Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Remember the (subadult) Alamosaurus by ScottHartman Remember the (subadult) Alamosaurus by ScottHartman
Actually named after the Ojo Alamo Formation, not the tourist trap in Texas. Otherwise a fairly normal Late Cretaceous titanosaur, and one you can actually draw interacting with T. rex.

New edit: The new specimen that was mounted in Dallas has made it clear that there are important changes in the neck between the younger specimens and a large adult. You can see the adult version here: [link]

As near as I can tell the proportions shown here are those of a half-grown individual.
Add a Comment:
 

The Artist has requested Critique on this Artwork

Please sign up or login to post a critique.

:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2017
Hello Scott

Did Alamosaurus  and  Argentinosaurus have an armour skin in back of body like titanosaurs, aligators and Ankylosaurs? How and why?

Did Giganotosaurus have a prey method like Allosaurus ?
Do Teeth and jaws in both  them were meat eater for preying herd of giant
sauropods?

The numbers of predators of a herd in Allosaurus, Giganotosaurus and T.rex for preying giant sauropods was similar each other? How and why? which one have the most numbers in group method prey? What is your personal reasons?

Do T.rex can use their bone broker teeth and jaws for cut thick of alive giant Alamosaurus? or  T.rex was just  scavanger of their carcaces like spotted Hyena? How and why?
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
1. All sauropods were likely covered in thick scales that would protect them, but not quite like ankylosaurus or crocodiles because they weren't ossified (made from bone) but besides having these thick scales, Alamosaurus had diagonal keratin spikes with bone cores on it's back. Argentinosaurus likely had stouter, rounder armored studs on it's back like Mendozasaurus.

2. Both Allosaurus and Giganotosaurus may have hunted sauropods, but probably not the giant ones such as Alamosaurus: they are too big.

3. It is not known wether they hunted in packs, so the numbers are also unknown.

4. No, a giant 30+ m Alamosaurus would have had bones too thick for even a T.rex to bite through, at least, the bones it can reach. T.rex likely didn;t hunt adult, giant Alamosaurus (~60 tonnes) but instead may have hunted juveniles or young ones.
Reply
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2017
Hello Scott


 1- Alamosaurus was a relatives of Argentinosaurus that migrate to north america? How and why?

2- Which one of them were the bigger in length and weight ? How and why?

3- Do exist any Argentinosaurus in south america in same time that
Alamosaurus  exist?

4- you told me, .... Giganotosaurus and Allosaurus prey long neck dinosaurs because their teeth and jaws was meat cutter ..... but teeth and haws of T.rex was good for break bones of Triceratops and Ankylosaurus  Therefore, How .rex prey fast giant  Hadrosaurs and giant  Alamosaurus (mountain of meat) ?

Do documents  about teeth mark of T.rex in bones of Alamosaurus was related to scavanger of carcace like a hyena ? 

T.rex was like spotted  hyena or a lion? both them prey animals but lions just prey a live animals but spotted  hyena with their powerful jaws enjoy of carcaces too. however. Heyna are low speed predator and lions have good speed in chased animals.... How about T.rex ?
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Jul 7, 2016
Hi Mr Scott!
I'm reading the new paper describing a giant Alamosaurus cervical verts (on which you based your adult Alamosaurus I suppose), and the statement "Alamosaurus cervical morphology Resemble south American giant titanosaurs" excited me so... Will the incoming Argentinosaurus redescribe old remains or there is new material as some rumors claimed? Or is simply under embargo and I have to wait this fall?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
I am not personally aware of new material, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be some.
Reply
:iconpedrosalas:
PedroSalas Featured By Owner Apr 30, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Aug 23, 2013  Professional General Artist
Scott! I can't give an official critique, but f%&k them if they can't take a joke. Knowing that even the experts don't have the whole skeleton story, how can I say you're right or wrong about it? I'll simply review it as an artist and how it affects me. 

This is quite an elegant looking animal, which looks here as if it's really walking. You do give an idea of the mass of this young giant, which is something a lot of paleo-artists miss. Too many reconstructions and restorations of giant dinos look like they could be the size of a small dog, but you avoid that pitfall here. 

You know me; I'd like to see more muscle hinting in the front limbs and chest area, but at least you don't starve the poor beast, like some paleo-artists do. Excellent job! :clap:
Reply
:iconkeesey:
keesey Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2013
Where's the basement?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
The basement?
Reply
:iconkeesey:
keesey Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2013
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Ah, lol!
Reply
:iconpivotshadow:
PivotShadow Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2013
Pfft...So many title puns...
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Hey, you go ahead and post over a hundred technical illustrations that take 12-30 hours apiece and see how straight-laced you place it!

;)
Reply
:iconiherduleikdragonites:
iherduleikdragonites Featured By Owner Apr 14, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Hooray! A skeletal of my favorite sauropod! This will help me with drawings! Good job!
Reply
:iconarchanubis:
Archanubis Featured By Owner Apr 14, 2013
Wonder why you never see T-Rex and this guy with each other...
Reply
:iconthediremoose:
thediremoose Featured By Owner Apr 26, 2013
You do. They're both preserved at the North Horn Quarry in Utah.
Reply
:iconsaberrex:
Saberrex Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
America's largest sauropod, for the time being.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Apr 14, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Not if you believe estimates for A. fragilimus. But otherwise, yes.
Reply
:iconsaberrex:
Saberrex Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
From what i've read, Alamosaurus was similar in size to Puertasaurus and Argentinosaurus based on the larger individual bones found.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Correct, it's in that size range. But if Amphicoelias fragillimus is really as big as some have claimed (hard to check since the specimen is lost) it would have been larger, and it's from North America. That's all I was getting at :)
Reply
:iconsaberrex:
Saberrex Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
i understand. i wonder though if Amphicoelias was somewhat lighter because it was a diplodocid
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
If the original dimensions proved to be real it would still dramatically outmass them, as the size difference would be enormous. Still, there's every reason to be skeptical of a fossil that no longer exists (and for which there are no photographs).
Reply
:iconsaberrex:
Saberrex Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
i think there was one photograph. just one. not sure what happened to it, but i've seen it.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
No, not a single photograph. There are a couple of hand-drawn plates, but of course those don't provide you with any independent size reference (like a chair or refrigerator next to it). Nothing now but the plates, and Cope's brief description.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icondinobirdman:
DinoBirdMan Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2013  Student Artist
So alamosaurus is now from San Juan county, New mexico, I was in la plata new mexico too!
Reply
:iconb1izzardhawk:
B1izzardHawk Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2013
I'm from san antonio, texas; home to THE alamo
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
But not the Alamosaurus ;)
Reply
:icontyrannosaurusjoel:
TyrannosaurusJoel Featured By Owner Sep 16, 2012
Do you mind if I use this as a reference to create a restoration? I credit you as the reference, of course.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Sep 19, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
Please do so. Let me know if you post it.
Reply
:icontyrannosaurusjoel:
TyrannosaurusJoel Featured By Owner Sep 19, 2012
Thanks! Will do!
Reply
:icontyrannosaurusjoel:
TyrannosaurusJoel Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2013
I was going to wait another 65 million years before I uploaded the picture, but then I realized we may not live that long. Anyway, here is the URL to the picture. Let me know what you think! [link]
Reply
:iconpalaeozoologist:
palaeozoologist Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Great reconstruction, but I have a question: why is the humerus/femur ratio so high (like 0.94 by the looks of it)? Didn't Lozinsky et al. (1984) show the ratio was closer to 0.76?

Refs--

Lozinsky, R.P., Hunt, A.P., Wolberg, D.L., Lucas, S.G. Late Cretaceous (Lancian) dinosaurs from the McRae Formation, Sierra County, New Mexico. New Mexico Geology, November 1984, p. 72-77.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2011  Professional Digital Artist
Fair enough: Ignoring for the moment that the TKM specimens were only tentatively assigned to Alamosaurus sp. and may not be the same animal, I think the relevant part here would be the first paragraph of the humeral description:

"TKM007 is an incomplete right humerus and is estimated to be 75-80% complete. When discovered, the specimen was very fragmented and has been pieced together."

So the humerus/femur ratio for an animal that may or may not be Alamosaurus was estimated from a busted and incomplete humerus. I'll stick with the cross-scaling I did with the data from Gilmore (1946), Lucas & Sullivan (2000), and Lehman & Coulson (who come up with a similar ratio as what I calculated) from 2002.

Don't get me wrong, an articulated adult specimen could prove me wrong, but given the data from juvenile specimens and what could be cross-calculated I don't expect to be wrong by more than 10% at the top end.

Excellent question though. :D
Reply
:iconpalaeozoologist:
palaeozoologist Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
You made some good points that I am going to have to think about more. However, I might bring up the fact that the femur described by Lucas & Sullivan (2000) was also incomplete. Also, no complete Alamosaurus femurs have been completely described, whereas a complete humerus has been; so might the scaling of the incomplete humerus by Lozinsky et al. (1984) be more reliable than the scaling of the incomplete femur by Lucas & Sullivan (2000)? (I honestly am asking this question--I'm not trying to be snarky or anything :) )

Also, doesn't the partial femur SMP VP-1138 illustrated in Lucas & Sullivan not necessarily belong to the same individuals of the other specimens described therein ? I ask this because than how can you cross-scale appropriately (again, I am asking this question because I honestly don't know the answer)?

It just seems to me that such a high humerus/femur ratio is unlikely given what we know in more closely related titanosaurs (not that it is impossible, by any means).

Thanks for the info, by the way, much appreciated :D
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Sorry for the delay! I followed Lehman & Coulson's use of specimens TMM 41060, 41063, 41541, and 42495 for cross-scaling, as those specimens have humeri as well as pelvic and femoral elements. It looks like the new Perot Museum mount follows that lead as well (though I'll be the first to admit that mounts often get things wrong).

That neck they put up (and you illustrate) is crazy-awesome. How much of it is real? In the (not overly good) photos I have the casts look like they might have been reinflated? I'd sure love to add the neck to the reconstruction if I can figure out what is real in it.
Reply
:iconpalaeozoologist:
palaeozoologist Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Thanks! Are those specimens described anywhere? I know Lehman and Coulson refer to Lawson's thesis (1972), but unfortunately my pdf copy of Lawson (1972) is missing every other page (i.e., most of the plates). If you have a better copy of Lawson, I'd appreciate a copy and I'll revise my skeletal accordingly (my email is zach(dot)armstrong64(at)yahoo(dot)com).

The Big Bend neck specimen that is on display at the Perot Museum is composed of 10 cervical vertebrae, and appear to be cervicals 5-13. So it's not a complete neck. My skeletal uses some of the anterior elements of the juvenile to fill in cervicals 2,3 and 4.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by the casts being reinflated. My skeletal is not based off the casts in the mounted skeleton, but off of photos of the actual material (checking online, I think these are still some photos of the actual material (some are fairly high-res): [link]). Some of the vertebrae look like they were reassembled, but most are fairly complete, if a bit mangled. I emailed Tom Lehman about their referral to Alamosaurus, as I was originally under the impression that the large cervicals were not all that similar to the juvenile material, but he assured me that they share all the relevant diagnostic characters and that the neural spines in the dorsal verts of adults are also inflated, though not to the same degree. Apparently there is some degree of peramorphism in the adults, possibly because they appear to never quite stop growing.
Reply
:iconemperordinobot:
EmperorDinobot Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2011
This animal was quite robust, no?
Reply
:iconr-heinart:
r-heinart Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Every wondered about pack work with Tyrannosaurus? Well here's your proof! Just imagine, a pack of 68 MYA Tyrannosaurus rex, hunting as a pack. I don't know why the 68 MYA Tyrannosaurs are different for the 65 MYA Tyrannosaurs. Horner may have a point there.
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Aug 23, 2013  Professional General Artist
A 68 MYA Tyrannosaurus ain't huntin' nothin'. Sorry, but some language errors really get to me. :rofl: 
Reply
:iconr-heinart:
r-heinart Featured By Owner Aug 23, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Confuses me, this comment does. 
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Aug 23, 2013  Professional General Artist
What you probably meant to say was tyrannosaurs from 68 MYA. What you actually said was that the tyrannosaurs were 68 million years old. That's a LOT of birthdays! 
Reply
:iconr-heinart:
r-heinart Featured By Owner Aug 23, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Million years Ago. Not 'Million Years Old'.
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Aug 23, 2013  Professional General Artist
Yer right. Sorry! But MYA looks to me like Million Years of Age. Poor things need some rest! 
Reply
:icondinoroy39:
DinoRoy39 Featured By Owner Sep 9, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Yeah, but the thing with a scavenging T-Rex, thats half right. Because in denver there is an edmontosaurus skeleton with a part of a tail bone missing. And a T-rex tooth is a perfect match.
Reply
:iconthewhiningrhino:
Thewhiningrhino Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2010
Beautiful skeletal of one of my favorite sauropods. I'm actually thinking about writing a story that'll include this dinosaur as a character, and this will be a huge help if I do commit.
Reply
:icongorgoraptor:
gorgoraptor Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2010
This is very good. What did you base the skull off of? It's my understanding that an Alamosaurus skull has not been found.
Reply
:iconthediremoose:
thediremoose Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2010
And I believe Tyrannosaurus and Alamosaurus have both been found at the North Horn quarry in Utah.
Reply
:icontyrannosaurusprime:
TyrannosaurusPrime Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2010
Beatutiful! You managed to give the Alamosaurus the justice it deserves! ;)
Reply
:iconpilsator:
pilsator Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2010  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Wonderful :)
Reply
:iconsmnt2000:
Smnt2000 Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2010  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Amazing. I’ve never seen any skeletal reconstruction of this sauropod like this, and this one is pretty cool. Great job!
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
December 10, 2010
Image Size
1.6 MB
Resolution
5188×2902
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
19,613
Favourites
161 (who?)
Comments
82