Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour

Comments


:iconheatherbeast:
Heatherbeast Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2011
Your fondness for sauropods is delightful, and your skills are formidable! :)
Reply
:iconvasix:
vasix Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Should work on a few hadrosaurs too! Like hadrosaurs? Olorotitan is a suggestion......
Reply
:icondgrano20:
Dgrano20 Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2011
Looking forward to see...
Bruhathkayosaurus
Amphicoelias

Giganotosaurus
Carcharodontosaurus

On the largest sauropods...do the skeletons of these animals realy display that animals like argentinosaurus rose their heads that high. Also the tail leangth in most of your illustrations seam a bit too short. Could you help me understand why?
Reply
:icondgrano20:
Dgrano20 Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2011
Looking forward to see...
Bruhathkayosaurus
Amphicoelias

Giganotosaurus
Carcharodontosaurus

On the largest sauropods...do the skeletons of these animals realy display that animals like argentinosaurus rose their heads that high. Also the tail leangth in most of your illustrations seam a bit too short. Could you help me understand why?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks for the comments!

I will do Amphicoelias, but probably not Bruhathkayosaurus since there are no good images of the fossil material, the descriptions are inconsistent, and it may not even be dinosaur material at all. Drawing it would be an exercise in pure fantasy (though I might do fantasy if enough people ask). Bruhathkayosaurus has a very shady history, as do its authors Yadagiri and Ayyasami - they never published a single photo of the remains, only some very crappy drawings of the bones which don't even look anatomically believable and resemble the work of a 5-year old child. Now these guys claim they never actually excavated the bones, just left them partially in the ground, and now they've been washed away by a monsoon! And the only other 'dinosaur' they ever described (the purported "last stegosaur" Dravidosaurus) actually turned out to be a badly eroded plesiosaur, not a dinosaur at all! All in all it sounds like another "bigfoot"-style tall tale. That's not to say that dinosaurs didn't reach outrageous sizes - Amphicoelias fragillimus does seem to be legit, and Puertasaurus and some new adult Alamosaurus remains indicate animals around 130 ft. long and 100 tons - there are many colossal footprints in France, Spain, and Australia that were probably made by A. fragillimus or Bruhathkayosaurus-sized animals, so there WERE real supergiants out there.

The large titanosaurs could indeed raise their necks high, from what we know about the most complete ones like Futalognkosaurus. Also their smaller relatives known from reasonably good neck material, like Malawisaurus, have all the anatomical hallmarks of a vertical neck: elongated mid-cervicals, long overlapping neck ribs, neural spines positioned closer to the rear of the vertebrae than the front, etc.... only a relatively small group of titanosaurs seem adapted for low horizontal grazing like Diplodocus was - for example Saltasaurus and Bonitasaura, which had square mouths and peg-shaped teeth. The rest were long-necked high browsers - not surprising when you consider that their closes basal relatives are brachiosaurs and Euhelopus. Unfortunately there seems to be this pervasive blanket assumption among some dino-fans that titanosaurs were diplodocids, hence a lot of people draw them with short, horizontal necks. This is based on an outdated classification in popular books that was never fully accepted by scientists even 100 years ago. Today the origins of titanosaurs are well-known, they were essentially "brachiosaur nephews" in evolutionary terms. They were NOT closely related to diplodocids. It's just that some of the later titanosaurs like Saltasaurus filled diplodocid-type niches after diplodocids had died out. But that's just case of convergent evolution, not a close genetic relationship. Their skeletal anatomy is quite different from diplodocids, even in superficially similar forms like Saltasaurus.

Problem is, some "artists" still don't get that titanosaurs were NOT diplodocids. I've even seen one naive fanboy draw a verbatim Diplodocus clone [link] and call it Puertasaurus! Even though it doesn't look the least bit like a titanosaur, let along a lognkosaurian! There are still only two legit interpretations of Puertasaurus in existence (to my knowledge): mine [link] and my good friend Vladimir Nikolov's [link] . Both currently have a few errors but nothing too major overall, and they're a heck of a lot better than the lame "diplodocus clone" slop that we've been putting up with in magazines and internet articles for at least the past 10 years. Most paleoartists, it's sad to say, still don't have a clue how to draw titanosaurs, because they haven't actually looked at the fossil material or don't have access to the papers (fortunately there are now some open-source journals like PLoS One that do make some titanosaur literature accessible to the public free of charge, but more needs to be done in that area). Drawing titanosaurs correctly is further complicated by the fact that not all titanosaurs look alike, in fact even for those that are known from good speciemens, some of them follow radically different body plans even if they are closely related to each other (just compare Rapetosaurus with Isisaurus!)

The tails I drew are mostly accurate. Again, as with the necks, too many people assume all sauropods looked like Diplodocus. The tails on my titanosaurs may look short by diplodocid standards, but they are actually quite long by brachiosaur standards. And remember, titanosaurs' closest relatives are brachiosaurs and euhelopodids, NOT diplodocids. For nost titaosaurs for which a complete tail is not known, I give them a tail of moderate proportions, somewhere in between brachiosaur and diplodocid tails. While titanosaurs are related to brachiosaurs, I also realize that they are NOT brachiosaurs, and most appear to have had somewhat longer tails. Andesaurus is a good reference genus because most of its tail is known, and THAT is where I get the tail proportions for most titanosaurs. Even some titanosaurs which seem to have a whip-like ending on the tail, have one that is much thicker than the tail-whips of diplodocids. The only titanosaur tails I've done that currently need revision are Puertasaurus and Futalognkosaurus, both of these restorations need shorter torsos and longer tails, which I will fix soon. However, only the change in torso length is really necessitated by the existing fossils, the tail length is by necessity guesswork based on related species, since neither of these dinosaurs is known from good tail material, and even with my upcoming revisions their tails will still proportionally not be extremely long like those of diplodocids.

Hope that all helps!
Reply
:iconfragillimus335:
Fragillimus335 Featured By Owner Jun 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Wooh! I am dying to see an actual reconstruction of good old Amphicoelias. Cope really should have requested priority shipping on that thing.... :D
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 27, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Or at least kept it sealed in plaster until the ox-carts could get it back to New York! Curiosity killed the evidence.
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Sep 27, 2013  Professional General Artist
If I remember correctly, that technology came along later. Could be wrong...
Reply
:iconfragillimus335:
Fragillimus335 Featured By Owner Jun 27, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Or at least kept the chunks...one of the biggest problems with specimen collection and preservation is that you have to be prepared for the level of technological advancement in restoration that can occur in 10, 20, or 50 years!
Reply
Add a Comment: