Featured in collections
Featured in groupsSee All
200 Favourites67 Comments4K Views
Opisthocoelicaudia is an odd sauropod. It's usually found to be related to Alamsaurus and possibly Saltasaurus, it has very robust limbs, and surprisingly short tail, and (thanks to "Nemegtosaurus") a pleasantly complete skull. One thing it's missing are most of the cervicals - here I've started with sub-adult Alamosaurus as a scaling guide and then went just a little shorter. The back slopes up gently to the shoulders, but seems to flex up strongly in the preserve cervicodorsal juncture.
IMAGE DETAILS
Image size
1800x1017px 328.35 KB
Published:
© 2018 - 2021 DrScottHartman
Comments66
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In

With that back not very inclined and a (I calculate) low center of mass, wouldn't the (normal / natural) position of the neck on the march be closer to the horizontal?
On a separate issue, I want to draw a Lirainosaurus. Do you know of any skeletal of this sauropod I can use for reference? If not, in your opinion, should I depict it Opisthocoelicaudia style or Alamosaurus style?
On a separate issue, I want to draw a Lirainosaurus. Do you know of any skeletal of this sauropod I can use for reference? If not, in your opinion, should I depict it Opisthocoelicaudia style or Alamosaurus style?

The most anterior preserved vertebrae seem to arch up, which is why I continued the trend. It IS less raised than in macronarians with more upward tilting backs. Among sauropods, the only ones that definitely have more horizontally oriented necks are dipldocoids, though Saltasaurus is often restored that way (I haven't been able to get enough reference material to check that). Otherwise sauropods seem to have mostly had necks raised above horizontal to one degree or another.

It's awesome to have an Opisthocoelicaudia with a more rigorous approach to the neck and head, most of the time it... doesn't really look like people care, since they're unpreserved.
I'm curious about the torso, though, the paper's measurements for the centra of dorsals 1 to 11 ''without balls'' combined give about 2.2 meters, with cartilage maybe closer to 2.4. This one (going by the scale bar) is 3 meters in the same measurement. Is it a bigger specimen, or a different vertebra articulation, or something else?
I'm curious about the torso, though, the paper's measurements for the centra of dorsals 1 to 11 ''without balls'' combined give about 2.2 meters, with cartilage maybe closer to 2.4. This one (going by the scale bar) is 3 meters in the same measurement. Is it a bigger specimen, or a different vertebra articulation, or something else?

It's the same specimen. "Without the balls" is a useful comparative measurement for other sauropods that do this (or use "rim to rim" measurements, though that would be slightly smaller), but the anterior "ball" doesn't sit all the way into the concave posterior of the centra, so the functional distance even before cartilage is larger than that measurement indicates. In general I try to use the neutral articulation of the zygapophyses as a guide to reconstructing intervertebral cartilage.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In