Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
About Digital Art / Professional Core Member Harry WilsonMale/Australia Recent Activity
Deviant for 9 Years
1 Week Core Membership:
Given by elfabangel
Statistics 316 Deviations 4,076 Comments 116,808 Pageviews

Newest Deviations

Deinonychus size by Harry-the-Fox Deinonychus size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 49 24 Homotherium serum size by Harry-the-Fox Homotherium serum size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 19 5 Giant Squid and Colossal Squid Size by Harry-the-Fox Giant Squid and Colossal Squid Size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 95 24 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 56 33 Colossal Squid Size by Harry-the-Fox Colossal Squid Size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 81 29 Megafauna 3 land animal preview by Harry-the-Fox Megafauna 3 land animal preview :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 146 50 Megafauna Size- Marine preview by Harry-the-Fox Megafauna Size- Marine preview :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 350 94 Great White Shark- before and after by Harry-the-Fox Great White Shark- before and after :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 31 7 Arsinoitherium Size by Harry-the-Fox Arsinoitherium Size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 50 17 Sperm Whale Size by Harry-the-Fox Sperm Whale Size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 47 46 Shantungosaurus Size Comparison by Harry-the-Fox Shantungosaurus Size Comparison :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 56 24 Livyatan Melvillei vs Megalodon by Harry-the-Fox Livyatan Melvillei vs Megalodon :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 75 59 Livyatan Melvillei Size by Harry-the-Fox Livyatan Melvillei Size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 58 8 Gigantopithecus blacki size comparison by Harry-the-Fox Gigantopithecus blacki size comparison :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 74 17 Tyrannosauurs and Triceratops Size Comparison by Harry-the-Fox Tyrannosauurs and Triceratops Size Comparison :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 54 10 Mososaurus Hoffmanni Size by Harry-the-Fox Mososaurus Hoffmanni Size :iconharry-the-fox:Harry-the-Fox 86 31

Favourites

Biggest White Sharks by JES86 Biggest White Sharks :iconjes86:JES86 5 1 Suchomimus tenerensis skeletal reconstruction. by Franoys Suchomimus tenerensis skeletal reconstruction. :iconfranoys:Franoys 135 42 Giant Squid by JES86 Giant Squid :iconjes86:JES86 2 0 Kronosaurus by arvalis Kronosaurus :iconarvalis:arvalis 2,698 105 Argentinosaurus huinculensis schematic. by randomdinos Argentinosaurus huinculensis schematic. :iconrandomdinos:randomdinos 128 98 Prehistoric megafaunal mammals by Dragonthunders Prehistoric megafaunal mammals :icondragonthunders:Dragonthunders 189 45 Prehistoric megafaunal mammals 3 by Dragonthunders Prehistoric megafaunal mammals 3 :icondragonthunders:Dragonthunders 161 8 Imaginary titans by Dragonthunders Imaginary titans :icondragonthunders:Dragonthunders 215 67 Ancient whales (Basilosaurus and Dorudon) by namu-the-orca Ancient whales (Basilosaurus and Dorudon) :iconnamu-the-orca:namu-the-orca 165 47 Behold, the largest non-dinosaurian land predators by paleosir Behold, the largest non-dinosaurian land predators :iconpaleosir:paleosir 117 58 Kronosaurus by Ictonyx Kronosaurus :iconictonyx:Ictonyx 31 6 Troodon by Mcraelodon Troodon :iconmcraelodon:Mcraelodon 49 3 Tiny lamniform Anatomy Tips by Mcraelodon Tiny lamniform Anatomy Tips :iconmcraelodon:Mcraelodon 49 16 T.rex vs Triceratops by Swordlord3d T.rex vs Triceratops :iconswordlord3d:Swordlord3d 1,653 233 MaySketchADay 14 by SkullGarden MaySketchADay 14 :iconskullgarden:SkullGarden 75 9 Chimpanzee anatomy front view by JunsAnatomy Chimpanzee anatomy front view :iconjunsanatomy:JunsAnatomy 9 0

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


Okay, my great plans of figuring out a possible easy deductive shortcut to Leedsichthys' anatomy is proving extremely difficult.
Firstly, the hyomandibula of this animal appears to be a wildly different shape than any other Pachycormid I've looked at so far, meaning my hopes of simply taking a Bonnerichthys or Rhinconichthys skull and finding the nearly-identical-but-not-quite physiological features that could be resolved by a simple morph that conveniently matches the proportions of multiple other bodyparts of a substitute species to what Leedsichthys would have, and thus reveal the long-lost true shape of Leedsichthys.........isn't going to happen in a hurry.
So, no problem.... I'll try to substitute a Saurostomus, like the researchers who estimated Leedsichthys' 16.5m length suggested. The problem is, when I scale the famous fossil so the tail sizes match that of "tail" specimen upscaled so the corresponding pieces match those of the "Gill basket" specimen..... this animal I'm left with is extremely SHORT, falling well below the 16.5m length.
The worst part is I have a feeling it wasn't the researchers know a lot of details I overlooked, so I simply can't conclude they stuffed up and show off my amazing discovery either- So I will take my time slowly dredging through every tiny clue to figure out any clue to its anatomy.

Luckily, I have a pleasant surprise to fill in the time.
As you may be aware, I'm going through a lot of my old works and massively updating them.
Besides the really ancient and amateurishly made "Megafauna Mk 2 era" stuff, the only remaining animals I plan to overhaul are:
-Dunkleosteus (going to double check proportions, anatomy and feasability of upscaling the animal to match fragmentary remains)
-Basilosaurus (massive anatomical overhaul utilizing a vastly better knowledge of whale anatomy- in particular replacing the strange reptilian mouth and proportions with something more like a true cetacean)
ANDDDDDDDDDDD....

MEGALODON.
To be clear, what I'm doing is a massive overhaul, starting from scratch, based more closely on the Gottfried jaw model, as my previous one lazily made a few bits of proportional guesswork to roughly fit jaw dimensions.... rather than conform more precisely to the actual suggested anatomy of the jaw itself.
That said, it became clear that something was wrong- basically, the reconstruction actually CLASHED with the Leder et al model of scaling mackerel sharks!
Fortunately, I already knew what the problem was, and quickly found a fix for this problem that quickly resolved it.
The animal is actually almost done... and it took practically no time to construct either. It literally only needs to be coloured in.
  • Listening to: Ambient
  • Reading: Books
  • Watching: NA
  • Playing: NA
  • Eating: Food.
  • Drinking: various teas
Deinonychus size
Well, looks like the "Problematicus-no-problem" is turning out to live up to its namesake- so I decided to take my time, and in the meantime, submit this.
I always felt like there was a giant gap between my Velociraptor and Utahraptor works, namely the iconic (misnamed) Jurassic Park monster.

I do admit, this animal turned out to be a LOT bigger than I suspected, and I had to scale it up substantially from the size I originally guessed it as when it came time to scale it up.

On the notes about the claims of this animal.

1- Relation to Velociraptor; besides other members within the Dromaeosaurine group that Deinonychus resides in (which includes Utahraptor, a bunch of other dinosaurs ending in "raptor", and of course, Dromaeosaurus itself), Velociraptor is probably one of its closest relatives, and its body is very similar (besides some proportional differences, the most striking is the snout shape is more robust among Dromaeosaurines).
2- Pack hunting? Some debate on this, but probable, as the fossil evidence repeatedly shows multiple adult specimens in the same site (including tracks)!
3- Using all of its claws as pinions? Overwhelmingly likely. Fowler's 2011 study in the giant toe-claws found them to be little different to any modern predatory bird- all of which use them to pin into prey, rather than slash. However, Fowler's suggestion the arms were stretched out like wings (as modern predatory birds do) to stabilize the animal while it bites into prey is extremely unlikely- as Carpenter's 2002 arm-mechanics study revealed the skeleton was poorly suited to flapping, stretching out laterally (or folding) like true birds.... but perfectly adept at grabbing and pulling at things forwards and downwards, suggesting it used these to grab onto prey as well. Overall, the evidence is pretty clear- this animal latched onto its victims and bit them to death.

Hope you like it!
Loading...
Quite a few of you have noted that the sizes I suggested for the Blue Whale and Sperm Whale are absolutely extreme and grossly exceed the often-cited maximum size estimates.
And understandably, think the primary sources cited by McClain et al (2015)'s "Sizing Ocean Giants", that being the IWC, probably aren't the most sensible basis to stake a claim on.
For example, the Sperm Whale's maximum sizes are often cited from 18-22m, and the Blue whales at 25-27-30 meters; especially based on contemporary physical evidence raised in other sources.
Something clearly looks suspicious, and quite a few well-informed readers have erred to taking these outlandish sizes with a grain of salt.

BUT- I am happy to say I did do my homework for these and can confidently say I can vouch these sources are indeed a reliable source, without having to take the researchers' word for it alone.
In addition to this, I've had some (admittedly basic) scientific statistics training while in university, and utilized that in analysing the data McClain et al (2015) thoughtfully provided.
I won't dump heavy formula or anything, as the very most basic statistical or logical assumptions were used (with no reason to assume they wouldn't be enough to cut it).
(note- a lot of this information is based on the FREE online scientific study, I'm far too lazy to link it this time, but entering the name into google will show you a copy- I strongly recommend this as it's worth it!).

So, firstly the source is the International Whaling Commission, who in 1946 passed a standardized set of practices that included measuring catches on-board the decks of ships, using a "between the pegs" method of a straight ruler from the frontermost part of the whale to the base of the notch in the tail fluke.
This means that in *theory*, the most reliable method of measuring whales WAS used, and not stupid ones like dragging the carcass next to the boat and taking a guess, as was often done from other sources; and there was a robust process of measuring the whales without curves being factored in.
So if they measured 33 meters in length, that should match the 33 meter depiction on my chart.

Case closed? Of course not!
So many things could go wrong in practice that would completely corrupt the data that the "theoretical" ideal is thrown out the window.
These include:
1- Human error in measurement and false, lazy or fabricated data being entered.
2- whalers measuring around the curves before 1946, and giving exaggerated measurements until this date.
Luckily, our ability to assess this source doesn't stop there, we CAN actually scrutinize all of these issues. And that's besides making generous assumptions that measuring the whale between-the-pegs accurately was easier done than not, we can use statistics from the McClain study.

1-
When measurements from a population in the natural world find their way into statistics, one trend always seems to hold true-  "Regression to the mean"- that any measurable attribute can vary, but most members of that species tend to be closer to a 'middle point'.
If we were measuring the height of adult men, you'd expect the vast majority of men to be between 5.5 and 6 feet tall (150-180cm). You'd expect a fair few men to be a little shorter than this, and a little taller (by about another foot), but not quite as many. And you'd get a few rare cases of men under 5 feet and over 7 feet. The same is true for most other animals. And statistically, if you depicted this as a HISTOGRAM, you should end up with a "hill" shape, that gently slopes up from the sides and gets tall and pointy in the center (this is called a "Normal" distribution). Similarly, a "box plot" should show something looking like a box with a line roughly in the middle, and equal lines poking out above and below.
If you see this in your data, there is a good chance it's authentic. A bit of asymmetry or slight bumpiness might be problematic, but there is a good chance it's still legit if the overall shape more-or-less makes this "hill" curve.
Otherwise, there is a good chance something went horribly wrong with data collection.
........
Fortunately, that is NOT the case with the data on the whales. Looking at either the Blue Whale or Sperm Whale size-by-local-population data.... the box plots and histograms all show reasonable "normal" distributions... at least among the local regions they were shot in.
Well, not quite normal. The sizes seem skewed to bigger whales, with expected smaller whales that would realistically 'balance' the scales, completely missing from the data from all but a few regions. The likely reason? The whalers simply didn't bother going after smaller specimens and discriminated only towards the larger ones. Besides IWC regulations setting minimum permitted sizes for whaling, the statistics themselves actually provide evidence that's exactly what happened; in some areas (mainly Southern Ocean), the whales are generally larger, and the skew vanishes- suggesting "gunners selection" didn't feel the need to discriminate among generally larger whales. Because these records come from completely different parts of the world, and often different whaling teams, it not only suggests none faked their data, but means all coincidentally gave records that suggest authentic measurements; unlikely the IWC would be able to fake data on such a wide scale to conform to "normal" population distributions, especially with no motive. Furthermore, the general size variations appear to be reasonably consistent among wider regions, suggesting the broad variation is based on wide geographical area, and not so much the teams measuring them.
However, this is where I raise an important point; the size of specific populations are SUBSTANTIALLY different. In both Blue Whales and Sperm Whales, the extreme size records are ONLY found in populations among the Southern Oceans, near Antarctica. Everywhere else in the world, both whales tend to conform to far more conservative sizes. The largest Blue Whale in the whole Northern Hemisphere was about 27 meters, and that was an exceptional specimen. Among Antarctic Blue Whales, 30 meters is.... reasonably normal, actually. However, the 33 meter specimen is very much an outlier.
This means, that the conservative sources are, in some regard, still correct.

2
What about measurement? The crew might be showing some consistency in their method- but what if they were consistently using the WRONG type of measurement the whole time?
This is made more complicated because the largest sizes were recorded BEFORE 1946. What if this was just due to measuring around the curves prior to the new regulations? Actually quite easy to check.
If whalers switched from "around the curves" to "Between the pegs", we would expect every whale they measured to give smaller measurements after 1946. Meaning the sizes of all whales (and also the average) would suddenly drop after 1946.
Once again, McClain kindly provides evidence that isn't the case. They provide a scatterplot of sizes recorded by year- and luckily, the scatter of dots remains basically the same, with one exception- the largest sizes gradually become lower. But, this appears to happen long before 1946, meaning it appears to be a genuine trend among the whales (likely from the very people hunting them). Otherwise, the sizes appear to remain concentrated around the same "average" point.
Because of this, there is only one likely explanation- the whalers cited by the IWC were already measuring "between the pegs" prior to 1948 as well as afterwards.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, the data is surprisingly smooth in every area where strange quirks would reveal a falsehood, even when small sample sizes would expect to corrupt the data a bit already.
As a result, we can be fairly confident that the historical people taking the recordings were consistently and accurately doing their job correctly at all points in history McClain et al 2015 were basing their study on.... and the measurements they reported were the real deal!
(Either that, or this is the most sophisticated hoax ever conceived in the history of recording animal sizes, with no apparent motive for gain as well)
  • Listening to: Ambient
  • Reading: Books
  • Watching: NA
  • Playing: NA
  • Eating: Food.
  • Drinking: various teas
So, apparently there is a gigantic pachycormid fish whose precise size and shape has eluded mankind up until recently.

Fortunately, thanks to getting some more time on my hands to read a scientific study by Liston et al. 2013 describing ALL available evidence in great detail, along with some recently discovered pachycormid relatives, I believe I have enough material to reconstruct this animal without having to err to the power of imagination :)

The best part? The hyomandibula. A piece of the skull that exists in a substantial number of pachycormids, including most of the Leedsichthys specimens. This will allow me to not only scale the fish's body parts among its other specimens, but also compare to relatives to figure out which ones are the most appropriate anatomical model substitutes :)

From some early analyses, this thing really is BIG.
  • Listening to: Ambient
  • Reading: Books
  • Watching: NA
  • Playing: NA
  • Eating: Food.
  • Drinking: various teas
Homotherium serum size
Wanted to try something different; in particular, a certain felid with bizarre skeletal proportions, whose reconstructions vary from extremely gracile, similar to cheetahs or lynxes, to incredibly robust.
Based on the typical relative positions and angles of the skeleton, this is what I came up with. The most difficult part was figuring out how the ribcage fits, as normally in large felids these are cone-shaped, with a massive, dense concentration of muscles preceding it. This animal's ribcage appears to be more cylindrical!

This is probably the largest specimen known (Digimorph.com, with Dr. Blaire Van Valkenburgh - University of California, Los Angeles name to it).

You might notice that the standing shoulder height is about 5cm shorter than the often-cited 1.1m height; furthermore, the famous "sloping back" barely appears to slope at all.
My guess, other reconstructions may have straightened the arm bones as being more perpendicular and "upright"- in mine, they slope more (felids, even when standing straight, don't have their arm bones aligned in up/down manner, but at diagonals; the thick muscles fill in the 'gap'.

Looking at this animal, while it DOES appear to be about the size of an average lion, is clearly a lightweight predator. Furthermore, its adaptations (extremely long forelimbs, even longer hindlimbs, and a more compacted, gracile body) lead me to suggest it was a high-speed predator that probably specialized in faster prey; as the oft-cited "it probably preyed on megafauna" puts it in direct competition with felids that could easily be up to twice its size (prehistoric lions, extra massive African lions, and of course the Smilodon).

Digimorph.com reference is right here:

Enjoy!
Loading...
Okay, my great plans of figuring out a possible easy deductive shortcut to Leedsichthys' anatomy is proving extremely difficult.
Firstly, the hyomandibula of this animal appears to be a wildly different shape than any other Pachycormid I've looked at so far, meaning my hopes of simply taking a Bonnerichthys or Rhinconichthys skull and finding the nearly-identical-but-not-quite physiological features that could be resolved by a simple morph that conveniently matches the proportions of multiple other bodyparts of a substitute species to what Leedsichthys would have, and thus reveal the long-lost true shape of Leedsichthys.........isn't going to happen in a hurry.
So, no problem.... I'll try to substitute a Saurostomus, like the researchers who estimated Leedsichthys' 16.5m length suggested. The problem is, when I scale the famous fossil so the tail sizes match that of "tail" specimen upscaled so the corresponding pieces match those of the "Gill basket" specimen..... this animal I'm left with is extremely SHORT, falling well below the 16.5m length.
The worst part is I have a feeling it wasn't the researchers know a lot of details I overlooked, so I simply can't conclude they stuffed up and show off my amazing discovery either- So I will take my time slowly dredging through every tiny clue to figure out any clue to its anatomy.

Luckily, I have a pleasant surprise to fill in the time.
As you may be aware, I'm going through a lot of my old works and massively updating them.
Besides the really ancient and amateurishly made "Megafauna Mk 2 era" stuff, the only remaining animals I plan to overhaul are:
-Dunkleosteus (going to double check proportions, anatomy and feasability of upscaling the animal to match fragmentary remains)
-Basilosaurus (massive anatomical overhaul utilizing a vastly better knowledge of whale anatomy- in particular replacing the strange reptilian mouth and proportions with something more like a true cetacean)
ANDDDDDDDDDDD....

MEGALODON.
To be clear, what I'm doing is a massive overhaul, starting from scratch, based more closely on the Gottfried jaw model, as my previous one lazily made a few bits of proportional guesswork to roughly fit jaw dimensions.... rather than conform more precisely to the actual suggested anatomy of the jaw itself.
That said, it became clear that something was wrong- basically, the reconstruction actually CLASHED with the Leder et al model of scaling mackerel sharks!
Fortunately, I already knew what the problem was, and quickly found a fix for this problem that quickly resolved it.
The animal is actually almost done... and it took practically no time to construct either. It literally only needs to be coloured in.
  • Listening to: Ambient
  • Reading: Books
  • Watching: NA
  • Playing: NA
  • Eating: Food.
  • Drinking: various teas

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconcrittered:
Crittered Featured By Owner Aug 29, 2018  New Deviant 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
:iconakatsukirocket854:
AkatsukiRocket854 Featured By Owner Jun 8, 2018
I have commission for you Harry. I am wondering if you can make a red alert 1 Soviet Mammoth but redesigned to have features of real life soviet armoured fighting vechiles of the late 40's and the 50's like the IS-7 and the Object 279
Reply
:iconharry-the-fox:
Harry-the-Fox Featured By Owner Jun 9, 2018  Professional Digital Artist
Unfortunately I can't really take free commissions at the moment, out of curiosity, what is it for?
Reply
:iconakatsukirocket854:
AkatsukiRocket854 Featured By Owner Aug 7, 2018
nothing really at this point but I think it might serve inspiration for future game modders.
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner Apr 24, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Happy Birthday man... Birthday cake  icon    
Reply
:iconharry-the-fox:
Harry-the-Fox Featured By Owner May 3, 2018  Professional Digital Artist
Thanks Sameer!
Reply
:iconwilly276:
Willy276 Featured By Owner Apr 24, 2018
Happy Birthday!
Reply
Add a Comment: