palaeozoologist's avatar

Uberabatitan

21 Favourites
32 Comments
5K Views
Uberabatitan ribeiroi was a titanosaur sauropod from the Marilia Formation of Minas Gerais, Brazil. It achieved a length of approximately 15-17 meters and a mass of approximately 11-15 tonnes. U. ribeiroi lived in the late Cretaceous of Maastrichtian in age (~70-65 mya).

It was unjustly left out of Greg Paul's Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs, and thus felt it was in need of its own restoration here.
IMAGE DETAILS
Image size
8452x3535px 2.63 MB
Published:
Comments32
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
vasix's avatar
It's nice....then it's Brazil's biggest dinosaur?
palaeozoologist's avatar
Possibly, either it or Trigonosaurus is the largest known dinosaur from Brazil.
Algoroth's avatar
I love the ALIVE aura you gave the creature, as well as the textures.

Its right arm is fine. What happened to its left arm? The legs are excellent to my eyes.
palaeozoologist's avatar
Thanks!

The right arm is, *ahem* *coughs*, suffering from an arterial skeletal muscle infarction. ;)
Algoroth's avatar
Beautiful drawing!
palaeozoologist's avatar
Thanks, much appreciated! :D
felipe-elias's avatar
Really nice restoration! :clap:
palaeozoologist's avatar
Thank you! I really appreciate that, especially coming from you! :)
Paleo-King's avatar
Nice detailed image! I also had some misgivings about the Princeton Field Guide.... namely Daxiatitan, Phuwiangosaurus, and hopes for a full skeletal of Malawisaurus... in any case, this is pretty legit, really like the spiky look on the hands (but I'm not sure if titanosaurs had this).
palaeozoologist's avatar
Hey, thanks, that means a lot! Glad you like it.

My misgivings with the Princeton Field Guide are also many. Daxiatitan has a relatively complete skeleton (for a titanosaur) and should have had a skeletal restoration done (and its adult size can be determined with a fair amount of certainty au contraire to what the Field Guide states), as should have Phuwiangosaurus and Malawisaurus. I complained about this on the DML, and got a rather nasty reply from Greg Paul. His main reason was that he was reluctant to do a new skeletal restoration if there were not a pelvis known. Of course, this is hogwash since Phuwiangosaurus is actually known from a pelvis, and I do not see why whether having pelvis material present or not makes or breaks the deal for a new skeletal (furthermore, Trigonosaurus is known from a pelvis, as is Epachthosaurus, Argentinosaurus, Isisaurus and some other titanosaurs of which none get skeletal treatments). Oh well, guess I'll have to do them myself.

The spiky hands are based off of spiky impressions known from some footprints that have been referred to Bothriospondylus. It is not known how wide spread these tubercles were, but I speculatively put them on here.
EmperorDinobot's avatar
Maybe you SHOULD do them. Hmmm? How about it?
palaeozoologist's avatar
I'm sorry, I don't follow. What do you think I should do?
EmperorDinobot's avatar
All of these skeletals! Maybe you should even write a competition to GSP's book...hmmm...?
palaeozoologist's avatar
Well, I'm afraid my skeletal library will be no where near as large as GSP's for a long time as I simply don't have the technical papers I need to have a skeletal library as big as his. Scott Hartman is getting there, and is a far superior skeletal artist than I am so I'd refer to him if I were you.

As for a book, it is highly unlikely that I'll ever get there...certainly no time soon. :(
EmperorDinobot's avatar
You'll get there...maayyybe. Hopefully!
palaeozoologist's avatar
Haha, well, we'll see I guess.
Paleo-King's avatar
No pelvis? LOL I've even got pictures of the pelvis of Phuwiangosaurus (and that's not even including the PDF of the paper!) You can find a partial mount (and I DO mean partial) with the hips included just by googling the beast. There are pelvis elements known for Andesaurus and Argyrosaurus, and neither one of those got the Greg Paul treatment either.

Greg Paul did do an Argentinosaurus skeletal back in the 90s (it's not in the book, shocker!!!!) but it's missing the pelvis, the femur, and most of the dorsals. Which is a shame because not all the material was figured in the description paper, and the only skeletal to show all the elements was Ken Carpenter's, which really fudged the proportions of the silhouette as well as the shapes and positions of most of the bones, and worst of all was TINY and lacked reliable detail. For all the stuff that wasn't figured in the description paper, I had to hunt up images on the internet, fortunately I was able to find a diagram of the sacrum and tibia and some decent pics of the femur and a few dorsal verts, which pretty much filled in all the gaps. But not all of the pics were from good angles, so I had to mess around with frontal widths of my diagrams and update my Argentinosaurus.... AGAIN. I only included anterior views for stuff that I had good frontal references for.

As for Trigonosaurus and Isisaurus, why those two didn't get a skeletal in the book is beyond me. Isisaurus is complete enough to restore with almost no margin of error. And Trigonosaurus has a pretty impressive and totally UNCRUSHED spinal column with all the laminae in perfect condition, no distortion or erosion, just like new! Seriously, when when do we EVER see that sort of thing in sauropods? And yet it isn't even placed firmly in a family, much less given a decent skeletal drawing by anyone, not just Greg Paul. And Epachtosaurus has some pretty good remains... any idea which family it belongs in? It looks similar to Argentinosaurus in some ways.
EmperorDinobot's avatar
Felipe Elias has a Trigonosaurus.
Paleo-King's avatar
Yeah, but it's hard to tell how accurate his skeletal of Trigonosaurus is.... Elias's skeletals seem a bit "sketchy" and "comic-ized" like those of Paul Sereno. And Paul Sereno has been very wrong with his skeletals before....
EmperorDinobot's avatar
Yeah...but it's an OK reference point. Sort of. They don't look too bad. I've checked them, but I've gotten lazier and lazier as time goes on.
palaeozoologist's avatar
I know, I thought it was a ridiculous argument. Here is my initial thoughts on the book on the DML. Here is GSP's response and here is my reply, if you're interested.

Yes I have seen his Argentinosaurus skeletal, in fact most of GSP's papers have pdfs now up at his cite in his CV, including one with that skeletal. I'm also somewhat confused by Carpenter's skeletal and I have been meaning to email him to ask him about that. As far as I know, only 7 dorsals are known (not 9 as portrayed) which is one more than described, and a partial ilium , femur and pubis (also not in original description) have been found. I'm not sure where he got refs for the ilium and pubis, though (yes, I know, there are pictures of the mounted skeleton that include that material but I am somewhat wary of the accuracy of the mount).

I concur on your opinion of the lack of skeletals for Trigonosaurus and Isisaurus. I mean, if he includes a skeletal of Cetiosaurus for goodness sakes, those other taxa should have been included.

I'm not sure where Epachthosaurus belongs as it has a hyposphene and hypantrum complex, but otherwise appears to have derived characteristics characteristic of saltasaurs. Your guess is as good as mine.
Paleo-King's avatar
Sheesh it looks like these titanosaurs just kept on recycling their old basal genetic material with every new family radiation! Even hip shapes got recycled... there's a huge amount of throwbacks in skeletal design.

At least Greg Paul did a Cetiosaurus, that's a genus that hasn't had a skeletal for a century! But yeah, I'd like to see what he does with those others. O well, more skeletals for us to do...

I'll see if I can download those PDFs, I haven't seen them on his site before.
palaeozoologist's avatar
I'm not really sure exactly what was going on with Epachthosaurus, whether it was recycling skeletal material or not. In fact, I am starting to think that maybe hyposphene-hypantrum complexes are not necessarily indicative of how derived is a titanosaur. To quote from Martinez et al. (2004), "Although the extremely large titanosaurian Argentinosaurus possesses accessory intervertebral articulations in its dorsal column, they are anatomically distinct from those of Epachthosaurus (Salgado and Martı´nez, 1993; Sanz et al.,
1999). Moreover, Argentinosaurus possesses reduced, non-bifurcate prespinal laminae, implying that this taxon may be more highly derived than Epachthosaurus (Salgado et al., 1997)."

So, they think Argentinosaurus might be more derived. In fact, I know of at least one other study that indicates that Argentinosaurus may actually be fairly derived. It may be that the taxa that retained these basal features had different lifestyles (since the hyposphene-hypantrum complex is thought to have stiffened the vertebral column).
Paleo-King's avatar
Yeah I've always wondered about that.... why did some titanosaurs need a stiffer back? I'm sure supporting armor had nothing to do with it, sauropod armor isn't all that heavy relative to the whole animal. I doubt any titanosaurs were flexing their torso sideways, they weren't all that flexible to begin with. Maybe the stiffness was needed for constant rearing or for sex? But then why don't non-titanosaurs have it?

Argnetinosaurus has SOME kind of hyposphene-hypantrum complex, but mainly in the rear dorsals. It's totally absent in the front dorsals. And it's not as extreme as insome other titanosaurs. But how old it Epachthosaurus? It's from the Bajo Barreal formation, which is either Cenomanian or Campanian (BIG difference there...) right now the popular stance is Cenomanian, but I notice that several species tied to Campanian formations are also found in Bajo Barrel which indicates it WAS Campanian. I don't see how Argentinosaurus could be older AND more derived than Epachthosaurus, unless Epachtosaurus is a descendant of a much older line.

I have a feeling that hyposphenes have nothing to do with how basal or derived you are, but rather your lifestyle. I see so many weird things in titanosaurs that are flat-out making it impossible to classify some species. A lot of experts place Isisaurus as a saltasaur. I'm not convinced. IMO it could just as easily be an anomalous lognkosaur or argyrosaur. And what the heck Barrosasaurus is, nobody seems to know. It's so freaky it doesn't fall into any of the known families of titanosaurs, and looks like an odd mix of all of them. So perhaps traits did get recycled and "remixed" every version odder than the last... caudal vertebrae of many titanosaurs are notorious for this.
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In