Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
About Digital Art / Student FranoysMale/Spain Groups :iconpaleo-nazis: Paleo-Nazis
Treu zu Hoher Paläokunst
Recent Activity
Deviant for 3 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 48 Deviations 1,283 Comments 88,596 Pageviews
×

Newest Deviations

Allosaurus ( Saurophaganax ) maximus skeletal by Franoys Allosaurus ( Saurophaganax ) maximus skeletal :iconfranoys:Franoys 134 39 Diplodocus carnegii CM 84 skeletal diagram by Franoys Diplodocus carnegii CM 84 skeletal diagram :iconfranoys:Franoys 123 55 Allosaurus fragilis skeletal (DINO 2560). by Franoys Allosaurus fragilis skeletal (DINO 2560). :iconfranoys:Franoys 156 41 Jurassic World Evolution Dinosaurs chart. by Franoys Jurassic World Evolution Dinosaurs chart. :iconfranoys:Franoys 254 142 Majungasaurus crenatissimus skeletals. by Franoys Majungasaurus crenatissimus skeletals. :iconfranoys:Franoys 126 30 Tyrannosaurus rex skeletal diagram (AMNH 5027) by Franoys Tyrannosaurus rex skeletal diagram (AMNH 5027) :iconfranoys:Franoys 144 48 Shaochilong maortuensis skeletal diagram. by Franoys Shaochilong maortuensis skeletal diagram. :iconfranoys:Franoys 90 28 Galeamopus pabsti SMA 0011 skeletal restoration. by Franoys Galeamopus pabsti SMA 0011 skeletal restoration. :iconfranoys:Franoys 97 23 Zhuchengtyrannus magnus skeletal diagram. by Franoys Zhuchengtyrannus magnus skeletal diagram. :iconfranoys:Franoys 102 33 Tarbosaurus bataar adults skeletal diagrams by Franoys Tarbosaurus bataar adults skeletal diagrams :iconfranoys:Franoys 124 26 Tarbosaurus bataar PIN 551-2 skeletal diagram. by Franoys Tarbosaurus bataar PIN 551-2 skeletal diagram. :iconfranoys:Franoys 115 18 Tarbosaurus bataar PIN 551-1 skull restoration. by Franoys Tarbosaurus bataar PIN 551-1 skull restoration. :iconfranoys:Franoys 119 40 Tyrannosaurus rex LACM 23845 skeletal diagram. by Franoys Tyrannosaurus rex LACM 23845 skeletal diagram. :iconfranoys:Franoys 148 23 Suchomimus tenerensis skeletal reconstruction. by Franoys Suchomimus tenerensis skeletal reconstruction. :iconfranoys:Franoys 156 42 Eocarcharia dinops diagram and scaling by Franoys Eocarcharia dinops diagram and scaling :iconfranoys:Franoys 110 14 Acrocanthosaurus atokensis (NCSM 14345) skeletal by Franoys Acrocanthosaurus atokensis (NCSM 14345) skeletal :iconfranoys:Franoys 213 57

Favourites

Commission: Walking with Dinosaurs Allosaurus by FredtheDinosaurman Commission: Walking with Dinosaurs Allosaurus :iconfredthedinosaurman:FredtheDinosaurman 809 63
Journal
Phytosaurs Part 1 (Terrestial Lads)
As of recent I've gotten into the weird ass group of Archosauriformes that look like crocodiles yet are fundamentally different in more ways than we think.They're a group of Archosauriforms that likely arise in the early Triassic and then exploded in diversity during the late Triassic.While I won't do a full summary on them here,I will add some things in the references that would be a better introduction to this fantastic group.I'll likely be doing at least three journals of this type for certain groups of Phytosaurs due to just how damn interesting these guys are.To kick start this little project of mine I will begin with the group of Phytosaurs that somehow secondarily evolved being terrestrial(at least to a degree).
 
To begin let's start with how we know these guys are likely fairly terrestrial in the first place,since it is fairly important to this journal and all.Firstly there is a way to classify Phytosaur teeth based on the amount of dental sets in the upp
:iconShaochilong66:Shaochilong66
:iconshaochilong66:Shaochilong66 11 2
Pachyrhinosaurus lakustai Skeletal by bricksmashtv Pachyrhinosaurus lakustai Skeletal :iconbricksmashtv:bricksmashtv 72 9 Euhelopus zdanskyii Skeletal by bricksmashtv Euhelopus zdanskyii Skeletal :iconbricksmashtv:bricksmashtv 121 19 Torvosaurus tanneri (larger Dry Mesa specimen) by PaleoJoe Torvosaurus tanneri (larger Dry Mesa specimen) :iconpaleojoe:PaleoJoe 106 11 Speculation with diplodocid dermal spines by randomdinos Speculation with diplodocid dermal spines :iconrandomdinos:randomdinos 132 9 Double-crested by GetAwayTrike Double-crested :icongetawaytrike:GetAwayTrike 88 7 Carch multiview by Paleop Carch multiview :iconpaleop:Paleop 61 5 Amargasaurusn't by randomdinos Amargasaurusn't :iconrandomdinos:randomdinos 156 6 Carcharodontosaurus wip by Paleop Carcharodontosaurus wip :iconpaleop:Paleop 80 2 Giraffa-titan by GetAwayTrike Giraffa-titan :icongetawaytrike:GetAwayTrike 59 7 Akainacephalus johnsoni Skeletal by bricksmashtv Akainacephalus johnsoni Skeletal :iconbricksmashtv:bricksmashtv 70 8 Shark Boy by damouraptor Shark Boy :icondamouraptor:damouraptor 84 11 Chubby Tyrant  by damouraptor Chubby Tyrant :icondamouraptor:damouraptor 67 1 Earth Type Pokemon  by damouraptor Earth Type Pokemon :icondamouraptor:damouraptor 73 3 Alioramus altai skeletal reconstruction. by randomdinos Alioramus altai skeletal reconstruction. :iconrandomdinos:randomdinos 120 44

Groups

Activity


Daspletosaurus torosus skeletal reconstruction.
The skeletal reconstruction of Daspletosaurus torosus holotype, described and named in Russel 1970. The holotype was described along two paratypes; AMNH 5438 and UA 11. All three specimens are of extremely similar size, with AMNH 5438 perhaps being marginally smaller than the other two. The remains of the stage 5 of growth of the recently described Daspletosaurus horneri (Carr et al 2017), suggest that it was the same size as theese 3 specimens, however, they aren't the largest speciemens of Daspletosaurus found so far; as Pete lll seems to be at least a bit larger than all of them. AMNH 5434; previously considered A.libratus, is a bit larger than the the holotype and the other two specimens, with perhaps a proportionally small forelimb, but still smaller than Pete lll. The femur circumference for AMNH 5438 is 390 mm, that of UA 11 is 415. Both femora are about 1000 mm long. With Campione & Evans bipedal regression, a mass of 2.8 t is obtained for AMNH 5438, and a mass of 3.4 t for UA 11.

Daspletosaurus coexisted with Albertosaurus libratus, which had a similar or slightly inferor body length; but had a proportionally smaller and frailer skull; with proportionally smaller and frailer teeth. On the other hand, Daspletosaurus vertebral centra is wider in proportion, and so is it's femur circumference suggesting a more massively built animal, however it's limb bones are shorter proportionally than those of Albertosaurus sarcophagus and libratus, so it is shorter legged in both absolute and proportional terms and therefore not as cursorial as they were.

Image used for reference for the posture: drive.google.com/open?id=19vRA…
Video of the ostrich moving, in case you are more insterested about the references: www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzjorJ…

Update: Updated the limbs, added a dorsal view; added mass estimation based on GDI volumetric estimate.

02/01/2019: Major update that includes an aesthetical update to the tail, an increased amount of intervertebral spacing, redrawing the dorsal series, and doing a ribcage in dorsal view more coherent with the size of the ribs. 

04/01/2019: Minor changes to the dorsal view and GDI updated.

