Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
About Digital Art / Professional Harry WilsonMale/Australia Recent Activity
Deviant for 9 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 324 Deviations 4,239 Comments 123,696 Pageviews
×

Newest Deviations

Shastasaurus sikanniensis size by Harry-the-Fox Shastasaurus sikanniensis size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 101 19 Leedsichthys problematicus size by Harry-the-Fox Leedsichthys problematicus size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 73 25 Zygolophodon borsoni Size by Harry-the-Fox Zygolophodon borsoni Size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 65 35 Basilosaurus Size by Harry-the-Fox Basilosaurus Size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 162 30 Tylosaurus proriger Size by Harry-the-Fox Tylosaurus proriger Size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 88 21 My NEW Megalodon by Harry-the-Fox My NEW Megalodon :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 176 41 Deinonychus size by Harry-the-Fox Deinonychus size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 75 36 Homotherium serum size by Harry-the-Fox Homotherium serum size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 27 5 Giant Squid and Colossal Squid Size by Harry-the-Fox Giant Squid and Colossal Squid Size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 130 26 The Blue Whale really IS the biggest animal by Harry-the-Fox The Blue Whale really IS the biggest animal :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 77 59 Colossal Squid Size by Harry-the-Fox Colossal Squid Size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 96 29 Megafauna 3 land animal preview by Harry-the-Fox Megafauna 3 land animal preview :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 156 64 Megafauna Size- Marine preview by Harry-the-Fox Megafauna Size- Marine preview :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 363 100 Great White Shark- before and after by Harry-the-Fox Great White Shark- before and after :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 34 7 Arsinoitherium Size by Harry-the-Fox Arsinoitherium Size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 62 17 Sperm Whale Size by Harry-the-Fox Sperm Whale Size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 53 48

Favourites

getImage by dgimandre getImage :icondgimandre:dgimandre 3 0 The Hobgobbler by BJPentecost The Hobgobbler :iconbjpentecost:BJPentecost 174 37 Large bony fish from the Maastricht formation by paleosir Large bony fish from the Maastricht formation :iconpaleosir:paleosir 62 4 Some giant amphibians by paleosir Some giant amphibians :iconpaleosir:paleosir 175 54 Mosbach Lion by SameerPrehistorica Mosbach Lion :iconsameerprehistorica:SameerPrehistorica 44 2 African Lion vs Siberian Tiger by SameerPrehistorica African Lion vs Siberian Tiger :iconsameerprehistorica:SameerPrehistorica 73 24 Cerberus by Gorrem Cerberus :icongorrem:Gorrem 4,565 198 Size of some selected Ornithomimosaurs by Kana-hebi Size of some selected Ornithomimosaurs :iconkana-hebi:Kana-hebi 263 32 Portuguese Sharks by omnicogni Portuguese Sharks :iconomnicogni:omnicogni 167 18 Biggest White Sharks by JES86 Biggest White Sharks :iconjes86:JES86 8 1 Suchomimus tenerensis skeletal reconstruction. by Franoys Suchomimus tenerensis skeletal reconstruction. :iconfranoys:Franoys 145 42 Giant Squid by JES86 Giant Squid :iconjes86:JES86 3 0 Kronosaurus by arvalis Kronosaurus :iconarvalis:arvalis 2,971 118 Argentinosaurus huinculensis schematic. by randomdinos Argentinosaurus huinculensis schematic. :iconrandomdinos:randomdinos 143 104 Prehistoric megafaunal mammals by Dragonthunders Prehistoric megafaunal mammals :icondragonthunders:Dragonthunders 203 46 Prehistoric megafaunal mammals 3 by Dragonthunders Prehistoric megafaunal mammals 3 :icondragonthunders:Dragonthunders 174 8

Groups

deviantID

Harry-the-Fox's Profile Picture
Harry-the-Fox
Harry Wilson
Artist | Professional | Digital Art
Australia
Super-fast FAQ.

1-
Are you a Metalhead? YES! A Furry? NO! The ears are a joke.

2-
How do you work?
Painting in layers with photoshop and Krita. Over the recent years, I've based Palaeontological work carefully on scientific studies and reputable skeleton reconstructions (eg Scott Hartman), and using a custom ruler tool scaled to meters and measured against individual bones or segments. Also of course, lots of scientific articles, often directly testing for size. My older Palaeo art is just eyeballed (with surprising precision I am proud to say) but lacking scientific research.

3
I noticed something incorrect- mind if I let you know?
Please do! That said, the source you use makes a world of difference.. like the difference between Siverson getting upset I wasn't convinced his top-secret 20 meter Megalodon skeleton existed, all the way up to Ovleg convincing me to make a new 18m Megalodon size chart based on his scientific study (Leder, Perez and Badaut, 2016).

4
Image usage? Can I link-to/use your images?
Feel free to ask- my answer will probably be "yes"!
I've actually had my images published in books by Penguin, and taken commissions for Ken Derby in the past too (and this is back when I was strapped for time).
Interests

Activity


Shastasaurus sikanniensis size
Surprise!
Before we begin, I should note that recently a jawbone of an even LARGER ichthyosaur was discovered in the UK. However, being just a jaw, it's hard to say what it would have looked like.

Now, this is going to veer on the more controversial side, as there are a LOT of conflicting ideas of how this animal was shaped- so I'll jump straight into my rationale for reconstructing this thing.


As we know, there is a huge debate over what, exactly S. sikanniensis is even supposed to be; whether the "s" is for Shonisaurus, or Shastasaurus; two related, but anatomically very dissimilar animals.

Which brings me to the next point- anatomy. Fortunately, Shastasaurus sikanniensis is known from an impressively complete skeleton, rather than a few meagre fragments, so reconstructing this thing wasn't a complete stab in the dark.
Well, sort of. Most of the visuals of this animal were tourist photos taken at obnoxiously bad angles, and after some exhaustive searching for images of the skeletal anatomy, I managed to find a few sources.
-A very small thumbnail of the top of the animal I managed to swipe from the Nicholls and Manabe study into this animal via google image search.
-A series of skeletal reconstructions at various angles by David Peters (for those who don't know who he is, he does excellent skeletals, but is known to make some very, very, very bold, abstract and outspoken top-down anatomical assumptions)
-Some well preserved  skeletons of OTHER species of Shastasaurus, shown at various angles.
-Scott Hartman's Shonisaurus skeletal, which looks very dissimilar to any of the Shastasaurus skeletons, but still good as they're supposedly close relatives and Scott knows his anatomy.

So, what was I to do?

Simple- I was going to compare the top-view skeletals and see a pattern- and one stands out clearly- using Nicholls and Manabe as the 'true' model to build from.
While Shonisaurus appears to have a short, rigid neck and a dorsal-ventral 'tall' thorax; S. sikanniensis along with all of the Shastasaurus species have a long bendy neck, elongated bendy body with a laterally-protruding thorax- which reflected in other Ichthyosaurs, suggests it was an elongated, snaky animal rather than a dense, porpoise-shaped creature. All of the specimens were basically the same and extremely difficult to tell apart. Therefore, I could entertain the assumption that this animal was in fact a Shastasaurus. It is interesting to note that David Peters' reconstruction looks very similar to the Nicholls and Manabe one- merely the latter (which I erred to most) had a much wider skull, and was actually set to a much larger scale than Peters version. Otherwise, I felt confident that Peters' skeletal reconstruction was a reliable enough substitute for most of the missing pieces; which I quickly realized he was filling in with features of other Shastasauruses, which.... well.... I was going to do anyway.
Two noticeable departures from the 'popular' depiction of S. sikanniensis were the elongated snout- an unusual feature of Shastasauruses, but due to S. sikanniensis' skull structure tapering suddenly forward before the front of the skull was destroyed by time shows clear signs of an elongated nose (unless the skull were to suddenly taper inwards... which is unlikely. Peters clearly made the same assumption. Secondly, Peters inferred the flippers (particularly the front flippers) were tiny. However, I disagree; the sheer brawn of the humerus, radius and ulna could only mean one thing, as far as the typical ichthyosaur anatomy appears to be concerned.... giant pointy flippers.

So all that remained was the soft-tissue anatomy.
Peters inferred this animal would have a slim neck, an elongated tail and a tiny fluke. But given literally every ichthyosaur fossil showing clues to soft-tissue anatomy show a fatty creature with a sleek, projectile-shaped body and a massive sharklike tailfin, I opted for that, noting the tiny bones at the tip of the tail seem to consistently curve sharply downwards.
Skin colour, I opted for something a little darker (as the only known ichthyosaur skin appears to be jet-black) but diffused and slightly different (to infer separate species, and of course size).

Naturally, these changes has resulted in an animal whose 'reduced' tail length (along a horizontal plane) gives it a length of 19 meters (from snout to the tailfluke) and 19.5 meters to the very tips of the tailfins.
Loading...
To celebrate completing one of the most impossible-ish-to-complete creatures on the planet (Leedsichthys problematicus) I decided to update my Megalodon to look a little nicer (by mixing some of the smoother old details of the "old" version back into the "new version".

This leaves only 3 massive marine predators to depict that will be added to the complete Megafauna Mk 3 chart, with some notes in case anyone was wondering.

1- The Antarctic Type A Killer Whale
The biggest and most powerful species by far (but marginally bigger than other Antarctic species), apparently the largest specimen grew over 9 meters long, making it effectively larger than most of the biggest mesozoic super-predators.

2- Pliosaurus.
My initial research suggests that P. macromerus grew WAY larger than my depicted Kronosaurus (based on jaw length), but my main focus is to try to figure out the exact anatomy, and figuring out if P. funkei still grew larger or not.
Also note that I've located a document that allegedly cites a specimen (likely Kronosaurus) that is estimated to be substantially larger still- so I will research this too- if it proves accurate I may end up up-scaling Kronosaurus to match the proportions.

3- Shastasaurus sikanniensis
Looking at the skeleton, it's becoming unavoidably clear that S.sikanniensis looks a lot like other Shastasaurus species, but NOT like its somewhat close relative Shonisaurus popularis, as widely suggested in the media.
Fortunately, as enough skeletal information exists among this broad group, it should be fairly simple in depicting it, though a LOT of research is required to check if it's all accurate.

On top of this, I'm re-doing

Dunkleosteus.
I've decided to take a shot at checking wider Placoderm anatomy to get the best form a massive-sized Placoderm would likely have.... and also have scaled to some fragmentary remains I'm convinced would retain a consistent and reliable measure....
And if my calculations are correct, this animal may have grown over 9 METERS LONG!!!

-Mosasaurus lemonnieri
(courtesy of Paleosir for providing excellent photographic and diagramatic visuals of what is a largely intact specimen; which furthermore, would be of great value to informing my M hoffmannii depiction.

And many others!
  • Listening to: Ambient
  • Reading: Books
  • Watching: NA
  • Playing: NA
  • Eating: Food.
  • Drinking: various teas
My NEW Megalodon
It's HERE!
By very popular demand, I've updated the lazily-assembled old version modelled losely on Great White Sharks, and instead started a new version from scratch.
(note, I will gradually replace the other old versions I've illustrated with this one too- including the comparison with Livyatan).

Firstly, I built it from the Gottfried reconstructions, particularly around the jaw; it's pretty clear that jaw density varies dramatically between Mackerel sharks (eg Great whites and Makos) according to the density of the teeth- and Megalodon would have been no exception.
Thus, my old version was far too gracile and needed to be changed, and Gottfried's jaws and corresponding changes to anatomy (eg around the gills) certainly made more sense, which is exactly what I did here.

However, I have made quite a few changes from Gottfried's reconstruction that conforms more closely to typical shark anatomy.
1- The eyes are positioned lower, as living shark jaws tend to have notches in them to fit around the eye sockets, always positioned lower on the face. Certainly not a coincidence, thus I adjusted the skull to have the same.
2- I made the nose longer, pointier and less blunt- considering how dependent sharks are on the sensory organs around and within their noses, and how much streamlining they provided, a larger shark would need them more than ever and would be unlikely to "de-evolve" it.
3- I made the tailfin slightly broader to infer a dependence shifted slightly further away from raw exertion of energy.

4- Most importantly, I immediately spotted something wrong with the reconstructions- the hind quarters (behind the pectoral fin) were massively shortened.
Given that if I scaled Gottfried's version to my old Great White images, the rough proportional differences between the maximum girth of the animal (around the mid-section) and the rough position and size of the pectoral fins and the jaws (and distance from each other) becomes rather small; meaning the REAL difference between them (on the forequarters) is merely that Megalodon has a thicker, denser head (to fit the jaws)- and the transition of girth from the midsection to the tip of the nose is more gradual and curved- less like a missile; more like a fat football. The same was likely true for the shape behind the pectoral fins, to balance the weight.
Given that the Leder, Perez and Badaut scaling method (summed crown width/body-length ratio) is conformed to fairly accurately by living Mackerel sharks, and given the need to have a streamlined efficient swimming form, larger powerful tail, digestive system, and body weight balanced at roughly the cross section below the dorsal fin would all be far more likely in life, my conclusion was simply that Gottfried simply underestimated the posterior, and simply scaled it up to match the estimated 18m length.
Curiously, all these touches combine result in this body largely conforming to a more typical mackerel shark anatomical layout, merely with a slightly shorter body and bigger tail and thicker body.

The funny part about this reconstruction- all of this took about an hour (but the texture required me coming back multiple times to fix it).
The texture is based on a broader selection of mackerel sharks (particularly the Salmon shark), with a deliberately diffuse, speckled pattern to infer a hypothetical trend on mega-sized marine life; the countershading becomes gradually less pronounced and dispersed.
Loading...
Leedsichthys problematicus size
Finally cracked this one.
It was thanks to two very detailed studies that this work was possible (cited on the image, as well as an excellent series of scaled silhuettes by lythronax-argestes)

Normally I run through a bit of trivia, and then design stages- but honestly they're so intertwined I don't know where to begin.

Firstly, it's fairly clear this animal is smaller than the very largest Megalodon after all, mainly due to Megalodon having a larger girth and being slightly long.... but that's it, and the margin of difference isn't too apparent from looking at these animals side-by-side alone.

Otherwise, I'll need to go into detail about some design decisions, as a lot of it actually is a major departure from Lythronax's silhuettes, and drawn from the other sources.

The overall elongated shape is likely to be correct, especially as a study suggested it was an efficient form for both speed and respiration. I certainly DID check against the actual models of Pachycormid relatives, and although the most cited one for calculating mass was a rather short and broad fish, plenty of relatives did appear to be elongated... but really, after umming and ahh-ing for so long, I decided to bite the bullet and assume the endorsement of the recent study meant the popularized elongated shape was largely correct anyway. I also erred to retaining the shape of the dorsal and anal fins, and presuming the absence of pelvic fins, as I lacked sufficient stand-alone material that made me suspect they were wrong (these vary a LOT in Pachycormids). I made the base of the tailfin much thicker, as the model Pachycormids matched body-width/tailfin-height proportions with a thicker tail. Given that it was likely a very vast swimmer, it would need a thick, powerful tail.

My biggest departure of the anatomy lies in the head. With very few original pieces of the skull and much inferred from relatives, I erred to the latter to assume it had a substantially larger head and mouth, with the pectoral fins pushed further backwards, so I took the Bonnerichthys skull reconstruction and used it as a rough scale, with a Rhinconicthys as a backup reference to double-check against- though there were majorly obvious limits with that. This in part was due to the sheer size of the gill-basket making the smaller head depictions of the past clearly impossible, especially when comparing this supposed anatomy to Bonnerichthys.
Both of these Pachycormids, appeared to have MASSIVE hyomandibular bones; while those within Leedsichthys were extremely small for their size. These raised two likely possibilities- the first was it had a tiny head after all. The second, after closer inspection, made a lot more sense- the Hyomandibula appears to connect some bones near the 'cheek' part of the jaw to the eyes; and as a result, Leedsichthys could have still had a massive mouth, but its eyes were positioned further back towards the cheek. Weighing this physical departure from its relatives against the prospect of a filter feeder with a tiny mouth, I decided to opt for the eyes. Also, I depicted them large simply because the other two Pachycormids have MASSIVE eyes for their size.... despite being quite gigantic themselves. If anything I may have under-estimated how large the eyes could be.

The pattern- my mum's idea, based on a very interesting theory that Whale Sharks may have had their peculiar spotted pattern to help 'trick' prey (my guess is this could be right- the various dots could make it harder to spot where fellow small swimming animals apart from the massive leviathan trying to swallow them).
But not wanting to appropriate an entire pattern, decided to err somewhere between "Whale Shark" and Giant Sunsfish, and I'm quite happy with how it turned out.

Enjoy!
Loading...
Zygolophodon borsoni Size
Also known as "Mammut borsoni" (which is what Zygolophodons are a member of).

This animal weighs a mere tonne LESS than the gigantic Paraceratherium- making it larger than any mammoth or deinotherium that ever lived, despite being shorter at the shouler.
Their 'size' comes from the fact they have such massive, wide bodies; far thicker than any true elephant.
And yes, to clarify the point, these animals are NOT elephants. And they're not *exactly* close relatives either. I mean, they certainly ARE close relatives among the entire proboscidean family.... but that's about it. Among all of the proboscideans that have tusks growing from their skulls (Elephantiformes), these animals are probably one of the more DISTANT relatives to elephants; with virtually any other type of proboscid fitting this rough description being a substantially closer relative than this group of animals. Their most striking feature (not shown in this artwork) are their strange teeth; shaped more like meat tenderizer spikes than the rows of linear grooves we see in elephants (not the best description, as they were still herbivores).
These animals lived all over the world; borsoni was discovered in Greece.

Apparently these animals had short, dense fur all over their bodies (to my surprise, having been so convinced of the opposite on account of their massive size and relative bulk)
Loading...
To celebrate completing one of the most impossible-ish-to-complete creatures on the planet (Leedsichthys problematicus) I decided to update my Megalodon to look a little nicer (by mixing some of the smoother old details of the "old" version back into the "new version".

This leaves only 3 massive marine predators to depict that will be added to the complete Megafauna Mk 3 chart, with some notes in case anyone was wondering.

1- The Antarctic Type A Killer Whale
The biggest and most powerful species by far (but marginally bigger than other Antarctic species), apparently the largest specimen grew over 9 meters long, making it effectively larger than most of the biggest mesozoic super-predators.

2- Pliosaurus.
My initial research suggests that P. macromerus grew WAY larger than my depicted Kronosaurus (based on jaw length), but my main focus is to try to figure out the exact anatomy, and figuring out if P. funkei still grew larger or not.
Also note that I've located a document that allegedly cites a specimen (likely Kronosaurus) that is estimated to be substantially larger still- so I will research this too- if it proves accurate I may end up up-scaling Kronosaurus to match the proportions.

3- Shastasaurus sikanniensis
Looking at the skeleton, it's becoming unavoidably clear that S.sikanniensis looks a lot like other Shastasaurus species, but NOT like its somewhat close relative Shonisaurus popularis, as widely suggested in the media.
Fortunately, as enough skeletal information exists among this broad group, it should be fairly simple in depicting it, though a LOT of research is required to check if it's all accurate.

On top of this, I'm re-doing

Dunkleosteus.
I've decided to take a shot at checking wider Placoderm anatomy to get the best form a massive-sized Placoderm would likely have.... and also have scaled to some fragmentary remains I'm convinced would retain a consistent and reliable measure....
And if my calculations are correct, this animal may have grown over 9 METERS LONG!!!

-Mosasaurus lemonnieri
(courtesy of Paleosir for providing excellent photographic and diagramatic visuals of what is a largely intact specimen; which furthermore, would be of great value to informing my M hoffmannii depiction.

And many others!
  • Listening to: Ambient
  • Reading: Books
  • Watching: NA
  • Playing: NA
  • Eating: Food.
  • Drinking: various teas

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconszerbacities:
szerbacities Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2019  Student Artist
wow i love your works!!!
Reply
:iconharry-the-fox:
Harry-the-Fox Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2019  Professional Digital Artist
Thankyou so much!
Reply
:iconnegative-pallor:
Negative-Pallor Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2018  Hobbyist General Artist
I love primitive animals and you art is incredible=deviant watch!  Have you seen Alpha i love that movie...
Reply
:iconharry-the-fox:
Harry-the-Fox Featured By Owner Nov 7, 2018  Professional Digital Artist
Thankyou very much!

(Alpha? Never heard of it, what's it about?)
Reply
:iconnegative-pallor:
Negative-Pallor Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2018  Hobbyist General Artist
it a new movie about how cavemen domesticated wolves
Reply
:iconharry-the-fox:
Harry-the-Fox Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2018  Professional Digital Artist
Ah I see. That reminds me of someone attempting the same with foxes... with quite some success I might add.
Reply
:iconcrittered:
Crittered Featured By Owner Aug 29, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Beautiful work <3

Have you thought of recreating Australian megafauna?

their shapes and skulls are so unique and interesting.
Reply
:iconharry-the-fox:
Harry-the-Fox Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2018  Professional Digital Artist
As a matter of fact I have!
Australian megafauna is something I've wanted to do for a long time; past and present (particularly the Red Kangaroo and saltwater crocodile).
The only thing keeping me back is the need to carefully learn some new anatomy of these animals (especially marsupials) before trying to depict them.
Reply
:iconskullgarden:
SkullGarden Featured By Owner Aug 21, 2018
Thank you for the watch :D
Reply
:iconharry-the-fox:
Harry-the-Fox Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2018  Professional Digital Artist
A pleasure!
Reply
Add a Comment: