Deviation Actions

SameerPrehistorica's avatar

Megafauna - Mammals

Some of the terrestrial mammalian megafauna.

Gigantopithecus blacki, Palaeoloxodon namadicus, Siberian tiger, Bison latifrons, Grizzly bear, Elasmotherium caucasicum, Smilodon fatalis, Arctodus simus, Sivatherium giganteum, American lion, Dire wolf, Paraceratherium transouralicum, Hippopotamus gorgops, Epicyon haydeni, Arctotherium angustidens, Polar bear, Smilodon populator, Cervalces latifrons, Megatherium americanum, White rhinoceros, African lion, African elephant, Hippopotamus amphibius, Equus giganteus, Gray wolf, Gaur, Megacamelus merriami, Masai giraffe and Silverback gorilla.

This is a kind of image that i'm suppose to upload before 1 1/2 years when i was quite active.

(Random comment : 'You forgot to add daeodon, you forgot to add this ....., you forgot to add that ........., it would have been nice if this ......... was in the image.

Answer : I don't forget them, especially the ones i already have but i didn't added some of them. I lost some files and i didn't bothered to make them again. If i added all the mammals i have then most likely the numbers will cross 100. I just added few animals this time because adding some more will cause the image to become longer, some animals won't be seen properly and overall the image will suck. I'm known to do this mess. If you remember my old Pleistocene megafauna image, you will know it. )

It's better to have separate megafauna image for mammals because they get overshadowed by the dinosaurs like i have done previously. Indeed it's nice to see different animal groups together but i guess there doesn't have to be more images like that, they will only be suitable for giants. It seems to me that the only good choice to see different animals is by separating them in images based on continents and definitely also separating mammals and dinosaurs and not to put them together like i did before.

It's quite surprising to see certain species being bigger which are not usually expected to be big. For example, the giant camel megacamelus is close the size of an average Asian elephant. People compare some extinct animals with modern animals, talking about certain extinct cousin of a modern animal which could defeat another modern animal of a different species in a battle. Some extinct felines being bigger that could challenge some modern bear species. These are fantasies that people like to talk about but when talking in the more realistic sense, a certain modern animal that they would think will lose in a battle with an extinct animal won't be correct because these different animals didn't lived together and this certain modern animal will be bigger in the past. According to nature rules, there is always certain species which is bigger than the other. An extinct large feline can be the size of a grizzly bear but in the time it lived, there were larger bears. Ever since when the proboscideans evolved to larger size, almost always in different periods of time, they were the largest land animals.

So it's nice to see images which has animals together which lived at the same time or at least lived in the same continent. That is more realistic and also in these images, there will be few mammalian giants, just one or two standing like a tower among other medium sized and small animals.
Image details
Image size
2500x625px 240.76 KB
© 2019 - 2021 SameerPrehistorica
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
DemandHandimation's avatar

Palaeoloxodon looks so happy :dummy:

I am happy for Palaeoloxodon :love:

BloodStalker500's avatar
Friggin' amazing how all these mammals are considered giants but only two or three of them are even up to Palaeoloxodon Namadicus' shoulder. THAT is a behemoth, right there.
Gaijinaho's avatar
Wonderful chart!
ArthropodMan's avatar
I see you are going a new direction with this. Will you do a whole compilation of large bony fish like you did sharks and cetaceans?
SameerPrehistorica's avatar
I didn't know what to say before because most likely i won't be able to do a compilation of large bony fish. I might be but it won't have many species like seen in sharks and cetaceans images because i make different varieties of animals when i have some time. I can't remember many bony fish other than the likes of leedsichthys, rhizodus etc. I have not done much research on them, there could be some interesting bony fish and i guess most of them are smaller. Then the sharks and cetaceans images i made before doesn't look good, they need a better update.
ArthropodMan's avatar

Well, that's cool. If you are interested I can name you a bunch of large bony fish, living and extinct.

asari13's avatar
dgimandre's avatar
   Достаточно достоверно , не придраться . Всё  убедительно  и профессионально , короче  - молодчина !
philocake's avatar
Am I the only one who thinks the silverback is too small?
Majestic-Colossus's avatar
The size is correct.
bluewingfairy's avatar
Good morning friend, Mammals, Mammals are wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
BenRG's avatar
It's interesting that, unlike the Dinosaurs, order Mammalia has never had any super-sized predators in the style of Tyrannosaurus Rex. Terrestrial mammal predators pretty much stop at current bear size when herbivores keep on going and going!
Wolfman3200's avatar
Well, theropods had air sacs to support their big size which is why they are about the size of Ornithopods (even though Tyrannosaurus was still dwarfed by Shantungosaurus). Mammals don't have that which restricts their size to the way they are as animals.
SameerPrehistorica's avatar
Comparing a predatory dinosaur like t-rex in the mammalian world can raise the question as why there was no larger mammalian predator the size of elephants but then again in the dinosaur world,the large theropods are about the size of bears or lions because they are very small compared to gigantic sauropods.
Lohakim's avatar
OMG!  This is what I want :) Nice work
Erdbeerstern's avatar
What an amazing chart <3
Timebrain's avatar
Mmmmm... such a painfully drab, uninteresting bunch of animals, aren't they?  This is an excellent chart, don't get me wrong, it's just I don't see the 'awe' factor in prehistoric mammals.  Sure, we might have been around to meet some of them, but for the most part, it more or less seems like they're all just slightly larger versions of modern organisms with a few extra things like saber teeth or an abundance of hair.  An oversimplification, and wrong certainly upon closer examination, but compared to not only dinosaurs but other groups of life that came before or even lived among them like the terror birds, I just can't help but think mammoths, sabertoothed mammoths and the sort are just dull.  Doesn't help that, by the very nature of mammals, they more or less come in varying shades of brown.
Cervinnee's avatar

I actually love mammals, and I would never dare call them "painfully drab" or "uninteresting".

shockaLocKer's avatar
You're only saying such because you're used too them
Kagansaurus's avatar
You clearly aren't at all interested in mammal evolution and recent prehistory if this seems like a boring bunch to you.
Timebrain's avatar
Not entirely true, I do find some interest in the development of mammals, since there were some interesting forms that developed about five to ten million years after the end of the Mesozoic... but after that, I suppose it is as you say, not much to write home about in regards to mammal evolution.  As for recent prehistory, there were some interesting reptiles and birds that we might've encountered that are honestly far more interesting than the mammoths and the sort we normally associate that time with.
Kagansaurus's avatar
They are more associated with that time because they were the dominant animals then, excluding for some weird exceptions in far-reaching areas of the world. I think it helps to already be interested in modern animals to highlight what makes their prehistoric counterparts cool and interesting as well.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In