Link to GDI result: cdn.discordapp.com/attachments…
Loading...
Jurassic World Evolution Dinosaurs chart.
I have had this on my computer for a long time but somehow didn't find the time for the upload. Anyway, here are all the dinosaurs in the recently released Jurassic World Evolution game, a tycoon similator in which you attempt to create your own Jurassic world. One thing that every paleo enthusiast will notice is that the scaling and the vital statistics of the dinosaurs feel very rushed and not very throughly studied. Sometimes it feels like they are picked from the highest estimate posible listed in english wikipedia, and other times they feel outright made up.

For example the mass estimate for Tyrannosaurus is 18 t ; that estimate is obtained from a grotesquely obese model from Hutchinson et al 2011; and one can't seriously argue the maximum model is as likely as the minimum for a healthy predator. The Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus masses (14 and 21 t) were obtained in a very questionable manner from an allometric regression that plots skull legnth vs body mass, without considering the proportions of the postcrania (the regression of Therrein and Hendersson 2007 had many values plotted wrong as well), and some animals like Pentaceratops, Camarasaurus, or Mamenchisaurus are ridiculously oversized when compared to the real specimens.

The proportions of many of the animals are not based on rigorous skeletal reconstructions; and have proportions very different from the real life counterparts. This is specially true of the dinosaurs that have appeared in the films. For example, the ceratopsians have their manuses and feet based on rhinoceros rather than in ceratopsian fossils and the sauropods have clawed hands, the ankylosaurus has rows of spikes in the lateral surfaces of the torso and too long legs, the Deinonychus a head restored wrong and not after it's closest relatives like Velociratpor; between a really long etcetera (like the theropods having totally pronated hands, and ornithomimids and dromaeosaurids lacking feathering).

Here I tried to base each animal on rigorous skeletal reconstructions made after the fossils; made by :iconscotthartman:, Greg Paul, :icongetawaytrike: :iconrandomdinos:, and myself. They are scaled to the measurements of the largest specimens I have been able to find across the published scientific literature. The masses were obtained from volumetric models from mass studies, and from GDIs done on the skeletals used as reference. A few of them were scaled from closely related animals with similar body plans.

Update 31/12/2018: Added Stenonychosaurus (=Troodon), Dreadnoughtus, Iguanodon, Olorotitan, Carcharodontosaurus. Updated the Allosaurus, Carnotaurus, Diplodocus and Camarasaurus.

Credits:
Skeletals of Velociraptor, Deinonychus, Gallimimus, Dilophosaurus, Ceratosaurus, Styracosaurus, Maiasaura, Iguanodon, Parasaurolophus, Edmontosaurus, Kentrosaurus, Huayangosaurus, Stegosaurus, Apatosaurus, and Brachiosaurus by :iconscotthartman: .
Skeletals of Struthiomimus , Chasmosaurus, Pentaceratops, Triceratops, Corythosaurus, Tsintaosaurus, Pachycephalosaurus, Giantspinosaurus, Sauropelta, and Olorotitan by Gregory S.Paul, from the Priceton Field Guide to Dinosaurs 2016.
Skeletals of Sinoceratops and Nodosaurus by  :icongetawaytrike: .
Skeletal of Mutaburrasaurus by :iconplastospleen:
Skeletal of Mamenchisaurus, Gobivenator, Camarasaurus, Carnotaurus and Dreadnoughtus by :iconrandomdinos:
Polacanthus schematic by :iconalternateprehistory:
Chungkingosaurus schematic by :iconrizkiusmaulanae:
Crichtonpelta schematic by :iconlythronax-argestes:
The rest of the skeletals have been produced by myself (Allosaurus, Majungasaurus, Suchomimus, Giganotosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, Spinosaurus, Diplodocus)

The list of references is extremely huge for me to post, but you can ask about them in the comments.
Loading...
Allosaurus ( Saurophaganax ) maximus skeletal
Allosaurus maximus is one of the larger theropods of the Morrison formation, potentially tied with Allosaurus fragilis and Torvosaurus tanneri (=Edmarka rex). Of the at least 4 individuals present in the quarry as stated by Chure (2000),two are of very large and similar size, with the third being sligthly smaller and the fourth substantially smaller. The larger individuals were used for the composite, the smaller ones consist of cervical and dorsal centra and pedal phalanges.

The size of the humerus catalogued as OMNH 1935 has gotten some attention, due to the scalebar in Chure 1995 yielding a maximum length of 545 mm. However the photograph with the scalebar in Chure 2000 yields only 450 mm as the maximum length of the bone. In an attempt to avoid the scalebar conflict, Smith 1998 provies an humerus length of 480 mm which is highly coherent with the size that the rest of the larger elements yield and was used for this reconstruction.

In Chure 1995 the potential body length attainable by the taxon was stated to be 14 m, taking from granted that a 825 mm femur belongs to a 12 m Allosaurus. However, complete skeletons of the genus show that this is implausible, as said femur length correlates with a body length between 7.5 and 8 m. USNM 4734 is 7.4 m long with a 75-85 cm femur(varies depending on the source), and DINO 2560 is 8 m long with a 88 cm femur. Therefore the large femur of Saurophaganax (113.5 cm) yields between 10.3 and 11.2 m, coherent with the size of this composite. The size of the composite is therefore most coherent with the estimate by Gregory S.Paul (10.5 m, Priceton field guide to dinosaurs second edition, 2016).

Of the autapomorphies suggested for Saurophaganax, only two vertebral characters are considered valid (Carrano 2012). The apendicular skeleton is indistinguishable from Allosaurus fragilis (Smith 1998). Therefore at least the generic separation is not guaranteed.

A.maximus is more recent than most of the allosaurid specimens from the Morrison formation, having been found only 12 m below the top of the formation. Remains of Camarasaurus, Apatosaurus, Camptosaurus, Stegosaurus and Ceratosaurus were found in the same quarry.

References:

Chure, D. J. (1995). A reassessment of the gigantic theropod Saurophagus maximus from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Oklahoma, USA. In 6th Symposium on Mesozoic terrestrial ecosystems and biotas, short papers. Edited by A.-L. Sun and Y.-Q. Wang. China Ocean Press, Beijing, China (pp. 103-106).

Chure, D. J. (2000). A new species of Allosaurus from the Morrison Formation of Dinosaur National Monument (UT-CO) and a revision of the theropod family Allosauridae. Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University.

Madsen Jr, J. H. (1976). Allosaurus fragilis: a revised osteology. Utah Geological and Mining Survey Bulletin, 109, 1-163.

Gilmore, Charles W. (1920). "Osteology of the carnivorous dinosauria in the United States National Museum, with special reference to the genera Antrodemus (Allosaurus) and Ceratosaurus". Bulletin of the United States National Museum. 110: 1–159. doi:10.5479/si.03629236.110.i.
Loading...
Diplodocus carnegii CM 84 skeletal diagram
The skeletal restoration of the holotype of Diplodocus carnegii, CM 84. The vertebral column of the specimen is very well preserved, having the whole neck, dorsal series and sacrum, as well as all dorsal ribs. The forelimbs are missing , and were restored here after the recently described and closely related Galeamopus pabsti (SMA 011). The distal hindlimb (tibia, fibulae and pes can be easily restored after CM 94. The tail is not particularly complete in this specimen (only up to Cd12), but it is in other diplodocid specimens. D.hallorum specimen AMNH 223 preserves up to Cd32, D.carnegii specimen CM 94 preserves caudals 33-36, and CM 308 , which preserves caudals 37-73. The posterior end of the tail is restored after A.louisae specimen CM 3378 , that preserves all of the end of the tail up to caudal 82.

Larger specimens of Diplodocus exist, with the holotype of "Seismosaurus hallorum" being the largest of all of them, perhaps exceeding 30 m in length.

The holotype specimen CM 84 is housed at the Carnegi museum of Natural history (Pittsburgh; USA). It was excavated in the 1899 by Dr J.L.Wortman, in Sheep Creek quarry, Wyoming. The specimen itself is currently on display as a mounted skeleton, and has been replicated numerous times; casts of the specimen are exhibited in many museums around the world.

