Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Argentinosaurus huinculensis schematic. by randomdinos Argentinosaurus huinculensis schematic. by randomdinos
Time to end my titanosaur series on a high note - or more appropriately, a tall note. A very tall note. Like Puertasaurus, Argentinosaurus is often claimed to be THE largest dinosaur ever to exist. This probably isn't true considering that, with all the variables of fossilization, most species of dinosaur will never be discovered by humans, but there's been a meme going around since the early 2000s that every new giant sauropod discovered, or an obscure taxon that the person finds interesting (even things we now know to be under 25 tonnes), regardless of how fragmentary, will be hyped as ''larger than Argentinosaurus''. You can probably guess my opinion on that.

Being recovered as the sister taxon to Patagotitan, most of the body was relatively easy to project; the hardest part, oddly enough, was figuring out how the preserved vertebrae fit together and where they would be placed on the skeleton (which was all Franoys's doing). Argentinosaurus would have lived alongside the potential elaphrosaurine Gualicho, the abelisauroids Skorpiovenator and Ilokelesia, rebbachisaurid sauropod Cathartesaura (not to be confused with the turkey vulture, Cathartes aura) and the enormous theropod Mapusaurus.

Previous version for comparison: sta.sh/02dq1ftq3zi6
First version: sta.sh/01fcnitq1mok

References:
-
Bonaparte J, Coria R (1993). "Un nuevo y gigantesco sauropodo titanosaurio de la Formacion Rio Limay (Albiano-Cenomaniano) de la Provincia del Neuquen, Argentina". Ameghiniana (in Spanish). 30 (3): 271–282.
-M
azzetta, Gerardo V.; Christiansen, Per; Fariña, Richard A. (2004). "Giants and Bizarres: Body Size of Some Southern South American Cretaceous Dinosaurs" (PDF). Historical Biology16 (2-4): 71–83. doi:10.1080/08912960410001715132. Retrieved 2008-01-08.
-Hussam Zaher, Diego Pol, Alberto B. Carvalho, Paulo M. Nascimento, Claudio Riccomini, Peter Larson, Rubén Juarez-Valieri, Ricardo Pires-Domingues, Nelson Jorge da Silva Jr., Diógenes de Almeida Campos (2011). "A Complete Skull of an Early Cretaceous Sauropod and the Evolution of Advanced Titanosaurians". PLoS ONE. 6 (2): e16663. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016663.
-Wilson, J. A., Pol, D., Carvalho, A. B. and Zaher, H. (2016), The skull of the titanosaur Tapuiasaurus macedoi (Dinosauria: Sauropoda), a basal titanosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of Brazil. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 
-Carballido, J.L.; Pol, D.; Otero, A.; Cerda, I.A.; Salgado, L.; Garrido, A.C.; Ramezani, J.; Cúneo, N.R.; Krause, J.M. (2017). "A new giant titanosaur sheds light on body mass evolution among sauropod dinosaurs". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences284 (1860): 20171219. doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.1219.
-Gonzalez Riga, B.J., Mannion, P.D., Poropat, S.F., Ortiz David, L., Coria, J.P. 2018. Osteology of the Late Cretaceous Argentinean sauropod dinosaur Mendozasaurus neguyelap: implications for basal titanosaur relationships. Journal of the Linnean Society, zlx103, doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlx…

Human silhouette from www.onlygfx.com/20-woman-silho…
Add a Comment:
 
:iconartistszer0:
ArtistsZer0 Featured By Owner Sep 9, 2018
I was wondering if I could trace this for my page , I'll try to give credit because I'm new.
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Edited Sep 10, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Sure, you can give credit by either putting a link to here or by typing '':icon randomdinos:'' (without the space)
Reply
:iconartistszer0:
ArtistsZer0 Featured By Owner Sep 10, 2018
Ight thanks
Reply
:iconbac0nm0rph:
Bac0nm0rph Featured By Owner Sep 3, 2018  Hobbyist Artist
Hm rip tail
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Edited Sep 2, 2018  Student Traditional Artist
Wait, did you just not-downsize a dinosaur? ;)
Edit: My bad, didn’t see the previous version.
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
xD
You could say it's a not-downsize compared to the first attempt at rescaling the tail; it ended up barely over 30m and like 4 tonnes lighter from tail loss alone.
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2018  Student Traditional Artist
Anyway, about sauropod size. You mentioned under your Gigantism in WWD post that you thought 70t for Brachiosaurus was reasonable? so Argentinosaurus-sized, basically? What specimen do you refer to by that?
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
The 70t size was based on a scaling I had done on the ilium of the Potter Creek specimen (briefly shown in one of the SVPOW authors' powerpoint presentations), which I thought was 20-25% longer than the holotype's; but I later found that the ilium of the B.altithorax holotype was not measured in the description, and that other measurements for the Potter Creek material are very close to the holotype in size (213 cm heavily reconstructed humerus against 203 cm, 274 cm rib against 273 cm largest rib). So that ended up completely discrediting my WWD estimate; the same Brachiosaurus specimen is the one in my Brachiosauridae chart today, at almost half the mass I first thought it was. 
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Sep 3, 2018
Out of curiosity, where did you get the B. altithorax mass estimates you used in your brachiosaur chart from? You placed the B. altithorax holotype at ~32.6 tonnes, while Franoys has it at ~37 tonnes and my GDI yielded ~40-41 tonnes with an SG of 0.85. I've also checked the discord GDI channels for anything, nothing there too.
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Sep 3, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I'm guessing Fran didn't have the time to update his chart yet; we estimated it together applying the volume discrepancy in Wedel's GDIs to the +21% convex hull of HMN SII.
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2018
I see, although nowadays I'll advise against it in your case. I admit I'm guilty of using the simplistic "Berlin Giraffatitan model * 123%" method for estimating Brachiosaurus' mass in the past, but after I did my volumetric estimation I'm not so sure anymore.

The reason is that Wedel's discrepancy is for the models he used for his volumetric estimates, which are his own Brachiosaurus skeletal and Greg Paul's 1988 Giraffatitan. Different models, such as the Giraffatitan convex hull model and Scott Hartman's skeletals, would give different results. You're using Scott Hartman's reconstructions in your chart so I'd recommend using volumetric estimates based on those same models for consistency rather than mix-and-matching stats from different models.

I would also go into how the mounted Berlin Giraffatitan along with Greg Paul's and Scott Hartman's skeletal reconstructions of Giraffatitan are a bit problematic, but that's a story for another day.
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Indeed, if the discrepancy was Wedel's creation alone it wouldn't be a good idea to follow it. Luckily, it's corroborated by the functional length of all overlapping dorsals in Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan. That makes it the least speculative discrepancy out of all methods tried, as the GDIs were done on different authors's reconstructions and afaik, we lack a nonspeculative cross-section of either animal.

Knowing the width of the dorsal centra would also be helpful, however, so if that's available it'd be a good idea for me to edit the mass based on it.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Sep 3, 2018
Benson et al. 2014 and a SVPOW post have similar mass est 34-35 tons...
But I can totally see something from 35 to 40 tons being perfectly reasonable for the holotype
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Sep 3, 2018
The Benson et al. (2014) mass estimate for the Brachiosaurus altithorax holotype is about ~56 tonnes, which is probably excessive.

Mind sharing that SVPOW post? What model did they use? My GDI uses Scott Hartman's model, if you've seen my GDI sharing journals.
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Edited Sep 3, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
The SVPOW authors did a GDI that got 35860 L of volume; given sauropod density, if they said a mass of 34-35 tons those should be short or US tons rather than metric. But yes, the results are close.
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Edited Sep 2, 2018
Yes! My guess was correct about the new length!
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I remember you also expected it to be 73 t back before the v1 was released to match Mazetta et al; well, there you go.
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Edited Sep 2, 2018
I was okay with the previous weight too though. I'm glad about whatever weight estimate that's not far from Mazetta et al and Planet Dinosaur.
Reply
:icontkwth:
TKWTH Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Are you gonna be giving this one the 'complete skeleton' treatment too or nah? ^-^
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
At first I was going to, but given the amount of bones preserved... I'd have to do some annoying edits to the vertebra lineart to even slightly differentiate it from Patagotitan, because everywhere else they'd be identical.
Reply
:icontkwth:
TKWTH Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Hmm... Perhaps that says something about how close the two genera really are, if you catch my drift? ;) It's chill tho, Hartman's confirmed he's got an Argentinosaurus skeletal in the pipeline (dunno how soon tho), so I suppose that'll be interesting to see ^-^
Reply
:icondeinocheirusmaster:
deinocheirusmaster Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Can I use this as a reference please?
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Aug 12, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Sure, but be warned I'm now thinking the tail on this is too long, perhaps by more than 22%.
Reply
:iconmajestic-colossus:
Majestic-Colossus Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2018
Here comes another update...
Reply
:iconrizkiusmaulanae:
RizkiusMaulanae Featured By Owner May 5, 2018  Student Traditional Artist
Rip Bus

Its a good riddance anyway
Reply
:iconforbiddenparadise64:
ForbiddenParadise64 Featured By Owner Jun 7, 2018
Take that back!!! Jk. The single decker buses where I live are 3.2m tall for reference. I’m not sure how tall the double decker would be. 
Reply
:iconforbiddenparadise64:
ForbiddenParadise64 Featured By Owner Jun 7, 2018
Correction, double deckers are expected to be under 4.95m in height, otherwise there needs to be safety precautions.  
Reply
:iconspinosaurus14:
Spinosaurus14 Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2018
It resembles a sauropod for some strange reason
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Apr 24, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Hm yes
Reply
:iconmajestic-colossus:
Majestic-Colossus Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2018
What happend to the scale bar bus?! Nice update.
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
The bus was attacked by a Mapusaurus and fled.
gfycat.com/DisgustingGentleCoy…

Thanks!
Reply
:iconforbiddenparadise64:
ForbiddenParadise64 Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2018
The femur is now 269cm? What sorcery is this? 
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
It was never really 255cm, see the description. 269 is one of the possible isometry scalings.
Reply
:iconforbiddenparadise64:
ForbiddenParadise64 Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2018
Don't worry I was joking. Makes more sense for the back to be flatter like this. I also like the osteoderms it now has.
Reply
:iconandreof-gallery:
AndreOF-Gallery Featured By Owner Edited Apr 22, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
It got longer??????

How is it possible?

You only make things smaller...

cannot...code...all systems failing

faint 

Error 404
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Edited Apr 22, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Literally one percent.

And it's just neck, don't worry.
Reply
:iconron14:
Ron14 Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2017
Nice and impressive reconstruction.
However, I disagree with what you say about 'dwarfing the French Monster': (at least) 3 specimens of it have been found, and the most complete and most mentioned one is in fact the smallest of the 3.
I presume you already know Paleo-King's journal about this, see:
Is the French Monster the biggest dinosaur ever?

Search for 'fibula' in the comments. The largest fibula (calf bone) is estimated at between 1.8 and 2.1 m, which would correspond to a femur of between 2.7 and 3.2 m.
Reply
:iconalternateprehistory:
AlternatePrehistory Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2018
The workers at the angeac site refer the material to a Turiasaur, which are known for having very large femora and humeri. This would effect the size of the animal dramatically.
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thanks!

I have heard of the partial French Monster fibula, but its affinity to other specimens hasn't been analyzed by the people who hold the specimen, neither has its size been published as far as I've seen, so I don't believe it is a valid thing to compare to the bones of other animals with published sizes (or scaling from them in the case of the Argentino femur). I used the largest specimen whose measurements have been disclosed, which is the 2.6 m femur.
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
All these stealthy updates....sneaky =P (Razz) 
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
They've stopped... for now.
Reply
:icondinopithecus:
Dinopithecus Featured By Owner Edited Oct 22, 2017
So it's not 75 tonnes anymore?
Reply
Hidden by Commenter
:icondinopithecus:
Dinopithecus Featured By Owner Edited Oct 27, 2017
Oh, I neglected to read that in the description. Apparently taking centrum height into account gives you >87 tonnes. Though, if that is the case, why would random give us a mass figure where it isn't taken into account?
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Edited Nov 9, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
randomdinos.deviantart.com/sta…

Funnily enough, with the method I chose this time around it's back to 75 tonnes, as you put it.
Reply
:icondinopithecus:
Dinopithecus Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2017
Life's funny like that.
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Oct 25, 2017
So what if it's not? 73.3 tonnes is still impressive, it's actually a bit more than what Mazzetta et al. (2004) estimated.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
October 15, 2017
Image Size
798 KB
Resolution
6008×2871
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
6,699 (11 today)
Favourites
131 (who?)
Comments
98
Downloads
72