text stringlengths 1 330k |
|---|
Gotta say though (and I don't want to start a 100+ comment flamewar pissing contest on that, as the Toroceratops/Pachycephalosaurus debate has been done to death elsewhere), that I'd be happy if you'd at least keep your criticism of Horner et al.'s ontogenetic stuff out of areas where it hasn't been proposed anywhere, ... |
Alessio said... |
Holy Mamenchisaurus! |
Didn't know there were such titans even in France... I wonder if here in Italy we'll ever find something like that; just imagine looking at those gorgeous creatures as they walk before you, their necks held high, shaking the earth like a quiet yet extremely powerful living earthquake... Among Nature's finest sons, that... |
Raptor's Nest said... |
It was good to meet you in person at SVP. I found out the identity of your "Shinhesaurus"; it's apparently "Xinghesaurus" according to this (http://www.uraken.net/bato/kyoryu/71.html) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_in_paleontology#New_taxa). |
Nima said... |
@ Dean: True indeed. And record books must be rewritten! |
@ Pilsator: thanks for the input, but as for Horner... three words. SENSE OF HUMOR. I know they haven't worked on sauropod ontogeny. It's funny because Euhelopus and Daxiatitan look so similar, and the former is not known from any fully grown individuals. Also neither Euhelopus nor Daxiatitan is "fragmentary", both are... |
@Alessio: I don't know what sort of dinosaur lived in Italy. It would be very interesting if giant titanosaurs are found there. The French remains are already longer than any titanosaur limb bones known except for those of Argentinosaurus, and these animals may even approach Puertasaurus in mass. But it's too early to ... |
@ Manabu: Thanks for the info on Xinghesaurus. I looked it up, it's very interesting. Also Hirokazu Tokugawa has confirmed with me that it is indeed Xinghesaurus and it's larger than Huabeisaurus. Both have a very high caudal count, though their caudals are very compressed lengthwise, so the tail is only moderately lon... |
Anonymous said... |
Nima, exciting stuff! I am sincerely impressed. |
What this all shows, from a statistical point of view, is that the real record size is probably still not reached. I mean, if even very rare and fragmentary remains (meaning both for new species, and new findings for 'known' species) keep turning up those huge sizes so easily, without 'leveling off' this means that the... |
Question: will you do Alamosaurus any time soon, and then I mean the 'new and gigantic Puertasaurus-size' Alamosaurus, based on recent findings, undoubtedly known to you? |
And do you also do giant duckbills and giant ceratopsians (not only known from fragmentary bone remains, but also from tracks)? |
Anonymous said... |
What? No Alamosaurus? |
Anonymous said... |
And then there also seem to be some very large (1.36 - 1.4 m wide(or long?)) tracks in Bolivia. |
Anonymous said... |
the huge Parabrontopodus distercii tracks in Spain, are they really (up to) 1.65 m *wide* or long? |
Same for the Plagne tracks: is that really width or length? |
I know that the Broome tracks are up to about 1.7 m long, the width I did not know or read (SVPOW mentions length). |
Anonymous said... |
And then there is also the enigmatic and misspelled Nurosaurus, about which I could find: "Nurosaurus gaganensis = Nuoerosaurus (Dong, 1992) is a nomen nudum , as a proper description is yet to be published. The mounted skeleton is about 26m (80 ft) long and appears to be a short-necked sauropod possibly related to Euh... |
Do you know anything more on this one? |
There has been a travelling exhibition with it in the US. |
Anonymous said... |
Concerning the giant Alamosaurus (risking that I offend you, Nima, by repeating the obvious for you): |
The publication is "The first giant titanosaurian sauropod from the Upper Cretaceous of North America" by DENVER W. FOWLER AND ROBERT M. SULLIVAN, Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 5X(X): xxx-xxx. |
If I remember well, you referred to this animal in an earlier post, so sorry if I indeed kick in an open door. |
There are 3 different new specimens mentioned (2 vertebrae series, 1 partial femur): particularly SMP VP-1850 is huge, quote: "SMP VP-1850 is similar, if not slightly larger than the cervical vertebrae of Puertasaurus and Futalognkosaurus". |
Interestingly, both Puertasaurus and Alamosaurus are Maastrichtian, i.e. very late Cretaceous (so is Bruhathkayosaurus and some Antarctosarus). |
Dean said... |
Read somewhere a while ago that you were working on a Morrison scene with an Amphicoelias as the star, it's probably on a back burner with all the titanosaurs flying around, but it would be a treat to see! Keep up the great artwork!!! |
Rexisto said... |
Greetings Nima, |
I liked your topic, and make some comments that could be useful in this regard. |
14. Footprints France |
The footprints of sauropods often have a lot of mud around them that will alter the size. For example Gigantosauropus asturiensis has an area of 1.36 meters when in fact the mark was 1.25 meters. On the other hand, there is confusion in the French language seems to say that when they really mean width to length. The fo... |
13. Footprints Australia |
They Brontopodus type. |
12. Breviparopus |
Traces of Brontopodus are identified as very similar to that of Parabrontopodus but the shape and number of your nails are very similar to those of Apatosaurus. For its size I would venture to think like an animal Supersaurus. His assignment was to Brachiosaurios only by its size without any other diagnosis. They belon... |
11. Ultrasauripus |
The tracks are quite dubious Ultrasauripus because Kim does not assign or publish photos holotype individual really useful. But if comments are very extreme tracks, which would measure comets as well as 115 cm. |
10. Distercii Parabrontopodus |
The footprint of 168 cm is the same track but the 148 cm long, as if the animal had slipped. |
9. "Shihesaurus or Xinghesaurus" |
I have a sneaking suspicion that in China are reconstructed from very sketchy and dubious bones to giant dinosaurs. We have Nurosaurus, Otogosaurus and Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum as an example. There is a scientific publication and incomplete piece is performed and a bone reconstruction extremely large. From there it... |
5. Brachiosaurus nougaredi |
Recently it has dated the remains of "Brachiosaurus" nougaredi as belonging to the Middle Jurassic, and those of Jobaria, Afrovenator and Spinostropheus. |
1. Ruyangosaurus |
The tibia measures 127 cm Ruyangosaurus |
Anonymous said... |
this show that dinosaurs hunt in pack no way 1 meat eating dinosaurs hunt alone there were too small and there were too many plant eating giants dinosaurs fan of band and i listen i love these advance crocs=dinosaurs |
Anonymous said... |
Really interesting blog, with all those spectacular dinosaur species unearthed. I guess argentinosaurus wasn't so mighty after all. Also, where is the news for that new giant alamosaurus specimen? I've never heard of it before, so I'm wandering if there are any good estimates to how large it was. I always heard that it... |
Nima said... |
@ Anonymous: |
* I will be working on Alamosaurus soon. Basically need to get Paralititan, a life-restoration Futalognkosaurus, and both species of Antarctosaurus done first. Alamosaurus will be a big project because I want to do skeletals for both adult and juvenile specimens. |
* All track measurements are widths to the best of my knowledge. Also the photos of the Plagne tracks show that they are roughly circular, so mis-scaling the creature based on mistaking track width for track length is pretty unlikely. |
* Don't know much about Nurosaurus... though it may be a large Euhelopodid like Daxiatitan or "Liaoningotitan". I'll have to look up that one, all I've seen of it is some very bad photos of the supposed skull. |
* I have the Fowler and Sullivan Alamosaurus paper. It's brief but very good. Really gives an idea how big these animals got (and since all the "adult" remains are of different-sized individuals, maximum size may have yet to be discovered.) As a side note, Bruhathkayosaurus probably isn't real. There are no photographs... |
@ Dean: I am still thinking about doing that scene, but unfortunately due to more urgent projects coming up I have had to place it on the back burner. Still thinking about it though. |
Nima said... |
@ Rexisto: |
* The footprints should be measure by the actual inner print, not the mud up-push on the outside. These will yield quite different results. Only the former is reliable. |
* A lot of footprints are labeled Brontopodus or Parabrontopodus without much consideration. The "brontopodus" types from Paluxy are derived brachiosaurs, perhaps like Pleurocoelus or Paluxysaurus. They are a bit wider-gauge relative to track size that one would expect from things like Giraffatitan, based on the erect ... |
* Breviparopus regardless of date cannot be a diplodocid because there is a thumb-claw print and it's short. Diplodocid thumb claws are very long and carried off the ground because of a short 1st metacarpal. This is why thumb-claw prints are so rare in sauropod tracks, most of them are either diplodocids, camarasaurs, ... |
* You say "Brachiosaurus" nougaredi was re-dated to the Middle Jurassic? Please present your references, Rexisto. I don't see any. The Jurassic designation is actually very outdated, it's from 1960, and has since been overturned in favor of a Cretaceous date for the remains. And even then it was believed to be Late, no... |
Albert-Félix de Lapparent, who described and named the material in 1960, reported the discovery locality as being in the Late Jurassic–age Taouratine Series (he assigned the rocks this age in part because of the presumed presence of Brachiosaurus), but more recent review (Upchurch and Dodson, 2004) assigns it to the "C... |
Also I don't know where you got the story that "B." nougaredi was re-dated as belonging to the Middle Jurassic along with Jobaria, Afrovenator and Spinostropheus. Show some proof please! I hope you realize B. nougaredi wasn't even part of the same fauna! Furthermore, Jobaria, Afrovenator, etc. are from a completely dif... |
Pixagono said... |
Normally I have little time, but rest assured that what I say are facts, the quotes are: |
The formation of an area called the prefecture Iouairéde Azilal, today it is known from the Upper Jurassic through studies of microfossils and Dictyoclavator kimmeridgiensis Prochan ramalhoi. |
If there is much consideration among Parabrontopodus and Brontopodus. The first set foot in a narrow line where both feet tread the same linear region. The second in a very wide line, if you see your same'll not set foot reconstructions rather than leaving footprints far apart, on the right than the left. For a narrow ... |
It is a Diplodocidae, but by the number of nails is a Apatosaurinae. |
Belvedere & Mietto 2010. FIRST EVIDENCE OF stegosaurus DELTAPODUS |
FORMATION, UPPER JURASSIC, MOROCCO) Paleontology Vol 53 p.233-240 |
Boutakiout, Hadri, Nouri, Díaz-Martínez & Pérez-Lorente 2008. |
Prospecting in the syncline paleoicnológicas Iouaridène |
(High Atlas, Morocco). Quantification of deposits and |
footprints. Geogaceta 45. |
Nouri, Díaz-Martínez, & Perez-Lorente 2011. Footprints of an Unknown tetradactyla Theropod Dinosaur Affinity from the Upper Jurassic of Morocco. PLosOne ol. 6 Issue 12. |
"Brachiosaurus" nougaredi the Bathonian |
Taquet 2010. The dinosaurs of Maghreb: The History of Their |
discovery. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. Vol 271. p. 259-267 |
Footprints Plagne, France |
The footprint of France is advertised as 1.5 meters wide, but so is very unlikely as it is seen that actually was 1.5 long pro photos. On the other hand leaves no sauropod lashuellas round, so it is safer than the banks are muddy. The most popular are round and Elephantopoides Sauropodichnus, epro both have a high degr... |
This is very common in sauropods marks. On the other hand is mentioned in wikipedia are Parabrontopodus type and are seen to be narrow gauge so it probably is. |
I consulted for updated articles and old issues of allocation. |
Rexisto said... |
In Zimbabwe and in England there are traces of 94 cm Brontopodus well preserved and are considered Brachiosauridae. |
Breviparopus hands are curved like the type of Diplodocidae, but the hands of Brachiosauridae leave them in the form of a horseshoe too fat. |
Anonymous said... |
Hi. I’m the same guy who asked about the Alamosaurus finds. You can call me “Lewis”. I find your blog really interesting, and you have opened me up greatly to all the things about prehistoric life, or at least sauropods, who are among my favourite dinosaurs (regardless of the group I just find all sauropods to be incre... |
But what interests, and in a way shocks me most are the Spanish Soria tracks of parabrontopodus destercii. At 1.65m wide, they easily dwarf anything we could possibly fathom today. The sheer size of the footprints obviously indicates an animal of massive proportions, but how massive? From this, I did my own calculation... |
1.65/1.5=1.1 1.13 = 1.331. 1.331x 94 tonnes=125.114 tonnes. Final proof of amphicoelias fragimillis anyone? Using another estimate based on dimensions, I came up with 138.2 tonnes roughly. Based on Carpenter’s estimate for A. Fragimillis, I came up with animal between 58.4 and 60.3m long, 9.3-9.6m tall at the shoulder ... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.