact it's often the drawings that get the neck too short, not too long! Mark Hallett for example drew the neck of Rapetosaurus at only half of its real length! Don't ask me why, I guess he was following stereotypes and not paying attention to the published measurements in the very paper he was illustrating! No offense but your guy is attacking a straw man, I did trust the fossils, the neck length is based on scaling from the preserved cervical (probably the 9th) which was photographed and published in Novas, et. al. 2005.

Puertasaurus' neck IS very long, have you seen the photos of the cervical vertebra? It's HUGE, around 1.2m long, one of the 3 largest necked species known among the neosauropoda (the other two are Supersaurus and Sauroposeidon [link]). And it's much longer than it is deep. And assuming that it is indeed the 9th cervical, and using a standard count of 15 cervicals for most titanosaurs, accounting for length changes among the bones, you end up with a very long neck, one of the longest on record. I always go based on real photographs and real science, whereas most people who draw Puertasaurus with a short neck are just imagining things and not using any measurements (i.e. Gabriel Lio). All of the really huge titanosaurs appear to be high-browsers with very long necks (Alamosaurus, Puertasaurus, Futalognkosaurus, etc.) Even if there was no neck material known from Puertasaurus, you could STILL assume it probably had a very long neck because its close relative Futalognkosaurus [link] also has a very long neck, and it's complete! The lognkosauria in general had long necks.

The only short-necked titanosaurs appear to be saltasaurs and a few other small advanced lithostrotians. These animals filled very different feeding niches than Puertasaurus, and were much smaller and lower to the ground.
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2012  Hobbyist
Thank you.He said that the Blue Whale Comparison i made is good,but 2 things are bothering.It didn't matched the life appearance and so as it's tail.Sure he is right.Well iam no expert in creating these.That is by far a good thing i could do.First i should know what is the body height of a full grown 200 tonne female blue whale under water.When it is placed on land,sure the body height will get reduced.When it is on land itself,i put it's body height to 15 feet in that image which should be wrong.And one thing i know that no one makes a 100% accurate size comparison for any animal.I understand what you said.For me the Sauropods should be Huge :) You can understand that very well from seeing my signature with a bad english.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Ok maybe he has a point with the whale... but he's STILL wrong about Puertasaurus. Most of the really huge titanosaurs had very long necks and were high browsers. Alamosaurus, Puertasaurus, etc. all had elongated neck vertebrae.

The largest titanosaur species that's KNOWN to be a ground-feeder is Antarctosaurus wichmannianus, which was around 60-65 ft. long. But since there's practically no neck material known, the length of its neck is impossible to determine, we just know it had a square jaw and a skull similar to those of saltasaurs and other low-feeding (and generally short-necked) titanosaurs like Bonitasaura.
Reply
:icongogosardina:
Gogosardina Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Mind-blowing reconstruction. It was great to see the results of your hard work at SVP.

I'd hate to be that Giganotosaurus if the sauropod suddenly decides to drop a turd...
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Yesssss indeed. Being the biggest predator isn't so hot when you barely come up to this guy's backside. However this version is outdated.

Here is my revised Puertasaurus, you'll want to take a look at this: [link]
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2011  Professional General Artist
Hello! Got something BIG for you to have a look-see at! [link]

And don't be shy about dropping a comment! They're showing off for you!
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2011  Professional General Artist
[link]

Take a look here. Some interesting finds, especially so for you and Zach. Something about cartilage in one of the articles that might interest you, if you haven't seen it already.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Cool. Yes I have seen that before. But as for illustrating it, that will be a pain :X
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner May 22, 2011  Hobbyist
Awesome....Actually ive seen this before in a site and saved.Giganotosaurus looks like a joke next to Puertasaurus...Hahahaha.I love Sauropods.
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner May 18, 2011  Hobbyist
Wonderful, nicely done.
Reply
:iconebelesaurus:
ebelesaurus Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2011   Digital Artist
IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A LAND ANIMAL TO GROW SO LARGE??!!!! I SWEAR THIS IS PROOF OF WARM-BLOODEDNESS!!! OR IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A COLD-BLOOD TO CARRY SUCH WEIGHT?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
No, a cold-blooded animal could never manage it. Cold blooded animals have a lower limit to their size on land, mainly because they can't be very tall. Their hearts are weak against gravity and they can't equalize the blood pressure circuits more than a few feet off the ground. So even though some extinct crocodiles (like Sarcosuchus) got big, they never got very tall and were always dragging their bellies around. Only a four chambered warm-blooded heart with single aorta can solve this problem. So yes, every dinosaur had to be warm-blooded, including the really huge ones.

They prevented overheating by having a vast system of air sacs attacked to their lungs to provide more cooling surfaces inside. There were networks of air sacs in the neck, back, and even the ribs.
Reply
:iconebelesaurus:
ebelesaurus Featured By Owner Mar 16, 2011   Digital Artist
all this stuff like dinosaurian evolution of birds and warm bloodedness in dinosaurs that they will be saying crap about in some dino documentaries!!! i ALWAYS believed in dinosaurian evolution and warm bloodedness back when predatory dinosaurs even raptor were scaly and draw with bckward facing palms!!! cuz i always thought based on what ive see that a theropod foot looks like a bird foot on steroids!!! also if dinosaurs were as successful as they are saying now, then they had to be active!!!!! mammals are the most successful group of vertebrate and the most distinct feature we have is........ WARM BLOODEDNESS!!!! even today in a low level oxygen time period, animals still have gotten big but are just mammals!!!!! so all these things are just proof of warm bloodedness and birdlike connections. these are things i used to think about 'isn't it so obvious??' i was just 4 when i used to think about these things. then i started drawing JP raptors with bird feathers and for some reason it didn't look..... you know...... WEIRD!!!! just look at the stance!!!! ever seen a skinned chicken? dinosaurs are like birds just with long tails and more defined hands!!!! i also have a theory................ vertebrate animals, have a keratin layer above the epidermis. this layer has been changing.. so in birds/dinos, the keratin layer was scales then to feather and on the head, a horny sheath!!!!! it was so obvious!!!!! i don't know why it took scientists so long to see it
Reply
:iconebelesaurus:
ebelesaurus Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2011   Digital Artist
FUCKING.................HUUUUUUUUUUGE............................!!!!!........................!!!..........!.
Reply
:iconrodrigo-vega:
Rodrigo-Vega Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2011  Professional General Artist
lol, I worked with Novas for many years, yea, Puertasaurus is cool..
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
That's pretty cool that you had the opportunity to work with him. Has Dr. Novas seen this image? I'm interested to know what he would think of it ;)
Reply
:iconrodrigo-vega:
Rodrigo-Vega Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2011  Professional General Artist
He probably did, he googles his dinosaurs rather often I think
and this one turns out rather soon on an image search.
Reply
:iconanto009:
Anto009 Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2011
OH GOD that fudger is like, sooooo wide
I guess I'll have to start drawing sauropods a whole different way now xD
I'm totally in love with your drawings.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Hey thanks! I love hearing that :XD:

You're right, Puertasaurus was easily the widest dinosaur ever known. But don't draw all sauropods this way LOL. Only titanosaurs (and even then, only certain specialized Late Cretaceous families of titanosaurs) had this super wide tank-like body shape. Earlier sauropods like brachiosaurs [link] and most early titanosaurs [link] were a good bit slimmer. And diplodocids were waaaaayyyy slimmer.
Reply
:iconcarcharodontotitan:
Carcharodontotitan Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2010
How tall is your Giganotosaurus?
Reply
:icondinorider:
Dinorider Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2010
cool! many restorations have problems with sauropod feet!
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2010  Professional Traditional Artist
Yeah, the feet are actually not that hard to draw, but a lot of artists just get lazy and copy elephant feet instead of actually looking at fossils of real sauropod feet. It's not as if there's any shortage of actual fossils (or even photos of them online) to use for reference!

Of course the feet of Puertasaurus have not been found, but I based them closely on the feet of related sauropods, especially titanosaurs. With the rest of the upcoming Forgotten Giants, I plan to make the feet as accurate as possible.
Reply
:iconcarcharodontotitan:
Carcharodontotitan Featured By Owner Jul 10, 2010
What is your next forgotten giants species and when is it coming out?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2010  Professional Traditional Artist
The next one will be out either this week or next week, as time allows. It's nearly done except for the front view (I'm debating doing a top view as it would be even more speculative than with Puertasaurus due to lack of rib material from even close relatives). I've got Andesaurus, Argentinosaurus, Argyrosaurus, and Paralititan in the works, all around 60% complete, so any one of them could be the next "forgotten giant", I'll let you guess which one until it's up. 8-)
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Jun 24, 2011  Professional General Artist
I eagerly await your Paralatitan! It's one of my favorite names; very evocative!
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 25, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks! It's definitely high on the list now.
Reply
:iconcarcharodontotitan:
Carcharodontotitan Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2010
Cool. Do you think those big, basal titanosaurs had armor?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2010  Professional Traditional Artist
I doubt it, assuming you mean big plates like on saltasaurs. If they did have armor, I' guessing the osteoderms were very small.

No large saltasaur-like plates have ever been found with the huge basal species (of course they are far from complete and none of them include skin impressions anyway) so you could go either way. Titanosaurs were also getting more squat and tank-like as time went on, a case of convergence with ankylosaurs, so perhaps they also converged by evolving heavier armor late in the cretaceous.

Armor is mainly a defense for creatures that don't have the advantage of size, furthermore there are two types of titanosaur armor - the big bony osteoderms, and the tiny hard nodules that surround them all over the animal's back. Perhaps basal titanosaurs only had the nodules, and in a more scattered concentration than saltasaurs, but none of this is known for sure.

I would imagine they were in the process of developing the osteoderms, so perhaps the best way would be to make them very small. Huge species didn't need really heavy armor anyway, I only gave my Puertasaurus very small speculative osteoderms (even though it's not all that basal). When the biggest predators are no higher than your knees (among other places) having a heavily armored back isn't necessary.
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Jun 24, 2011  Professional General Artist
I imagine armor would have come in handy while growing up! Or is there evidence, even a small amount, that titanosaurs, whether basal or derived, protected their young?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 25, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
There isn't a whole lot of evidence either way. There are quite extensive fosilized nesting colonies in Neuquen province, Argentina, which show that titanosaurs DID come together at certain times of the year and form large-scale nesting colonies. The nests are roughly circular in most of these, though not with the precision of smaller species' nests like Protoceratops or Maiasaura. We know that adults must have been protecting the eggs for some period of time. Some scientists suggest that they simply abandoned the eggs since the remains of adults were never found among the nest beds. However this is a premature assumption - there's a reason the eggs got fossilized - they were buried in sediment, killing the embryos inside. To bury such a large area as these nesting colonies (they are many miles across, and only a small fraction of them have been excavated!) you needed massive seasonal flooding. Such floods could probably be avoided by the adults (or else adults would get washed downriver and buried or scavenged far from the nesting site) whereas the eggs, buried in their nests, would be covered by silt and not swept up in the floods.