Eventually a top view and a mass estimation will be added.

31/12/2018 Changed the articulation of the pelvis and the sacrum and redrew the sacral centra.

References:
-Osborn HF. 1899. A skeleton of Diplodocus. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History 5:191–214.

-Hatcher, J. B. (1901). Diplodocus (Marsh): its osteology, taxonomy, and probable habits, with a restoration of the skeleton (Vol. 1, No. 1-4). Carnegie institute.

-Holland, W. J. (1906). The Osteology of Diplodocus Marsh: With Special Reference to the Restoration of the Skeleton of Diplodocus Carnegiei Hatcher, Presented by Mr. Andrew Carnegie to the British Museum, May 12, 1905. authority of the Board of Trustees of the Carnegie Institute.

-Gilmore CW. 1936. Osteology of Apatosaurus: with special reference to specimens in the Carnegie Museum. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 11:175–300.

-Gillette DD. 1991. Seismosaurus halli, gen et sp. nov., a new sauropod dinosaur from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic/Lower Cretaceous) of New Mexico, USA. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 11:417–433 DOI 10.1080/02724634.1991.10011413.

-Herne MC, Lucas SG. 2006. Seismosaurus hallorum: osteological reconstruction fromthe holotype. Bulletin of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science 36:139148.

-Tschopp et al. (2015), A specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sauropoda). PeerJ 3:e857; DOI 10.7717/peerj.857

-Tschopp and Mateus (2017), Osteology of Galeamopus pabsti sp. nov. (Sauropoda: Diplodocidae), with implications for neurocentral closure timing, and the cervico-dorsal -transition in diplodocids. PeerJ 5:e3179; DOI 10.7717/peerj.3179
Loading...
Allosaurus fragilis skeletal (DINO 2560).
Skeletal reconstruction of Allosaurus fragilis as described by Madsen (1976). The osteology is based mostly on UUVP 6000, a fine skeleton but missing the forearms and all of the tail except the first caudal vertebra. The skull of the specimen is completely preserved in a very good state (it is one of the better skulls of the genus) but it was not fully prepared at the time in which the osteology was written, so they presented a composite of several specimens (as said in the plates), instead of using the actual skull of the specimen. This composite is very frequently found in lots of mounts/casts of the taxonl, and it is even portrayed as if it was the skull of the specimen in some skeletal reconstructions.

The tail described in the osteology comes from an unespecified specimen, but the size of the caudal vertebrae corresonds well with that of the rest of the vertebrae in the column based on other partial skeletons with measurements in the literature (like USNM 8537, (Gilmore 1920)).

It was proposed as a neotype for Allosaurus fragilis, as well as USNM 4734; but it still hasn't been aproved by the IZCN, therefore the holotype of the species is still the very fragmentary specimen YPM 1930.

References: 

Madsen Jr, J. H. (1976). Allosaurus fragilis: a revised osteology. Utah Geological and Mining Survey Bulletin, 109, 1-163.

Gilmore, Charles W. (1920). "Osteology of the carnivorous dinosauria in the United States National Museum, with special reference to the genera Antrodemus (Allosaurus) and Ceratosaurus". Bulletin of the United States National Museum. 110: 1–159. doi:10.5479/si.03629236.110.i.
Loading...
Tyrannosaurus rex skeletal diagram (CM 9380)
The rigurous and fully restored skeletals of CM 9380, originally labeled as AMNH 973 and described by Osborn in 1905 and 1906. It was sold to CM during second world war, in fear that a japanese attack to New York could destroy all Tyrannosaurus specimens. It is the holotypic specimen , so it is the one the species was named after and Tyrannosaurus rex by definition, all of the other specimens are referred to the species. The mounted skeleton is based to a great degree in AMNH 5027, and carries several innacuracies from the time it was assambled that are very hard to correct. It is exhibited at the Carnegie museum of Natural history.

Including GDI with top view of FMNH PR 2981 scaled down to match the measurements reported for CM 9380 in Osborn 1915.

12/11/2018: Updated basically everything. Mass will probably need to be tweaked in the future.

References: 

H.F. Osborn (1905) TYRANNOSAURUS AND OTHER CRETACEOUS CARNIVOROUS DINOSAURS. Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. Vol XXl.

Christopher A. Brochu (2003): Osteology of Tyrannosaurus Rex: Insights from a nearly complete Skeleton and High-Resolution Computed Tomographic Analysis of the Skull. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 22:sup4, 1-138

Bates KT, Manning PL, Hodgetts D, Sellers WI (2009) Estimating Mass Properties of Dinosaurs Using Laser Imaging and 3D Computer Modelling. PLoS ONE4(2): e4532. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0….

J.R Hutchinson , K.T Bates , J.Molnar , V. Allen , P.J Makovicky. (2011) A Computational Analysis of Limb and Body Dimensions in Tyrannosaurus rex with Implications for Locomotion, Ontogeny, and Growth. PLoS ONE 6(10): e26037.
Loading...
Just as predicted six years ago by Andcrea Cau in his blog, and four years ago by user :iconpalaeozoologist: , "Amphicoelias fragilimus" is now redescribed as a new rebbachisaurid taxon;  Maraapunisaurus fragillimus by no less than the renowned doctor in paleontology Kenneth Carpenter, the same sciencist that catapulted the 60 meters diplodocid version to fame in 2006.

The publication suggests that the morphological characters of AMNH 5777 show shared apomorphies (defining characters) with rebbachisauridae, and that thus should be considered to be part of said group. Going by this, Maraapunisaurus fragillimus would be the largest and oldest member known of this peculiar family; perhaps meaning that the clade could have originated in what today is north america in the upper Jurassic, archieving practically wordlwide distribution by the early cretaceous (exceptuating Asia and Antartica).

Carpenter2018-amphicoelias-fragillimus-is-maraapun by FranoysFragillimusrebbachisaurid by Franoys


To the left (shown above; original drawing by Cope (1878) labeled in Willson et al (2011). To the right, it compared with dorsal vertebrae of other rebbachisaurids (Rebbachisaurus grasbae and Histriasaurus boscarollii).

Maraapunisaurus fragillimus is known from a single partial neural arch of massive dimensions if we go by Cope's measurements (total elevation of neural arch preserved, 1500 mm; elevation of posterior zygapophyses, 585; transverse expanseof posterior zygapophyses, 190; vertical diameter of base of diapophysis, 390) . The older reconstruction by Carpenter of the complete vertebra was 2.7 m tall, and newer one is 2.4 m, just twice the height as the preserved dorsal vertebra of Limaysaurus tessonei (120 cm). This leaves us with an animal 2x the linear dimensions of Limaysaurus tessonei and 8x (2^3) it's mass asuming perfect isometry, although the distance between the neural canal and the postzygapophysis seems larger in proportion in Maraapunisaurus fragillimus than in Limaysaurus, meaning that this discrepancy could have been smaller and not a direct translation on how the vertebral heights correlate.

Asuming perfect isometry in reconstructed vertebral height, the length of Maraapunisaurus fragillimus would be between 28.6 and 30 m (going by the skeletal restorations of Limaysaurus by :iconpalaeozoologist: and Gregory S.Paul) and the mass between 56 and 61.6 metric tonnes ( mass of Limaysaurus is 7 t going by Greg Paul's estimate in the priceton field guide 2016, 7.7 t going by :iconspinoinwonderland: GDI of a slightly edited :iconpalaeozoologist: Limaysaurus restoration using my matlab script (specific gravities applied are 0.7 for the head, 0.6 for the neck, 0.9 for the torso, 1 for the tail and limbs).

Link to Limaysaurus GDI estimate.
i.imgur.com/Gkn1P7o.png

Diagram from Carpenter 2018, showing relative dimensions between the newer and the older version of his reconstruction of AMNH 5777. Old estimate involved a 2.7m high vertebra using a D.carnegii like body plan:

Amnh 5777 by Franoys

There is a posibility that the neck was slightly more elongated than what isometry predicts, as the neck length in several neosauropods scale with torso dimensions to the power of 1.35 as described by Parish (2006). This augments the posible linear dimensions up to 32 m, with mass increasing only slightly, as sauropod necks are not very massive in proportion and heavily pneumatized.

What happens with Amphicoelias as a whole, and with Amphicoelias altus specifically?


This would make it so M.fragillimus stops being closely related to Amphicoelias altus, and thus Amphicoelias altus survives as their own genus and species. Cope came to this conclussion in 1878 since A.altus was the only diplodocoid he had named, and while they still have the general resemblance expected in two diplodocoid taxa, M.fragillimus shares at least 2 apomorphies with all of rebbachisauridae, and other characters in common with some of them. Amphicoelias altus has been recovered within apatosaurinae according to Tschopp & Mateus 2017 analysis, and it's femoral dimensions (177 cm maximum length as indicated by Osborn & mook 1921) are close to that of B.louisae specimen CM 3018: with femoral length 178.5 cm and an estimated mass 22.4 tonnes by GDI analysis by myself using Scott Hartman's skeletal with a dorsal view by Gregory S.Paul ;Greg Paul's own estimate for this taxon is 18 tonnes) ,so despite the genus surviving, it now doesn't hold any record holder in terms of size.

Is M.fragilimus the largest sauropod dinosaur (and thus, largest terrestrial vertebrate) ever found according to this information?


Mazzeta et al 2004 proposed a mass of 73 t for Argentinosaurus huinculensis based on a referred femoral shaft using regression equations; an estimate close to a GDI done in :iconrandomdinos: 's Argentinosaurus reconstruction (in which I collaborated), that yielded between 71.4 and 75.4 metric tonnes depending on varying the ribcage width between plausible values. Patagotitan mayorum as described in Carballido 2017 could be slightly smaller than Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, with a convex hull +21% model of 55 t, though the maximum model (reconstructed with much more soft tissue than that applied to Limaysaurus mass estimates) yielded up to 77 tonnes.

Here is a comparison of M.fragilimus and A.huinculensis: (Argentinosaurus huinculensis by :iconrandomdinos:, Maraapunisaurus fragillimus silhouette by :iconrandomdinos: using Limaysaurus tessonei skeletal by :iconpalaeozoologist: as a base)
Fragilimuscomp by Franoys

Here is the great SVPOW post on the matter:

svpow.com/2018/10/21/what-if-a…

And the original publication, discussing certain matters much further than I and SVPOW members did.

www.utahgeology.org/publicatio…

Congratulations are in order for fellow deviantartist :iconpalaeozoologist: that has actually been acknowledged in the publication. 

Here is the original post that he made in this very same site:

Was Amphicoelias a rebbachisaur?Update (10/22/18): Dr. Ken Carpenter has recently published a new paper supporting the view below (and cites me favorably), but I would also be remiss to not recongize Dr. Andrea Cau for having thought up this idea 2 years before me. Sadly, he was not cited in Carpenter's paper. He and I both were unaware of Cau's work.
The last time I wrote about the size of Amphicoelias, I still used Diplodocus as a comparison. One of the comments that was made was that my size estimate was likely wrong, as Amphicoelias was probably a basal diplodocoid, not a diplodocid proper. After a little investigation, it turned out that two phylogenetic analyses have been published that included Amphicoelias, and both found Amphicoelias to be a basal diplodocoid. Whitlock (2011) was


References:

Majungasaurus crenatissimus skeletals.
**White shows preserved bones, gray infered.

Majungasaurus was a derived abelisaurid theropod that lived in Mahajanga Basin, northwestern Madagascar; 70 million years ago; in a semiarid enviroment that shared with other dinosaurs like Rapetosaurus and Masiakasaurus, between other taxa. The taxon was first diagnosed based on very partial remains of 6 individuals; and was named Megalosaurus crenattisimus by Deperet (1896);which didn't asign a type specimen and neither a type locality. It wasn't until almost 60 years later than Lavocat found a partial dentary (MNHM MAJ.1), and argued that it was the same taxon that the specimens described by Deperet, and also argued that it belonged to a different genus; which he named Majungasaurus . Since then it much more material has been recovered. MNHM MAJ.4 was originally thought to be a a pachycephalosaur and named Majungalothus (Sues & Taquet 1979). For some time it was argued that Majungasaurus was a nomen dubium because the dentary was undiagnostic and that Majungalothus should become the new generic name (Sampson et al 1998), but recent examination of the material concluded that the dentary was diagnostic and that Majungasaurus had priority (Sampson & Witmer, 2008), 

The skeleton is almost completely known if all individuals are considered, although no complete individual exists. The most complete skull, the most complete axial skeleton,and the most complete hindlimbs are each from a different specimen. The specimen with the best skull (FMNH PR 2100) overalps in a single caudal vertebra with the one with the most complete axial skeleton (UA 8768);

FMNH PR 2100 is an adult individual, and UA 8678 a subadult based on neurocentral sutures closure along the vertebral series. The caudal 5 of FMNH PR 2100 is a 12.9% longer than that of UA , although it is much taller (over a 50%). Here the proportionally taller vertebra considered a product of ontogenic development, and the greater centrum height is also a result of centra being weigh bearing elements and centrum diameter scaling faster than centrum length. Therefore they are cross scaled based solely on the length of the centrum.

The forelimb has been only partially known for a long time, but recently a complete forelimb was ilustrated and figured in Burch et al 2017 (a study about the miology of Majungasaurus forelimb). This is the first complete and articulated abelisaurid forelimb described in the literature, Aucasaurus manus was articulated but incomplete; and Carnotaurus' manus was both disarticulated and incomplete. Therefore many reconstructions made prior to this paper have incorrect phalangeal formulae.

There are no overlapping elements between UA 8678 and FMNH PR 2868 measured or reported in the descriptions of the animal, even if some overlap seems to exist. To cross scale the limbs with the axial skeleton, I used the scaling between theese specimens according to the results of the equations of Grillo&Delcourt 2016, which are surprisingly close to those obtained here . For example, FMNH PR 2100 is estimated at 5.58 m based on their equations, basically a perfect match for the estimate that I arrived to (5.59 m). Same goes for FMNH PR 2868 (5.40 m vs 5.39 m in Grillo & Delcourt 2016), and for UA 8678 (4.94 m vs 4.74 m in Grillo & Delcourt 2016)

FMNH PR 2100 doesn't represent the upper end of the size spectrum of the species even if it is a fully matured individual (as neurocentral sutures on the vertebrae and fussion patterns in the skull show), MHNM MAJ.4 is a partial skull roof about a 25% larger than that of FMNH PR 2100.
Loading...
Tyrannosaurus rex skeletal diagram (AMNH 5027)
Another Tyrannosaurus rex adult specimen, and the last one I'm going to make for a really long time (if not ever),since the rest are extremely poorly reported in the literature (so don't ask for more specimens, I beg you!)

AMNH 5027 is the archetypical Tyrannosaurus, as the looks of the animal (including the head the torso and the tail) have been based on this specimen for almost a century,until other specimens have been found and reconstructed, or described. Every media portrayal of the dinosaur, like King Kong, or Jurassic Park, are mainly based on this specimen. The malformation in the back has made it so most representations of the animal are humpy, something that seems to be a characteristic of this single specimen (it has been mostly corrected for this restoration, which also made the torso change in shape and size a bit).

The big uncertainly on the size of the tail has led to much debate and different interpretations, the original reconstruction of the animal as ilustrated in Osborn 1917 was 13.4 m long, with the missing caudals restored very big, and with 53 of them. In 1988, Paul proposed the tail length of the mount was inmensely exaggerated and reconstructed the missing elements after a juvenile Gorgosaurus, arriving to 37 caudals and re arranging the positions of the known caudals,which yielded a length of 10.7 m with a tail less than half of the body length, which is like the animal is portrayed on films like Jurassic park, giving it a very compact look. Now the finding of more complete specimens like FMNH PR 2081 and BHI 3033 allow us to know that it is imposible that Tyrannosaurus had only 37 caudals and allow us to arrange the few posterior caudals and restore the size of the missing portions correctly, arriving to something in the middle of what the original reconstruction and Paul suggested (almost 12 m in length).

The specimen is exhibited at the saurischian hall in the American Museum of Natural history. It was originally posed in a raised posture reaching 5.35 m tall to the head, dragging it's tail, and with three functional fingers on each hand. The 5-6 m height figures for Tyrannosaurus are based on the skeletons posed in this manner, as in a regular posture it is not posible for the animal to reach this height. Posterior fidings have confirmed the animal only had two functional fingers and not three, althouth it did have a vestigial metacarpal lll. The specimen as mounted still has the exaggerated tail, and is therefore still the longest carnivorous dinosaur mount that includes real remains in the world, even if it is not the largest specimen when one compares the preserved material with the corresponding of the others. The legs in the mounted skeleton are casts of the holotype specimen, and the feet and hands are completely sculpted and not directly based on any Tyrannosaurus rex specimen because they were still unknown when the mount was updated; in fact, the feet are scaled up Allosaurus feet.

References:

H.F. Osborn (1905) TYRANNOSAURUS AND OTHER CRETACEOUS CARNIVOROUS DINOSAURS. Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. Vol XXl.

H.F.Osborn (1912) Crania of Tyrannosaurus and Allosaurus. Memoirs American Museum of Natural History. N.S Vol l Part l.

H.F.Osborn (1917)Article XLIII. SKELETAL ADAPTATIONS OF ORNITHOLESTES, STRUTHIOMIMUS, TYRANNOSAURUS. Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. Vol. XXXV.

Paul GS. 1988b. Predatory dinosaurs of the world: a complete illustrated guide. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Christopher A. Brochu (2003): Osteology of Tyrannosaurus Rex: Insights from a nearly complete Skeleton and High-Resolution Computed Tomographic Analysis of the Skull, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 22:sup4, 1-138

Tyrannosaurus rex the Tyrant king (2008) ISBN: 978-0-253-35087-9. (Larson, Carpenter, Paul, Horner, 2008).

Loading...
Tyrannosaurus rex skeletal diagram (BHI 3033)
Nicknamed Stan, it was excavated by the Black hills institute team in 1992. It is the second specimen that the BHI found, while all the problems with Sue were alredy happening. It is one of the most complete specimens, over 63% complete by bone count. It is the most replicated specimen of the world, casts of it are avaiable for purchase at the BHI site. Over 30 casts of Stan are presents on museums worldwide. It is also one of the most studied ones, appearing in several studies made on Tyrannosaurus, like Bates 2009, Hutchinson 2011, and most recently, Sellers 2017, in which it was used to determine the speed of Tyrannosaurus rex. While no detailed description of the whole skeleton is published (only the skull) photographs of casts of bones are avialable around the web (including the whole torso with scale bars) as well as 3 different scans and several measurements, along with good pictures of the material and the specimen, allow a good skeletal restoration. The specimen is 11.78 m long as measured in Hutchinson 2011 (measurement that I managed to replicate). Stan has several patologies, including a broken neck, which is also short when compared to those of other Tyrannosaurus specimens. It's tail is remarkably complete, being the only specimen preserving caudals beyond Cd35.

Body mass estimates for this specimen appear in Bates 2009, (7.65 t), Sellers 2017 (7.2+-0.2 t), and Hutchinson 2011 (5.9-10.8 t). 

Missing portions were restored using the more complete skeleton of Sue (FMNH PR 2081).

Update 7/12/2017: Rooted the teeth deeper in their sockets, reared down the torso, slimmed down the quantity of soft tissue in certain areas, removed the hyoid, enlarged the scapulae, based on cross scaling with other specimens (BHI 3033 doesn't preserve a scapula).

Update 29/12/2017: Reduced the torso length and size of the last dorsal, reorganized the vertebrae, changed hindlimb posture, reduced soft tissue, added rigorous skeletal showing the preserved elements.

Update 11/08/2018: Added dorsal view constructed after Larson (2008) and Bates et al (2009). Added mass obtained via graphical double integration. The volume matches exactly that obtained in Bates 2009, although the mass is slightly higher due to the different distribution of body density.
Loading...
Mapusaurus roseae skeletal diagram.
Mapusaurus roseae is the most derived Carcharodontosaurid known (and also one of the largest, tied with Giganotosaurus). This is the one that hunted Argentinosaurus, not Giganotosaurus, and apparently it could have been social. It was the apex predator of it's enviroment.

Mapusaurus was found in the Huincul formation, and was named after the rose colored rocks it was found in and after Rose Lewtin who sponsered the expedition. It lived 97-93 million years ago (Late Cretaceous, Cenomanian age) in the Gondwanan continent, in what today is Argentina.

Several bone elements are coherent with at least one Giganotosaurus sized individual, all of the biggest axial skeleton remains match those of Giganotosaurus in size, and a maxilla, a dentary, a quadrate, a fibula, a tibia, a pubic shaft fragment, and a scapular blade fragment and ischium could have belonged to it. The restoration is scaled to the size of this individual, although other smaller Mapusaurus bones were of course used and scaled up to match the size of the bigger remains.

Update 09/08/2018:

Updated the squamosal,dentary, and quadrate.
Redrew the neural arches of the cervical and dorsal vertebrae.
Added the catalog numbers of more specimens used for the scaling of this individual (More than 16 fossils are coherent with an individual of this size, that rivals or exceeds Giganotosaurus holotype size)
Re scaled the tail with the missing bits in Carcharodontosaurines restored after Acrocanthosaurus and Allosaurus.
Asuming the radius is from the same individual as the humerus and the 118 cm femora, the forearm and hand result a 15% larger than in the previous version, and thus the arm is less ridiculously small, although it is still very reduced in size.
Added mass estimation obtained via Graphical double integration, with a top view of the skull based on Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus and with the postcrania cross scaled from Acrocanthosaurus. (Journal will come eventually).
Changed the stance.

Update 16/09/2018

Turns out tibiae were oversized and the wrong size figure for them was listed. Fixed.
Loading...
Shaochilong maortuensis skeletal diagram.
Based on lectotype & paralectotype series (IVPP V.2885.1-IVPP V.2885.7); which were originally asumed to belong to a single individual. It was originally named as a second Chilantaisaurus species (distint from the type, C.tashoukouensis) in Hu 1964; but more modern phylogenetic analysis yield very different placements within the tetanuran tree and the lack of overlap between S.maortuensis and C.tashouikouensis precludes direct comparison.

Missing elements restored after Carcharodontosaurus saharicus, Tyrannotitan chubutensis, Acrocanthosaurus atokensis, and Concavenator corcovatus. Proportions of the limbs and proportional torso depth scaled after Concavenator corcovatus,to better reflect the proportions that a much smaller Carcharodontosaurid than it's closest relatives would have according to it's expected ecology; this way the proportionally smaller skull than in Acrocanthosaurus and Carcharodontosaurines is coherent with more cursorial proportions and larger arms relatively, suitable adaptations to chase faster and more agile smaller prey, for which excesive bitepower and highly hyperthrophied skulls are not a necessity in order to hunt them.

EDIT 06/08/2018: Slightly downsized the limbs and the posterior caudals; minor tweaks to the silhouette.

References:
1) J.W Stoval, W.Langston (1950): Acrocanthosaurus atokensis, a New Genus and Species of Lower Cretaceous Theropoda from Oklahoma. The American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 43, No. 3 (May, 1950), pp. 696-728
2Rodolfo A.Coria, Leonardo Salgado (1995) A new giant carnivorous dinosaur from the Cretaceous of Patagonia. Nature, Vol 377 (September 21 1995).32) J.D. Harris (1998) A reanalysis of Acrocanthosaurus atokensis, its phylogenetic status, and paleobiogeographic implications, based on a new specimen from Texas. New Mexico Museum of Natural History
3) Currie P. J. & Carpenter K. 2000. — A new specimen of Acrocanthosaurus atokensis (Theropoda, Dinosauria) from the Lower Cretaceous Antlers Formation (Lower Cretaceous, Aptian) of Oklahoma, USA. Geodiversitas 22 (2) : 207-246.
4) Eddy DR, Clarke JA (2011) New Information on the Cranial Anatomy of Acrocanthosaurus atokensis and Its Implications for the Phylogeny of Allosauroidea (Dinosauria: Theropoda). PLoS ONE 6(3): e17932. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0…
6)Sereno, P.C., Dutheil, D.B., Iarochene, M., Larsson, H.C.E., Lyon, G.H., Magwene, P.M., Sidor, C.A., Varricchio, D.J. & Wilson, J.A. (1996) Predatory dinosaurs from the Sahara and Late Cretaceous faunal differentiation. Science, 272,
986–991.
7)STEPHEN L. BRUSATTE1, DANIEL J. CHURE, ROGER B. J. BENSON & XING XU (2010):The osteology of Shaochilong maortuensis, a carcharodontosaurid (Dinosauria:Theropoda) from the Late Cretaceous of Asia. Zootaxa 2334: 1–46
8)E. Stromer 1931 II. Vertebrate remains from the Baharîje Beds (lowermost Cenomanian). 10. A skeletal remain of Carcharodontosaurus nov. gen. 
9)
J.I Canale,F.E Novas & D.Pol (2014): Osteology and phylogenetic relationships of Tyrannotitan chubutensis Novas, de Valais, Vickers-Rich and Rich, 2005 (Theropoda: Carcharodontosauridae) from the Lower Cretaceous of Patagonia, Argentina, Historical Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology.

Loading...
Galeamopus pabsti SMA 0011 skeletal restoration.
The skeletal restoration of the holotype of Galeamopus pabsti (SMA 0011). It includes most material of all regions of the body but the tail and sacrum.Histology shows that the type specimen SMA 0011 is sexually mature, although neurocentral closure was not completed at the time of death, therefore the animal would have grown larger it had lived longer, which makes sense considering the larger size that the sister species could archieve. 
Galeamopus is found in the Scott-Howe quarry of the Morrison formation.

The tail here is reconstructed up to caudal 35 using two Diplodocus hallorum specimens, scaled to the size of SMA 0011 using overlapping material (pelvic girdle, mid and posterior dorsal vertebrae). The rest of the tail (up to caudal 82), is reconstructed after Apatosaurus excelsus  specimen CM 3378; which preserves the practical totallity of the tail.

All the specimens of Galeamopus were previously referred to the pre-existing genus Diplodocus, in fact the skull mounted with CM 84 is now referred to G.hayi, the larger cousin of G.pabsti, that still awaits a detailed description. The genus Galeamopus was erected in Tschopp ,Mateus&Benson 2015 (A specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae), after discovering and naming a number of autapomorphies when compared to Diplodocus. The second species, G.pabsti was named since it has several differences from the also rather complete holotype of G.hayi.

The holotype specimen SMA 0011 is housed at Sauriermuseum Aathal, Switzerland. The specimen itself is currently on display as a mounted skeleton.

References:

Osborn HF. 1899. A skeleton of Diplodocus. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History 5:191–214.

Gilmore CW. 1936. Osteology of Apatosaurus: with special reference to specimens in the Carnegie Museum. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 11:175–300.

Gillette DD. 1991. Seismosaurus halli, gen et sp. nov., a new sauropod dinosaur from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic/Lower Cretaceous) of New Mexico, USA. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 11:417–433 DOI 10.1080/02724634.1991.10011413.

Herne MC, Lucas SG. 2006. Seismosaurus hallorum: osteological reconstruction fromthe holotype. Bulletin of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science 36:139–148.

Tschopp and Mateus (2017), Osteology of Galeamopus pabsti sp. nov. (Sauropoda: Diplodocidae), with implications for neurocentral closure timing, and the cervico-dorsal transition in diplodocids. PeerJ 5:e3179; DOI 10.7717/peerj.3179

Tschopp et al. (2015), A specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sauropoda). PeerJ 3:e857; DOI 10.7717/peerj.857
Loading...
Tyrannosaurus rex ontogeny.
Tyrannosaurus rex grew from a hatchling the size of a domestic cat to masses comparable to those of large african elephants in less than 20 years; going through very intense allometry in it's body proportions. For example the animal got progressively more robust and massively built as it aged, the ribcage got more rotund, the hindlimbs went from cursorial (slender, with very long metatarsals and tibiotarsus compared to the femora)to more graviportal (with very robust,hypertrophied femora larger than the tibiae, and robust metatarsals).

The head scaled with possitive allometry, becoming very hyperthrophied, specially in width and depth, adapted to house large muscles to power the mandibles, archieving the greatest biteforces than have been calculated for a land animal (Between 17000 and 57000 N in a posterior tooth). The teeth grew with possitive allometry too, and got reduced in number as the animal aged; the adults have the larger dental pieces known in any terrestrial animal. Young juveniles had up to 17 dentary teeth, which got reduced to 14 at the age of 11 (based on Jane) to 12/13 in the adult specimens.

It's great dimensions were archieved by a very accelerated ontogeny in a brief ammount of time ; specially during adolescence, rather than by prolongated growth. It reached skeletal maturity in aproximately two decades and lived up to 30 or more years old (Erickson 2004, Hutchinson 2011, this study). Ages superior to 28 years old shown for Sue here have been suggested for newly found specimens, like Trix.

Chomper is very incomplete; and the body proportions are mostly infered after similarly aged Tarbosaurus juveniles and Jane. The Jordan theropod (Stygivenator molnari) and Dinotyrannus megagracilis (Originally Albertosaurus megagracilis) types were originally thought to represent a dwarf Tyrannosaurid and an Albertosaurine taxon respectively, but were referred to Tyrannosaurus by Carr (2004).  Nanotyrannus lacensis type was suggested to be first an inmature Albertosaurus species and later on a genus of dwarf Tyrannosaurid, but Carr (1999) argued that the skull fitted well within the growth series expected for Tyrannosaurus rex, based on that of other Tyrannosaurids, and that it shared derived characters that aren't ontogenically variable with the adults. Jane is another specimen that shows similar proportions in the skull to "Nanotyrannus" type, but an analysis of the histology of it's femoral cross sections show that it is a very inmature, juvenile animal (Erickson 2004), and like Nanotyrannus, it shares derived characters that are not ongotenically variable with adult Tyrannosaurus.

Skeletal restoration of BMRP 2002.4.1 by :iconscotthartman:

References:
H.F. Osborn (1905) TYRANNOSAURUS AND OTHER CRETACEOUS CARNIVOROUS DINOSAURS. Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. Vol XXl.

H.F.Osborn (1912) Crania of Tyrannosaurus and Allosaurus. Memoirs American Museum of Natural History. N.S Vol l Part l.

H.F.Osborn (1917)Article XLIII. SKELETAL ADAPTATIONS OF ORNITHOLESTES, STRUTHIOMIMUS, TYRANNOSAURUS. Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. Vol. XXXV.

R.E.Molnar (1980) AN ALBERTOSAUR FROM THE HELL CREEK FORMATION OF MONTANA. Journal of Paleontology, v. 54, no. 1, p. 102-108, 7 text-figs., January 1980.

Paul GS. 1988b. Predatory dinosaurs of the world: a complete illustrated guide. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Olshevsky G, Ford TL. 1995. The origin and evolution of the Tyrannosaurids, Part 1. Dino-Frontline 9: 92–119.

T.D.Carr (1999): Craniofacial Ontogeny in Tyrannosauridae (Dinosauria, Coelurosauria). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Sep. 14, 1999), pp. 497-520

Christopher A. Brochu (2003): Osteology of Tyrannosaurus Rex: Insights from a nearly complete Skeleton and High-Resolution Computed Tomographic Analysis of the Skull, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 22:sup4, 1-138

T.D.Carr, T.E.Williamson (2004): Diversity of late Maastrichtian Tyrannosauridae (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from western North America. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2004, 142, 479–523. 

G. M. Erickson (2004) "Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs" Nature 430, 772 (2004).

G.M.Erickson, Philip J. Currie,Brian D. Inouye, Alice A. Winn (2006) "Tyrannosaur Life Tables: An Example of Nonavian Dinosaur Population Biology" Science 313, 213 (2006).

Tyrannosaurus rex the Tyrant king (2008) ISBN: 978-0-253-35087-9. (Larson, Carpenter, Paul, Horner, 2008)

Bates KT, Manning PL, Hodgetts D, Sellers WI (2009) Estimating Mass Properties of Dinosaurs Using Laser Imaging and 3D Computer Modelling. PLoS ONE4(2): e4532. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0….

J.R Hutchinson , K.T Bates , J.Molnar , V. Allen , P.J Makovicky. (2011) A Computational Analysis of Limb and Body Dimensions in Tyrannosaurus rex with Implications for Locomotion, Ontogeny, and Growth. PLoS ONE 6(10): e26037.
Loading...
Zhuchengtyrannus magnus skeletal diagram.
References:
D.W.E.Hone (2011)"A new, large tyrannosaurine theropod from the Upper Cretaceous of China" Cretaceous Research 32 (2011).
Maleev, Evgeny A. (1955). «Giant carnivorous dinosaurs of Mongolia». Doklady, Academy of Sciences USSR 104(4): 634-637.
Rozhdestvensky, Anatoly K. (1965). «Growth changes in Asian dinosaurs and some problems of their taxonomy». Paleontological Journal 3: 95-109.
Maleev, Evgeny A. (1974). «Gigantic carnosaurs of the family Tyrannosauridae». The Joint Soviet-Mongolian Paleontological Expedition Transactions 1: 132-191.
Carpenter, Ken. (1992). «Tyrannosaurids (Dinosauria) of Asia and North America». En Mateer, Niall J.; and Chen Peiji (eds.). Aspects of Nonmarine Cretaceous Geology. Beijing: China Ocean Press. pp. 250-268. 
J.H.Hurum, K.Sabath (2003)Giant theropod dinosaurs from Asia and North America: Skulls of Tarbosaurus bataar and Tyrannosaurus rex compared.
Loading...
Tarbosaurus bataar adults skeletal diagrams
Tarbosaurus bataar was a species of very large Tyrannosaurid theropod dinosaur that was originally described as a species of the pre existing genus Tyrannosaurus, of which it is sister taxon. It lived in what today is Mongolia (Nemegt formation) , at the late Cretaceous period (Maastrichtian epoch), 68 myA. After that several other Nemegt Tyrannosaurid specimens were described and given their own generic names; but were later discovered to be growth stages of the same taxon. 

Theese diagrams are mostly based on the specimen PIN 551-2, which was one of theese specimens that was originally described as it's own genus; Tarbosaurus efremovi (Maleev 1955b). It consists of a mostly complete specimen leaving aside the posterior caudal vertebrae; although not all of it's bones are ilustrated in Maleev 1974; thus other specimens had to be used to portray the look of the bones.In the case of ZPAL MgD 107/2, ilustrations of the skull and the limb bones were used in order to adapt the skeleton to it's appereance; even if most of the material is still undescribed. It is scaled to the measurements reported in the scientific literature; as the 122 cm skull, the 112 cm femora, and the 28.5 cm humerus.

The skull of PIN 551-3 is usually attributted to PIN 551-2 by some authors but this is not correct as PIN 551-2 preserves it's own skull material (as reflected in Maleev 1974) that suggest a smaller skull than PIN 551-3, mainly going by the size of the lower jaw; which is described and ilustrated, and therefore the animal ends up big headed but not as big headed as in other restorations like that of Paul. This is corroborated by the proportions that ZPAL MgD 107/2 seems to have, going by the measurements that are reported in the literature and photographs of the specimen.

PIN 551-2 doesn't represent the maximum size the taxon can archieve; but it was chosen as a base for most of the bones because of it being the best documented well preserved specimen in the literature. There are reports of remains between a 15% and a 24% larger than the corresponding bones in PIN 551-2, like those of the original Tyrannosaurus bataar holotype (PIN 551-1) or ZPAL MgD 107/2, between others, meaning the taxon could archieve between 10-11 meters in length. As ilustrated here; ZPAL MgD 107/2 would reach just about 10 m, and PIN 551-1 would be the largest specimen described so far according to the impressive size of the cranial material, the largest yet reported of the species.

Tarbosaurus is completely known by a lot of specimens (>30) that include cranial and postcranial material of various ontogenic stages; from very young to adult. (Raptorex kriengsteni ,Shanshanosaurus hyoyanensis, Gorgosaurus novojilovi, Gorgosaurus lancinator, and Tarbosaurus efremovi are all T.bataar synonims).

The original designation; Tyrannosaurus bataar; is defended as more accurate by several experts; like Thomas Carr or Kenneth Carpenter. Tarbosaurus bataar was erected as a combination of the original designation and the more recent (and synonimous) taxon Tarbosaurus efremovi; as Rozhdestvensky (1965) considered the differences between the two taxa to justify the generic separation.

References:
Maleev, Evgeny A. (1955). «Giant carnivorous dinosaurs of Mongolia». Doklady, Academy of Sciences USSR 104(4): 634-637.
Rozhdestvensky, Anatoly K. (1965). «Growth changes in Asian dinosaurs and some problems of their taxonomy». Paleontological Journal 3: 95-109.
Maleev, Evgeny A. (1974). «Gigantic carnosaurs of the family Tyrannosauridae». The Joint Soviet-Mongolian Paleontological Expedition Transactions 1: 132-191.
Carpenter, Ken. (1992). «Tyrannosaurids (Dinosauria) of Asia and North America». En Mateer, Niall J.; and Chen Peiji (eds.). Aspects of Nonmarine Cretaceous Geology. Beijing: China Ocean Press. pp. 250-268. 
J.H.Hurum, K.Sabath (2003)Giant theropod dinosaurs from Asia and North America: Skulls of Tarbosaurus bataar and Tyrannosaurus rex compared.
Loading...
Giganotosaurus carolinii skeletal diagram.
The holotype of Giganotosaurus , Mucpv Ch1. Originally described by Coria and Salgado in 1995. It's colosal size, comparable to Tyrannosaurus Rex, captivated a massive amount of attention. It was the first theropod ever to rival the size of Tyrannosaurus, and also the first super giant theropod discovered in the southern hemispher
Only another specimen is known, a fragmentary dentary catalogued as Mucpv 95.

Giganotosaurus is today classified as a Gondwanan Carcharodontosaurid, and as such is included in the subfamily Carcharodontosaurinae with Carcharodontosaurus, Tyrannotitan, and Mapusaurus. Tyrannotitan, Giganotosaurus and Mapusarusus also conform the tribe Giganotosaurini, with Tyrannotitan being the most basal member of the tribe. Giganotosaurus lived in what today is Argentina, between 100 and 97 million years ago (Cenomanian period, late cretaceous)

12/23/2016: Changed the posture, to allow better visibility and solve some aesthetic concerns. Revised the size of the metatarsals, and the skull length.

01/ 23/ 2017: Corrected and augmented the size of the ilium.
-Lengthened the scapula and restored the coracoid correctly.
-Shortened the skull.
-Shortened the pubis.
-Corrected the length values.

MK3 changes 22/06/2018:

-Redrew the whole skull after discovering an error in the scalebar of the original publication.
-Redrew the dorsal series.
-Redrew the dorsal ribs.
-Redid the arms after Tyrannotitan and Acrocanthosaurus.
-Redrew the ischion.
-Rearragned and redrew most of the tail based on Acrocanthosaurus.
-Redid the feet after Acrocanthosaurus and Tyrannotitan.
-Changed the stance.
-Updated rigorous skeletal.
Loading...
Tarbosaurus bataar PIN 551-2 skeletal diagram.
Tarbosaurus bataar was a species of very large Tyrannosaurid theropod dinosaur that was originally described as a species of the pre existing genus Tyrannosaurus, of which it is sister taxon. It lived in what today is Mongolia (Nemegt formation) , at the late Cretaceous period (Maastrichtian epoch), 68 myA. After that several other Nemegt Tyrannosaurid specimens were described and given their own generic names; but were later discovered to be growth stages of the same taxon.

This diagram is mostly based on the specimen PIN 551-2, which was one of theese specimens that was originally described as it's own genus; Tarbosaurus efremovi (Maleev 1955b). It consists of a mostly complete specimen leaving aside the posterior caudal vertebrae; although not all of it's bones are ilustrated in Maleev 1974; thus other specimens had to be used to portray the look of the bones.

The skull of PIN 551-3 is usually attributted to PIN 551-2 by some authors but this is not correct as PIN 551-2 preserves it's own skull material (as reflected in Maleev 1974) that suggest a proportionally smaller skull than PIN 551-3, mainly going by the size of the lower jaw; which is described and ilustrated, and therefore the animal ends up big headed but not as big headed as in other restorations like that of Paul.

PIN 551-2 doesn't represent the maximum size the taxon can archieve; but it was chosen because of it being the best documented well preserved specimen in the literature. There are reports of remains between a 15% and a 24% larger than the corresponding bones in PIN 551-2, like those of the original Tyrannosaurus bataar holotype (PIN 551-1) or ZPAL MgD 107/2, between others, meaning the taxon could archieve between 10-11 meters in length.

References:
Maleev, Evgeny A. (1955). «Giant carnivorous dinosaurs of Mongolia». Doklady, Academy of Sciences USSR 104(4): 634-637.
Rozhdestvensky, Anatoly K. (1965). «Growth changes in Asian dinosaurs and some problems of their taxonomy». Paleontological Journal 3: 95-109.
Maleev, Evgeny A. (1974). «Gigantic carnosaurs of the family Tyrannosauridae». The Joint Soviet-Mongolian Paleontological Expedition Transactions 1: 132-191.
Carpenter, Ken. (1992). «Tyrannosaurids (Dinosauria) of Asia and North America». En Mateer, Niall J.; and Chen Peiji (eds.). Aspects of Nonmarine Cretaceous Geology. Beijing: China Ocean Press. pp. 250-268. 
J.H.Hurum, K.Sabath (2003)Giant theropod dinosaurs from Asia and North America: Skulls of Tarbosaurus bataar and Tyrannosaurus rex compared.
Loading...
Tarbosaurus bataar PIN 551-1 skull restoration.
The first huge asian Tyrannosaurid reported in the literature known by substantial remains; and holotype of Tyrannosaurus bataar. It is the largest skull asignable to Tarbosaurus bataar reported in the literature so far. The length of the skull to the occipital condyle is 2 cm longer than in the original description due to the size of the restored premaxilla (based on ZPAL MgD 1/4); although the premaxilla restored after PIN 551-3 got a even longer snout proportionally. The skull is interestingly proportionally low and has a very long rostrum in proportion to other T.bataar skulls; like those mentioned before and that of ZPAL MgD 107/2. Tarbosaurus is completely known by a lot of specimens (>30) that include cranial and postcranial material of various ontogenic stages; from very young to adult. (Raptorex kriengsteni ,Shanshanosaurus hyoyanensis, Gorgosaurus novojilovi, Gorgosaurus lancinator, and Tarbosaurus efremovi are all T.bataar synonims).

The original designation; Tyrannosaurus bataar; is defended as more accurate by several experts; like Thomas Carr or Kenneth Carpenter. Tarbosaurus bataar was erected as a combination of the original designation and the more recent (and synonimous) taxon Tarbosaurus efremovi; as Rozhdestvensky (1965) considered the differences between the two taxa to justify the generic separation.

References:
Maleev, Evgeny A. (1955). «Giant carnivorous dinosaurs of Mongolia». Doklady, Academy of Sciences USSR 104(4): 634-637.
Rozhdestvensky, Anatoly K. (1965). «Growth changes in Asian dinosaurs and some problems of their taxonomy». Paleontological Journal 3: 95-109.
Maleev, Evgeny A. (1974). «Gigantic carnosaurs of the family Tyrannosauridae». The Joint Soviet-Mongolian Paleontological Expedition Transactions 1: 132-191.
Carpenter, Ken. (1992). «Tyrannosaurids (Dinosauria) of Asia and North America». En Mateer, Niall J.; and Chen Peiji (eds.). Aspects of Nonmarine Cretaceous Geology. Beijing: China Ocean Press. pp. 250-268. 
J.H.Hurum, K.Sabath (2003)Giant theropod dinosaurs from Asia and North America: Skulls of Tarbosaurus bataar and Tyrannosaurus rex compared.
Loading...

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconthelizard721:
TheLizard721 Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2019  New Deviant Hobbyist General Artist
Hey Franoys, What do you know about Rajasaurus Namardensis because not a lot of sources tell me about it. All I know is that it was around 2.7-3 meters tall, 3-4 tons and was a close relative of Majungasaurus'. And i also know that it lived 65 millions years ago in the Indian subcontinent. If there is anything that you know that I don''t know it would be very helpful to me cause Im interested in this dinosaur.
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2019
Rajasaurus probably wasn't that tall and heavy actually, as it was about 6.6 meters long.
Reply
:icontarbano:
tarbano Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2019
Hey Franoys I was going to do a field trip for some kids at the museum soon and we have a casting of a sub-adult Tarbosaurus and I was wondering if you could point me at some sources for specimens of the animal. Ours is roughly 6 meters long and I was curious what specimen(s) it might be cast from and for the general sizes for the adult specimens as I know they range in size quite a bit.
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2019  Student Digital Artist
Hi; Tarbosaurus specimens in general are poorly documented, keep in mind over 30 of them exist (Hurum and Sabath estimated that the number could potentially be tripled) but only a few have been partially described.

A list of some of them with very basic information exists in Hurum & Sabath 2003 (but you will only see roughly which parts of the skeleton are preserved in each individual and a vague description on their size in some cases), and Maleev 1974 described what at the time were considered different species of Tyrannosaurid, but are now considered Tarbosaurus synonims representing different ontogenic stages. From the specimens described in Maleev 1974, a body length of roughly 6 m seems to be just in between of "Gorgosaurus novojilovi" (PIN 552-2) and "Gorgosaurus lancinator" (PIN 553-1). Therefore it could be many specimens considering the amount that have been uncovered (and very likely a undescribed one), maybe if you told me what your local museum is or provided images of the specimen I would be able to help better but I'm not sure.

The largest femur reported so far is 112 cm, belonging to ZPAL MgD 107/2, the specimen is not properly described but scaling from other complete skeletons like PIN 551-2 gets you a body length of 10 m. The largest individual however seems to be known by skull remains ( PIN 551-1, the holotype of the taxon ) which has a longer skull tan that of ZPAL MgD 107/2 when reconstructed,and scaling from the more complete and better described specimens yielded a body length of 10.6 m for me. The body mass according to GDI analysis is 4.9 t (you can round it to 5 without problem). You can see the restorations of the larger specimens here: Tarbosaurus bataar adults skeletal diagrams .

Here are the links to the publications I mentioned:

Hurum & Sabbath 2003: www.app.pan.pl/archive/publish…
Maleev 1974 (original): drive.google.com/open?id=1ILuj…
Maleev 1974 (translated to english,without figures): drive.google.com/open?id=1GeBg…
Reply
:icontarbano:
tarbano Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2019
Using phone, will reply soon. The cast is housed at the Museum of Dinosaurs and Ancient Cultures in Cocoa Beach, Florida, USA. Though it used to travel around as most of the museum pieces once we're traveling exhibits the owner recalled all back home. Here is an image, though is suspect it's a chimera cast.

www.thefossilforum.com/uploads…
Reply
Add a Comment: