Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Futalognkosaurus dukei Mk. X (Calvo edition) by Paleo-King Futalognkosaurus dukei Mk. X (Calvo edition) by Paleo-King
Here is a further revision of Futalognkosaurus dukei, re-sized and re-proportioned to the measurements in Jorge Calvo's 2014 abstract (something that still has yet to lead to a full-length paper, but at least the measurements make sense). Here's what Futa would look like if Calvo's measurements of the individual bones turn out to be, in fact, correct. Since his scale bars and original size estimate were far in excess of the sizes indicated by the published measurements in both the original paper and the 2014 abstract, I don't know which is more reliable. However if the published measurements are to be trusted, the resulting tubby limb proportions do match up pretty well with Dreadnoughtus, so there's that.

It turns out another 3 meters would have to be chopped off this animal since the last version paleo-king.deviantart.com/art/… , if Calvo's measurements are correct. And a mass of just 40 tons would be more likely for the holotype than the higher estimates previously proposed. Now it's obvious - this animal was NOT breaking any sort of records, and was not significantly more massive than the largest known specimens of Giraffatitan. However, there are still several larger titanosaurs that may be the largest dinosaur known (i.e. the Chubut Monster, Puertasaurus, the referred Alamosaurus material form Mexico, and of course Argentinosaurus).

But none of those are known from egg fossils (or at least none were found in the same locale as referable egg fossils). So Futa is still unique among giants, if those are indeed its eggs (and not from some other sauropod). We don't see too many sites with both skeletons and eggs - probably because adult and even half-grown titanosaurs could survive the magnitude of flooding events that usually buried nests and eggs.

While I'm not impressed by how much smaller the real animal seems to be than Calvo's own colossal estimates of 34m back in 2007, there is a plus side: now with using Calvo's measurements, the proportions look a lot closer to Dreadnoughtus than before, especially the short lower limbs. Since Dreadnoughtus is known from more complete limbs and tail, the proportions make lognkosauria much better understood. This family of big, chubby, and generally very tall titanosaurs suddenly got a lot less bizarre and a lot more consistent in their looks. It may even be the case that some of the odder members of this group, like the squat-necked Puertasaurus, may have had necks more like Dreadnoughtus if not Futalognkosaurus (with Puertasaurus the neck neural spine is incomplete and reconstructed with plaster; the idea that it was short and squat as reconstructed by Novas, 2005, is speculative at best.)

Futalognkosaurus dukei (Calvo, et. al. 2007)

Taxonomy: Saurischia; Sauropodomorpha; Sauropoda; Macronaria; Titanosauria; Lognkosauria
Meaning of name: "Great Chief Lizard of Duke Energy Company"
Time: Late Cretaceous (Turonian-Coniacian epochs, ~ 90-87 million years ago)
Length: ~24m (79 ft) :X according to Jorge Calvo's measurements of the type fossils, perhaps more depending on maturity
Probable Mass: ~ 40 tons, perhaps more depending on maturity ( :x :x :x ).
Add a Comment:
 
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2017
Just curious, where did you get this ribcage width estimate?

Some people have been casting their doubts on uberwide titanosaurs based on some narrower-bodied mounts. I'm still agreeing with you on the ribcage thing since mounts sort of have this bad history of being, well, wrong in many departments, but just asking for clarification and stuff.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
The mounts use either speculative (i.e. FAKE) bones, or casts of crushed ribs. For example the Perot Museum's Alamosaurus doesn't use even a single fossil-based cast of ribs, because there are no complete ribs known from that specimen, or even from similar-sized specimens. The rib cage there is all guesswork, and rather poor guesswork at that. That said, the Perot Museum mount isn't exactly "narrow", but its ribs still don't take advantage of the supportive properties of the insanely wide hips. It's a bit of a mismatch. The Warsaw museum's Opisthocoelicaudia is even worse; its ribcage isn't based on the actual ribs (which are badly crushed), but worse yet, even the limb and hip material isn't based on a cast, it's pure imagination. Suffice it to say the neck is FAR too short to be using Dongbeititan or even Yongjinglong for reference. Everything forward of hte hips looks like they just cloned Nigersaurus proportions, and added derived titanosaur arms and head. The rib cage is so slim and undersized it's painful to look at. I mean those ilia (which are roughly the correct size) would be bursting out of the skin, even if you didn't shrinkwrap the torso!

The extreme width of ribcages in later titanosaurs is due to the very long and also DEEP robust diapophyses, they would have supported a massive ricbage. Also the positioning of the parapophyses is optimal for such a wide ribcage, given the lengths of the rib head processes (the parapohysis-connecting process being far longer.)

This isn't as true for non-titanosaurs, and it's not so extreme in basal titanosaurs. It seems that lognkosauria and everything more derived (saltasaurs, nemegtosaurs, etc.) produced extremely wide rib ages. One titanosaur where we have most of the ribcage, in an individual small enough that the ribs didn't suffer much crushing or distortion, is the juvenile Rapetosaurus at the Field Museum. Although the shoulders and arms are mounted a bit too far apart, the rib cage is doesn't have any dislocations. And that ribcage is almost twice as wide as it is tall. Built like a tanker with legs, and the ribs fit in place without having to correct for a lot of warping or crushing. This design would have been relatively common among intermediate and derived titanosaurs.

If you compare their dorsals to those of more basal titans like Argentinosaurus, you can see how the processes and even the centra got much wider as titanosaurs evolved, and overall this would only be necessary with a wider torso in general.
Reply
:iconyty2000:
yty2000 Featured By Owner Oct 12, 2017
Could you provide the title of Calvo's 2014 paper?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
It's an abstract; the full paper is still yet to come out. BricksmashTV has the details.
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2017
It's an abstract, full paper hasn't been released yet. It's:

Calvo, 2014, "New fossil remains of Futalognkosaurus dukei (Sauropoda: Titanosauria) from the Late Cretaceous of Neuquen, Argentina"
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Oct 7, 2017
Eh, I'm leaning towards the 26 m estimate. From what I heard it has the same measurements overall, except for the tail, which is longer.
Reply
:iconspinosaurusdinosaur:
SpinosaurusDinosaur Featured By Owner Sep 27, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Whooa, that is AWESOME!!
Reply
:iconandorou-khan:
Andorou-Khan Featured By Owner Aug 7, 2017
One thing that I notice in the silhouette of all these giant sauropods is that the sternum and coracoid bones form a bump sticking out under the neck. Would it be that way in the living animal or would there be more soft tissue there making the silhouette smoother going from the neck to the "shoulders"?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Aug 7, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
It depends on the angle they articulate with the scapula. Sometimes they are less protruding, but no sauropods were flat-chested like in the movies.
Reply
:iconrizkiusmaulanae:
RizkiusMaulanae Featured By Owner Aug 6, 2017  Student Traditional Artist
Lmao I just noticed the egg
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2018  Professional Traditional Artist
Hahaha yes, it's pretty funny. Egg taxa with skeletal remains are super rare. The sites that tend to preserve nests, usually didn't kill and bury the adults. Lago Barreales is one crazy exception.

So maybe Futa counts as an egg taxon too now. The only way to tell for sure is to X-ray that egg. But since baby titanosaurs probably all looked pretty similar (judging by the embryo remains found so far at other sites) it still wouldn't be a definite proof that these were Futalognkosaurus babies/eggs, and not some other species. But at least they're in the right place and time, and just big enough, to be Futa eggs.
Reply
:iconthedubstepaddict:
TheDubstepAddict Featured By Owner Aug 5, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
F U T A :iconorgasmplz:
Reply
:iconmajestic-colossus:
Majestic-Colossus Featured By Owner Aug 4, 2017
Still a monster and bigger than most dinosaurs. Btw, the head is nice!
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Edited Aug 4, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks. Finally I arrived at a head that blends the elements of the skulls from the most closely related species that actually preserve the skull. You can see hints of Malawisaurus, Antarctosaurus, Ampelosaurus, the tiny pieces of the skull we know from Notocolossus, and the Ruyang jaw and partial skull (may or may not be from a Ruyangosaurus). If we had a complete skulls from actual lognkosaurs then my hunch is at least one of them would resemble this speculative skull.
Reply
:iconmajestic-colossus:
Majestic-Colossus Featured By Owner Aug 5, 2017
It looks great! The new tail looks nice too. Are Notocolossus and Antarctosaurus in the works?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Aug 5, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
Not yet but they are slated.
Reply
:iconelsqiubbonator:
ElSqiubbonator Featured By Owner Aug 4, 2017
79 feet and 40 tons? I was expecting it to be a bit bigger.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Aug 4, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
It was bigger (on paper anyway) until you use Calvo's measurements. Hence, "Calvo Edition" being the nickname of this skeletal. The last version was bigger.

The simple fact is, Calvo et. al. published scale photos of the bones in 2007 whose scale bars were notoriously inconsistent with his own published (text) measurements. svpow.com/2009/04/23/mydd/ svpow.com/2008/01/16/how-big-w… In 2014 Calvo published measurements of additional holotype material he had failed to mention in the 2007 paper, mainly limb bones. But this was only as an abstract, not a full paper. Abstracts are generally treated as "work in progress" though you can still cite them. In Calvo's case... who knows whether the published measurements are more accurate than the scale bars? 

My earlier Futa skeletals were based on the scale photos, cross-scaled with material that wasn't figured in the paper. This one is using Calvo's printed measurements. So which one is the correct size/proportions is still anyone's guess, until Calvo clear this up. Normally I'd go with the published measurements, but if Calvo et. al. can't scale the photos correctly (or at least use those cheap SVP paper scale rulers instead of blacking out the background) then whether they got the measurements correct may be open to doubt too. The main thing in favor of Calvo's measurement set is that it yields proportions similar to Dreadnoughtus, which was FAR better described with both photos and measurements, and the description actually included the limb material instead of waiting 7 years for a no-pictures abstract mentioning the legs.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
August 3, 2017
Image Size
10.0 MB
Resolution
9288×6720
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
2,738
Favourites
91 (who?)
Comments
19