Steveoc86's avatar

Huabeisaurus Skeletal

51 6 2K (2 Today)
By Steveoc86   |   
© 2014 - 2020 Steveoc86
Huabeisaurus allocotus restored as a euhelopodid after D'Emic et al. 2013. There are many areas of uncertainty in this reconstruction, it should be treated with some caution.

My main source for information is D'Emic et al. 2013. More material is known, it just hasn't been illustrated, in some cases due to poor preservation. I haven't been able to get access to the original description so there may be more illustrated that could be included.

There are photos of a Huabeisaurus mount on the internet, however, reading D'Emic et al. 2013 a lot of the original material has been restored and in some cases badly. It also looks to me like a lot of the caudal material in the mount is duplicated even though 30 caudal vertebrae are known. I have generally ignored the mount for information.

With so few cervicals and dorsals illustrated the exact position of the vertebra are not certain. To estimate the cervical's and dorsal's positions I have used images of Euhelopus for reference. I have assumed 17 cervicals and 13 dorsals based on what Wilson and Upchurch 2009 estimate for Euhelopus.

I'm skeptical of the scale of the anterior dorsal neural arch it seems quite small compared to the other known vertebra. I may revisit that part in the future.

I have positioned the caudal vertebra according to D'Emic et al. The scale bars provided and the measurements of the caudals and chevrons don't seem to match up so I'm not sure about a lot of the caudal region. I'm a bit skeptical of the positions suggested by D'Emic, the size of the vertebra drop off quite suddenly. I suspect the tail could be a little longer if the positions were adjusted. Some of the chevrons don't have measurements. For the caudals that are known but not illustrated, I have used the provided centrum lengths to fill the gaps.

A humerus was originally referred to Huabeisaurus, however, D'Emic et al. find this referral unlikely based on the location it was found. I have arbitrarily used this for the shape of a humerus although its dimensions don't match the actual fossil.

Without better photos or illustrations I can't be certain of the shape and measurements of the sacral vertebra or the angle at which the tail sits.

I'm not completely sure of the orientation and placement of the anterior rib. I ended up modeling it crudely in 3d to help get an idea of how to illustrate it, but without a better understanding of the ribs or more images it should be considered preliminary.

Update 11/07/14: Modified a few areas such as the dorsal column and the ribs.
Update 27/04/17: Minor adjustments.
Update 04/07/18: Minor adjustments.
Update 29/08/18: More cosmetic adjustments. Repose neck and straighten tail slightly.

Image size
1280x720px 156.16 KB
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
vasix's avatar
vasixHobbyist Digital Artist
Well it's a bit smaller than the 20-meter estimate I see floating around the this guy fully grown or not? 
Steveoc86's avatar
Sorry for the late reply; I'd need to re-read the papers regarding Huabeisaurus to answer that.

I'm a bit skeptical of my reconstruction at the moment, there where a lot of areas where I was unsure what to trust, the measurements or scale bars, they often didn't compare well.

The caudal vertebra positions were based on what D'Emic stated but there are areas that taper off strangely. Part of me thinks the tail could lengthen slightly if I had more images of tail vertebra or if there is a chance the positions are wrong.

I blindly assumed a 17 vertebra neck based on Euhelopus, that could very well be wrong. That said, that was kind of what I was going for; to see what it would be like with Euhelopidid proportions. The neck length could change with more information.
thedinorocker's avatar
Great work on this one !
Krekka01's avatar
Krekka01Hobbyist Digital Artist
How exactly do people know what exactly a dinosaur will look like (particularly the skull) if only a few of the bones have been found?
Steveoc86's avatar
You don't with any certainty, the usual procedure is to look at the closest relatives and apply any features of that group to your reconstruction.

With Huabeisaurus it has been classified in various different titanosaur groups by different researchers. This reconstruction is simply following D'Emic et al. conclusion that it was a Euhelopodid. The skull I have shown is that of Euhelopus.

Greg Paul has a very different interpretation of Huabeisaurus in his field guide. I'm not sure what his reference is, I imagine he has followed the mounted material quite closely.
pilsator's avatar
pilsatorHobbyist Traditional Artist
Very interesting. Smaller than I would have thought.
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In