My theory is that sauropods cared for they young at least as long as crocodiles do (a few weeks or months). Then they went off into dense forests (most got eaten) and then after they reached a few tons they joined a herd. I don't think there's really a case to be made for "nest abandonment" when the preservation conditions so bias the fossil record. Especially when assuming nest abandonment is essentially implying that sauropods used a more primitive and inefficient mode of reproduction than even some fish species! Even most "reptiles" take care of their young for some time - the reason sea turtles don't is that they're not built to live on land and defend the nest. Sauropods never had that problem. For a land tetrapod, let alone a dinosaur, to simply abandon its eggs before they even hatch just seems ridiculous. The whole "sauropods were too stupid to care for their young" argument doesn't hold either. Giraffatitan's brain was actually 500cc, the same size as some chimpanzee brains (and even this is based on the skull HMN T1, which is only from a smaller-than-average sized individual!). While brain size is not a reliable indicator of intelligence, it turns out that the oft-touted brain/body mass ratio isn't one either - at least for large animals with long lifespans. The larger than expected brain size does reflect that sauropods were doing things with their brains besides simply coordinating body movements and regulating metabolism.
Reply
:iconcarcharodontotitan:
Carcharodontotitan Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2010
But it looks cool:) LOL
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2010  Professional Traditional Artist
Sure does! I'd assume most titanosaurs had some sort of basic osteoderms, but the big ones didn't have anything all that impressive on their backs... it's mostly smaller titanosaurs like Saltasaurus and Ampelosaurus that had the really impressive armor. Makes sense, since they didn't have the size advantage of the supergiants, and needed armor for defense from big predators. Ampelosaurus actually had bulky spikes like the Nodosaurids, which is downright crazy by sauropod standards.

Also, the big ones might have had armor as juveniles, then as they grew larger the osteoderms stayed the same size so the adult animal is not very heavily armored. All in all, I'd keep the osteoderms pretty small for the giant forms, their size alone was enough to discourage even a Giganotosaurus.
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Jun 24, 2011  Professional General Artist
!!!! Giganotosaurus doesn't look like it would discourage real easy. What if they hunted in packs? I think there's evidence Mapusaurus did, and, I think they were around when the giant titanosaurs were roaming the land.

Lions do not normally hunt elephants and hippos, but there are prides of lions in Africa who prefer tough prey, really big animals once thought to be invulnerable due to their size. No need to just believe me, look it up. It's really shocking stuff.

So I can assume Giganotosaurus, Tyrannotitan, and Mapusaurus MIGHT have attacked even the adult titanosaurs. What an epic scene to draw and/or paint! :eyepopping:
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 25, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Perhaps. Though Mapusaurus is more likely to have been a "mob hunter" than a pack hunter (i.e. they were not too terribly organized.) Carcharodontosaurids in general have very primitive brains considering their huge size and relatively late age. In some ways their mental hardware was no more sophisticated than that of the smaller allosaurs that lived in the Late Jurassic, which may have been pack or mob hunters (we can't really tell due to gatherings of allosaur skeletons at particular sites being largely artifacts of predator traps, hence biasing the apparent "message" of the fossil record in those places). Overall it's believed that Carcharodontosaurids survived because their prey was just sauropods which were not all that fast or maneuverable, so it wasn't really necessary to coordinate much pack strategy to catch them. You only need to be smart enough to catch your prey.

The problem with attacking an adult giant titanosaur is that they're very large and more robust than most other sauropods. Also the armor, when it was present, made them very hard to attack. Giganotosaurus and its kin were not equipped to bite through armor, their teeth were the narrow, sharp slashing kind, not the huge blunt armor-cracking kind like T. rex. Theu would have gone for the animal's weak spots like the neck, which is much easier to reach in juvenile sauropods than adults. Also keep in mind that despite being longer than T. rex, Giganotosaurus and its relatives were not as tall, they were all pretty low-slung and their necks were not so strongly s-curved as tyrannosaurs, so their lack of vertical reach means they had a hard time getting to the necks of large sauropods, but had no difficulty targeting small ones. All the same it would make an epic scene, as would an attack on the younger members of a herd that also included the huge adults.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconcarcharodontotitan:
Carcharodontotitan Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2010
I see.....
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
  • Art Print
  • Canvas
  • Photo




Details

Submitted on
March 23, 2010
Image Size
1.8 MB
Resolution
3536×2070
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
21,995 (1 today)
Favourites
168 (who?)
Comments
76

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
×