Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
The Biggest - Puertasaurus reuili by Paleo-King The Biggest - Puertasaurus reuili by Paleo-King
Scale diagram of Puertasaurus reuili, the largest of the titanosaurs and possibly the most massive dinosaur yet known. This image is a collaborative work [link] between myself and the incredibly talented Chris Masna: [link]

Based on my revised Puertasaurus schematic. Check out the original here: [link] . I also provided advice, source info and the phylogeny. Dr. Fernando Novas and colleagues described the actual dinosaur :XD:
Add a Comment:
 
:icony87arrow:
y87arrow Featured By Owner Mar 21, 2015  New member
18m tall? That's incredible, even by Sauropod standards. Which other sauropod comes close there besides Sauroposeidon? Always fascinating to see the height of such big dinosaurs (not only the length).
Reply
:icondontknowwhattodraw94:
Dontknowwhattodraw94 Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
This thing is huge, bigger than Agentinosaurus right? But even Argentinosaurus had enemies like Giganotosaurus, how is this with Puertasaurus? Giganotosaurus was already gone and Tyrannosaurus didn't exist yet (or at least didn't live in the same place). What could 've been the opponement of him?
Reply
:icontheothertheropod:
TheOtherTheropod Featured By Owner May 13, 2014
Yes, Argentinosaurus tips the length scale at ~33m (Carpenter and Kenneth 2006). Nova (2004b) reports of a large, unamed tetanuran dinosaur from the Pari Aike Formation.
Reply
:icondontknowwhattodraw94:
Dontknowwhattodraw94 Featured By Owner May 14, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Ah okay, thanks a lot for the information :)
Reply
:iconthereawakeningseries:
TheReawakeningSeries Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2013
Great stuff here! I'm such a big fan of your work Nima, keep it up!

However something has always itched at me. How valid is Amphicoelias? And wasn't it the largest specimen so far, being only based on a vertabrae? Tell me your thoughts, please.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Amphicoelias is totally valid - in the sense of it being a valid genus with valid type material. However the type material (Amphicoelias altus) is from an animal no bigger than Diplodocus.

Amphicoelias fragillimus, the near-mythical giant vertebra that got lost, was only about 40% of the vertebra (if the published drawing can be believed) but based on that a 2m+ tall reconstruction has been drawn for the full bone by both Cope and Ken Carpenter.

For being a bone that no longer exists, it's definitely extremely popular. But the fact is, this isn't the biggest dinosaur we have currently existing fossil proof for. If more bones are ever found, it may actually need its own genus separate from Amphicoelias, the proportions are a bit different from A. altus, but not enough to definitively erect a new genus. The problem with this animal is not so much its validity (the bone is no longer around to analyze) but the fact that it's so poorly documentes (a single paper from Cope, and it isn't even the main focus of the paper). Cope could have made a scaling error, or a typo. The discovery was so obscure that for nearly a century nobody paid it any attention in major paleo-journals. So the real issue is that it wasn't really a big deal until the 1990s (and until the 1980s even PhDs thought there was nothing bigger than Brachiosaurus, despite larger and more massive sauropods (some still as yet undescribed) being known from Argentina since the 1920s (and possibly even since the late 1800s).

That said, there are some footprints scattered around the planet that could have been made by an A. fragillimus-sized creature. None of them are in the Morrison, but that doesn't rule out their discovery. But when you scale off of footprints, you really run into some serious problems. Unless you can scale a bigger animal from the same family off of bones, I'd avoid scaling from footprints, just don't do it! There's too much margin of error either way, either from splaying of the heel pads, or conversely from prints with caved-in edges that are too eroded to tell if they caved in. (for Breviparopus, I kept in mind that "Brachiosaurus" nougaredi can actually be scaled to a larger size based on a pretty huge partial sacrum, so Breviparopus is not a record-breaker even in Brachiosauridae - or even if you put it in another family.)
Reply
:iconthereawakeningseries:
TheReawakeningSeries Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2013
Thanks for the answer!
Reply
:iconmartinsilvertant:
MartinSilvertant Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Professional General Artist
Very nice texturing of the skin. It's interesting how the blue whale is still so much larger in total mass, and yet this Puertasaurus reuili is so much more impressive to me, simply because it's a land creature. Quite possible just because I'm not familiar with such a large land creature; it's nice to fantasize about.

I've always wondered two things which somewhat relate to your illustration. Perhaps you can answer my questions. Firstly, with so many creatures of the same species and millions of years of evolution and intermediate fossils, how is it possible that we manage to complete such few skeletons? Shouldn't these skeletons be scattered all over? Are they not preserved, unreachable or simply just not discovered yet? I also wondered how the blue whale can be the biggest creature that has ever lived, even compared to an era in which most of the creatures were a lot bigger than they are now. I'm not questioning the validity of that statement, but I do wonder why the blue whale got to grow to this size now and not millions of years ago. Do you think it has to do with carnivorous sea creatures being a lot bigger back then? Because the only natural animals of blue whales are killer whales.
Reply
:iconbrolyeuphyfusion9500:
The average blue whale is less than 65 tonnes in mass, it's not larger at all than Puertasaurus.

[link]

Blue whales were nowhere near the actual largest animal that ever lived title.

The problem is that people commonly take the largest specimens as the only figures while ignoring the plethora of more average specimens.
Reply
:iconmartinsilvertant:
MartinSilvertant Featured By Owner Jun 16, 2013  Professional General Artist
Oh I failed to take into consideration that the numbers I saw on the blue whale are on the high end of the scale, while the numbers on Puertasaurus are probably more like averages. Still, according to the sources I've read the blue whale is still the largest animal to have ever lived. Apparently a blue whale can be up to 170 tonnes, which is about 60 tonnes more than the largest dinosaurs I've read about. In terms of length or height certainly there are "bigger" animals, but in terms of weight I haven't encountered anything more massive than the blue whale. I do thank you for alerting me to the fact that it's obviously not right to compare an average animal with an unusually big one as I did though. I'm not saying there wouldn't have been more massive Puertasauruses than blue whales, but I'm not aware of statistics to properly compare the blue whale to the genuinely biggest dinosaur. The blue whale still seems to be huge, even compared to other dinosaurs though. That fact alone leaves me with several questions, like why gigantism doesn't seem as prominent now as it was, and if the blue whale can be considered to be the maximum size for marine animals. Because I don't think I've encountered larger or comparable marine animals.
Reply
:iconbrolyeuphyfusion9500:
Then these will surprise you:

There was a ~45-cm wide ichthyosaur vertebra found. It was lost, but at least it's size was recorded. In comparison, Shastasaurus' vertebra are ~22 cm wide. Scaling would result in a gigantic ~40-meter ichthyosaur that dwarfs the blue whale.

Also, scaling Amphicoelias fragillimus(known from a ~2.7-meter tall D9/10 vertebra) would put it at the size of the largest blue whales or even larger.
Reply
:iconkoopalings98:
koopalings98 Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2013
I thought that Amphicoelias was the biggest.
Superb work! You made this titan beautiful!
Reply
:iconcelestialdrake:
CelestialDrake Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Why hasn't this got a DD? It's AMAZING!

I love dinosaurs, I have loved them ever since I was a kid. I would literally sit in my room for an hour or two and read books about animals, and I have quite a few on dinosaurs.

Ha ha, and I quote my cousin's friend "Paige, I remember when you were a kid. All the little girls played with Barbies and you would be playing with dinosaurs. You are so awesome."

This is like what I see in my books, and I really like it. It shows a lot of the important facts about this dino and it is so awesome. In fact, all of your art looks awesome.



Seriously, who selects the DDs because this needs one.
Reply
:iconvarjokani:
Varjokani Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Student Digital Artist
O_________________________o
Reply
:iconsapiens89:
sapiens89 Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
very nice picture! you've done a very good job.
but this dinosaur's neck seems thin compared to the rest of the body ...
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
It may look thin from the side, but when viewed from the front [link] , it's very wide. Puertasaurus didn't have a thin neck, it just had very odd proportions and the neck's cross-section was very squat.
Reply
:iconsapiens89:
sapiens89 Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
thank you,
his head looks like the head of the creature Godzilla by Roland Emmerich ...
for when the reconstitution of "estemmnosuchus"?
Reply
:icongreeni-studio:
greeni-studio Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Professional General Artist
Ha! I like how you include r2d2 for scale. Great poster, very informative!
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks very much! Yes R2D2 really helps make this picture catchy. At some point Puertasaurus will get the recognition it deserves and Argentinosaurus will probably no longer be "the biggest" in popular opinion/dinosaur fandom (it already isn't in reality). And I think this poster will be one of the main reasons why.
Reply
:icondino-mario:
Dino-Mario Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Best Puertasaurus reconstruction EVER!!! I Love how you added R2-D2 as well.I'm a huge Star Wars fan
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks! It was a lot of work, but both Chris and myself are glad at how well it turned out :D
Reply
:iconyamasakihaku:
YamasakiHaku Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
what R2-D2 doing here??
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
For scale.
Reply
:iconyamasakihaku:
YamasakiHaku Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
o=kaayyy!! xD
Reply
:iconequigoyle:
equigoyle Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
That's pretty cool!

But how do they figure the neck arched up that way?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
I reached that posture based on part speculation from the shape of the 9th neck vertebra (the only one preserved) and part comparison with related, more complete titanosaurs. Given the extreme squatness of the neck's centra, a big range of vertical motion was possible, so there are many inclines and degrees of curvature that are possible with this neck, I just illustrated one of the more conventional non-feeding possibilities.
Reply
:iconequigoyle:
equigoyle Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Ah. Okay. That makes sense.

Thanks! :)
Reply
:icon0nightrainbow0:
0NightRainbow0 Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012
Wow...that is one incredible creature. Thanks for educating us on it.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
You're very welcome ;) + Kudos to Chris for doing the 3D render.
Reply
:iconafrovenator:
Afrovenator Featured By Owner Aug 16, 2012
Very impressive piece! However, what is your basis for the naming of the following titanosaur taxonomic groups: Janenschiidae, Acrofornica, Argentinosauridae, Isisauridae, and Trigonosauridae? Please cite references (in press, or author + year, but not "in prep") supporting your classification. If they do not exist, you are creating a series of nomina nuda without evidence, something that should be avoided whenever possible.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Aug 16, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Actually it's not that black and white. The family tree is based on my own research of the material (I have close to a hundred titanosaur papers, most of which are either descriptions or redescriptions). Currently my analysis uses a number of characters that to my knowledge have not been included in most cladistic analyses. I do have a data table with characters, however I have not yet had time to publish it. If you want to ask about specifics (for example "how is Trigonosauridae a valid clade, what unique derived characters do they have") you can email me for details but I can't give everything away just yet. My photographic stash of image of titanosaurs bones is vast beyond all expectations, and I've collected images of every titanosaur discovery for the past 10 years. Both official published images and otherwise. Over the past 2 years I have compiled my data, there is still much to be done before publication however and since paleontology is not my day job there are more pressing priorities. However the trends in this data appear rather strong, and many characters I found have been totally ignored by the few large phylogenetic studies of titanosauria.

Keep in mind our understanding of titanosaur evolution is still in its infancy. This family tree in its current version may turn out to be incorrect on some points; but it's incredibly doubtful to me that most of the clades you mentioned are wrong. In particular Acrofornica and Trigonosauridae are very distinct and tight-knit clades whose members can not be comfortably placed anywhere else. I accept that it may need to be revised in the future, after all that's what science is all about. But it's definitely not made on a whim, and I doubt that the entire thing will ever be falsified. Keep in mind that most of the family trees which predominate in the current research are completely different from each other as well (compare McIntosh with Wilson and Upchurch, and even among their findings alone, and depending on the statistical method used the phylogeny will arrange itself as many as 15 different ways)

BTW I am not creating "nomina nuda" as I am not inventing any new taxa here. A "nomen nudum" is by definition a name used for an individual taxon (i.e. genus or species) rather than a general term denoting a probably family or clade. Remember that there is no such thing as a "naked clade" so long as at least its namesake is a valid species with a description.
Reply
:iconexistoo:
Existoo Featured By Owner Aug 14, 2012
Las familias Janenschidae, Trigonosauridae, Isisauridae y Argentinosauridae se han publicado antes? y que géneros incluye? Los Acrofornica que son?

Muy buen trabajo gráfico por cierto.

La tabla creo que no esta correcta ya que despues de los Laurasiformes, se encontrarían los Sauropodos no Somphospondyli... "Janenschidae" y Huanghetitanidae.

Seguido por Chubutisauridae y Euhelopodidae que si pertenecen a este grupo junto con los Titanosauria.
Reply
:iconteratophoneus:
Teratophoneus Featured By Owner Aug 12, 2012
R2D2- I reall had to laugh about a minute that you two included R2D2, thats awesome XD
And of course, a awesome looking pertasaurus
Reply
:icontitanorex:
TitanoRex Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2012
I dont know how but the the blue whale cheats
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Yeah when you live in water you can get a lot heavier than land animals and still not be crushed by your own mass (unless you get stuck on a beach). Blue whales can weigh up to 200 tons, and they filter their food more or less effortlessly out of the same water that surrounds them, instead of browsing or hunting for it. Talk about cheating lol! :XD:
Reply
:iconnanotyrannuskid435:
nanotyrannuskid435 Featured By Owner Aug 9, 2012  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
not to be the guy everyone hates but the largest is still siesmosaurus 150 ft long but still really awesome
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Aug 9, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Actually that estimate is at least 10 years out of date. David Gillette originally estimated it at around 130-150 ft. long, but this was only a preliminary (and very overblown) guess. Seimosaurus was more recently reexamined, by Dr. Ken Carpenter, Scott Hartman and others, and has been rescaled to 110 ft. long. In fact Greg Paul back in 1994 already had reconstructed it at around this length. It's not hard to gauge its real size, most of the skeleton is actually known. And it's smaller than Gillette estimated.


Even if Seimosaurus were 150 ft. long, would still be a lot lighter than any of the really big titanosaurs. Diplodocids are mostly pretty light for their length, essentially just a huge tail on a slim, compact body that appears to be from a much smaller animal.
Reply
:iconnanotyrannuskid435:
nanotyrannuskid435 Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2012  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
ok thanks for the facts and all after all i am kid so i really made a mistake. i will still beileve seismosaurus is bigger but hat is just my opinoin.thank you `for th shed of light but i will lisen to my gut by the way nice name. however i noticed on ting about your statement that i think wins the aruement for me and you and so i say for now, it has been a pleasure readingyour super long repy :headbang:
FROM,NANOTYRANNUSKID435
Reply
:iconshinyaquablueribbon:
ShinyAquaBlueRibbon Featured By Owner Aug 9, 2012  Student General Artist
:iconclapplz: This is really awesome looking!

...IS THAT R2-D2?!

XD
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2012  Professional General Artist
As usual, beautiful work from you and Chris! Dragon esq. is awed! :iconraptorlaplz:
Reply
:icontrexking:
Trexking Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2012
Why is R2-D2 there?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
So that Star Wars fans can size up Puertasaurus with their favorite alien creatures (Rontos, Hutts, Rancor, Naboo marine monsters and so on) not to mention things like At-At walkers and various transports. :XD:
Reply
:iconblade-of-the-moon:
Blade-of-the-Moon Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
So we finally have a dinosaur bigger than a Blue Whale..and a land animal..nice !
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Longer, but not heavier.
Reply
:iconblade-of-the-moon:
Blade-of-the-Moon Featured By Owner Aug 9, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
True..you always here " biggest " but that's a broad term. It's just been narrowed down a bit though.. ;)
Reply
:iconabekowalski:
abekowalski Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Soooo much awesome in this!
-Is a Titanosauriforme!
-Totally can haz size award!
-(For some reason) Did not know Titanosauridae lasted so far into the Cretaceous, nor that such large Sauropoda existed in this era. Guess I always considered Ornithischia as the major herbivore population this late in the game.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Actually Late Cretaceous titanosaurs have been known for over a century. But most of them were small 30-40 foot saltasaurs, and it was long believed that cretaceous sauropods were much smaller than their Jurassic predecessors (most people forgot about the handful of early discoveries of giants like Argyrosaurus and "Antarctosaurus" giganteus). It's only recently that many more giant cretaceous titanosaurs have been discovered, and as Puertasaurus and the new adult Alamosaurus finds prove, some of the biggest ones survived all the way to the end.

Ornithischia dominated in North America and had a decent presence in Asia but were less successful on other continents. Titanosaurs dominated the southern hemisphere (they had the big herbivore niches in South America, Madagascar, India and Australia all to themselves), but you do find some northern forms in Europe and Asia as well. Alamosaurus is the only true titanosaur so far known from North America.
Reply
:iconzupahome:
zupahome Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The information... so beautyful
Reply
:iconaletia:
aletia Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2012
A very beautifully design and easy to digest infographic and my god what a creature ! You did a great job :clap: !
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Aug 28, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks very much :XD:
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
  • Art Print
  • Canvas
  • Photo
Download JPG 3030 × 3000




Details

Submitted on
August 8, 2012
Image Size
3.0 MB
Resolution
3030×3000
Submitted with
Sta.sh
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
9,715 (12 today)
Favourites
185 (who?)
Comments
51
Downloads
177
×