Maraapunisaurus fragilimus
By reminegrest
27 Favourites19 Comments2K Views
Speculative skeletal reconstruction based on (let us think) part of dorsal vertebra. If we consider it in terms of primitive diplodocoids, let say, rebbachisaurids, a vertebra should be high with a little vertebral body. Reconstruction is based on the skeleton of Nigersaurus, but the proportions correspond to larger diplodocoids, which gives it a shape similar to Apatosaurus (that also had so high dorsal vertebrae). Total lenght is about 38 m, that makes it not as big as in other estimates, but still huge.
Image details
Image size
4733x1445px 543.93 KB
Published:
© 2014 - 2021 reminegrest
Comments19
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Congrats on predicting the rebbachisaur identity four years ago.
Well, it's not my idea, but it was predicted some years ago. I only gave it reasonable shape. Now I don't remember the article/blog where I found it, but it was probably from SV-POW.
Indeed, it is lost.
If Amphicoelias is a Rebbachisaurid, that would mean it's not the same as Diplodicus right? BTW at what date did the earliest Rebbachisaurids appear? If it's the early Cretaceous that would make Amphicoelias the earliest known Rebbachisaurid.
Regard to the first sentence, yes. I wrote, that it's only a speculation based on single, one, uncertain vertebra. Hypothesis, which assumes membership to Rebbachisauridae also isn't mine. There you have more information and evidence on this:
Whitlock, John A. "A phylogenetic analysis of Diplodocoidea (Saurischia: Sauropoda)." Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 161.4 (2011): 872-915.
Yes, maybe the earliest, but I can't see the problem. The same case until recently with Archaeopteryx paradox, some ghost lineages. Maybe we should wait for new great discoveries
Whitlock, John A. "A phylogenetic analysis of Diplodocoidea (Saurischia: Sauropoda)." Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 161.4 (2011): 872-915.
Yes, maybe the earliest, but I can't see the problem. The same case until recently with Archaeopteryx paradox, some ghost lineages. Maybe we should wait for new great discoveries
38 meters is still no joke where size is concerned. Who put forward the Amphicoelias rebbachisaur theory? Because it really works.
Well, there is a publication: John A. Whitlock. A phylogenetic analysis of Diplodocoidea (Saurischia: Sauropoda). „Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society”, 2011
Here you have an Amphicoelias as classified in the base of Diplodocoidea, near rebbachisaurids
And there :palaeozoologist.deviantart.com… you can find some interesting thoughts about that
Here you have an Amphicoelias as classified in the base of Diplodocoidea, near rebbachisaurids
And there :palaeozoologist.deviantart.com… you can find some interesting thoughts about that
It's good that Amphicoelias is being downsized to something more plausible. Actually, at one point, years ago, I thought that Amphicoelias fragillimus was perhaps an elaborate hoax by Cope just to make Marsh feel shitty (M.O: rivalry, especially the Elasmosaurus scene, method: hire an artist to do an exceptional drawing of a huge bone and then spread the word that it got lost)!
Then I started believing in the smaller end of Amphicoelias' size estimates...now it just makes a whole lot more sense....
Then I started believing in the smaller end of Amphicoelias' size estimates...now it just makes a whole lot more sense....
Nah, Amphicoelias isn't being downsized, but if it's rebbachisaurid or some other basal diplodocoid, it's more plausible, that it will be shorter than we expect. But it's still a presumption based on one single, uncomplete (and maybe poorly measured) vertebra.
Maybe that's why I never really took this genus that seriously...
Awesome! This seems far more plausible than most estimates of 50 metres or over, good job!
Thank you very much!
Great job on the research and the reconstruction!
Thank you very much 
You're welcome!
wery interesting! I am actually happy to see that someone took the time to explore the possibility that amphicoelias wasn't actually as riddiculously huge as often claimed.
It's rather a side-effect of adjustment to rebbachisaurid standards, sill very speculative, and I think that it isn't perfect job on Amphicoelias, but better any than none 
Thanks
Thanksyou're welcome
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In