Turiasaurus riodevensis
By EoFauna
69 Favourites31 Comments6K Views
This illustration shows the size and appearance of Turiasaurus, which had a mass of around 30 tonnes and was 21 meters in length. While massive, this is far below the previous estimates of 50 tonnes in mass and 30-38 meters in length
He aquí una visión cercana de que apariencia y tamaño tuvo el Turiasaurus. Era un animal muy grande de unos 21 metros de longitud y un peso cercano a las 30 toneladas, pero muy lejos de anteriores estimaciones que lo colocaban entre 30-38 metros de longitud y unas 50 toneladas de peso.
Author: Asier Larramendi
He aquí una visión cercana de que apariencia y tamaño tuvo el Turiasaurus. Era un animal muy grande de unos 21 metros de longitud y un peso cercano a las 30 toneladas, pero muy lejos de anteriores estimaciones que lo colocaban entre 30-38 metros de longitud y unas 50 toneladas de peso.
Author: Asier Larramendi
Image details
Image size
1391x657px 93.98 KB
Published:
© 2013 - 2021 EoFauna
Comments31
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
I love your work man, Im gonna try to participate in a dinosaur illustration contest here in Spain, and was planning on showing Aragosaurus, Europatitan and Turiasaurus to scale, and I thought the 30 m estimate for Turiasaurus was correct. Now it will be the middle one in the scale.
Im quoting you as a source BTW
Im quoting you as a source BTW
That's sounds great.
Many thanks D-Juan.
Hola. ¿En que se basaban las antiguas estimaciones de tamaño y en que se basan las nuevas? Por lo que puedo ver, la longitud de las extremidades que es lo que mejor se conoce del animal son las mismas pero las proporciones con respecto al resto del cuerpo varían drásticamente. Esta reconstrucción en concreto parece ofrecer una animal alto y con unas extremidades largas pero con una cola, cuello y tórax cortos.
Hola Franoys,
Gracias por tu pregunta. Las antiguas estimaciones se basan en formulas de regression alométricas. Estas son muy dudosas teniendo en cuenta que a día de hoy no existen animales con los cuales puedan ser comparados, por lo que la relación entre masa y proporciones de huesos no tienen nada que ver con ningún animal hoy en día existente. La estimación aquí hecha, es basada en cálculos volumétricos. Aunque es aproximada, es bastante más segura que pasadas estimaciones ya que un volumen de más de 50000 litros para un animal de este tamaño es físicamente imposible. Tenemos material suficiente de Turiasaurus como para poder inferir la longitud de su tórax (hay varias vértebras preservadas) además que se conocen parientes cercanos (Como Jobaria) para poder compararlo. El cuello debió de ser muy corto a juzgar por el material preservado, su cervicales con relativamente pequeñas. La única duda sería la cola, pero la mayoría de sus parientes la tienen relativamente corta. Además, una cola más larga apenas variaría su masa corporal.
How fast can this thing walk? I want to know and is this the second longest dinosaurs
Walking speed: probably about 5-6 km/h
and
Ambling speed: might be about 20-25 km/h, similar to an elephant.
Not at all, there is a big number of dinosaurs much larger and longer than Turiasaurus.
Wonderful reconstruction. It's really surprising what the media can do to normally respectably-sized animals like this. This is what I hate about "godzilla-fication"
Seems that my Turiasaurus needs quite a bit of an update then...
really lovely!
Thanks!
So, how could the paleontologists who initially described the specimen believe it to be almost twice as large as it actually were?
Because they didn't make any accurate restoration.
The original estimations were made taking the humerus as reference and comparing it with Paralititan and oder genera. The information and that moment, was much poorer than today. They also use the Anderson, et al. 1985 method instead volumetric methods for the body mass estimations.
The original estimations were made taking the humerus as reference and comparing it with Paralititan and oder genera. The information and that moment, was much poorer than today. They also use the Anderson, et al. 1985 method instead volumetric methods for the body mass estimations.
I've been thinking the exact same thing. I just saw a picture of a Turiasaurus skull a few days ago, and thought it looked dead-on Jobaria.
Is Jobaria still considered early Cretaceous in age? I was under the impression it was now considered middle Jurassic. I think I read about that in Greg Paul's The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs. It does make sense to me...as both Jobaria and Afrovenator fit with other dinosaurs from that time period, but that could just be the author's opinion.
Ah,que bien!!!Me gusta mucho este esqueleto.Pronto dibujare al dino
What a nice recon! This was a large dinosaur! I really am going to have to update mine now.
Thank you!
It was large, but probably wasn't the largest from Europe, Lusotitan in fact could have been larger.
It was large, but probably wasn't the largest from Europe, Lusotitan in fact could have been larger.
Are you sure about that? Reading Mannion 2013, it seems like all of the measurements publised of Lusotitan lectotype are inferior to the corresponding ones in Giraffatitan (HMN Sll) which is alredy tied in size to your restoration of Turiasaurus. (By my scaling Lusotitan is about 92.5% the linear dimensions of Lusotitan in average, and therofore about 79% the volumen and the mass)
Yes, but Lusotitan was considerably more robustly built than Giraffatitan, the femur is much more sturdy, similar to Brachiosaurus. Anyway, the animal it is so fragmented that it is not possible to estimate the body size accurately, that's why we say "may have been".
Impresionante, además esa pose lo hace ver muy ágil, sin duda en sintonÃa con la nueva estimación de peso 
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In