Paluxysaurus (Sauroposeidon?)

This is a tentative reconstruction of Paluxysaurus jonesi. All the material in this reconstruction comes from Jones Ranch in Texas. A recent paper (D'Emic 2012) has referred it to Sauroposeidon proteles, which is the reason I decided to try and do a skeletal reconstruction. I'm a bit sceptical as to whether Paluxysaurus jonesi should be referred to Sauroposeidon proteles just yet. That said, I don't doubt the two could be closely related and Paluxysaurus could, therefore, be a good starting point when restoring Sauroposeidon.

Paluxysaurus is known from multiple fragmentary individuals, which means that there is a lot of uncertainty in this reconstruction. That said, it should hopefully give some idea what Paluxysaurus might have looked like.

The skull is only known from the nasal and maxilla. I have restored the nasal in a similar orientation to the mounted specimen, and as described by Winkler et. al. 2013 which if correct suggests that the high arching nasal (like those seen in Brachiosaurus or Giraffatitan) that is usually restored for Sauroposeidon isn't correct. However, the paper describing Paluxysaurus (Rose 2007) suggests a more brachiosaur like configuration. Without better images of the material, I can't be certain of the nasals exact shape and orientation, how long the snout is or where the tooth positions are.

More vertebrae are known, they just aren’t illustrated in the description due to them still being prepared. Most of the vertebrae that are illustrated are either incomplete or distorted and I've had to try and restore them. I have assumed 13 cervicals and 12 dorsals. Cervical 9 is illustrated in the description but is only shown in top view so I have had to guess what it looks like in lateral view, I used top view illustrations from Giraffatitian to estimate the overall proportions of the complete cervical.

What's described as the first dorsal is quite small and probably comes from a smaller individual. I scaled it up to match the articulated third and fourth dorsals. The posterior dorsal vertebra has quite a short centrum. If it does belong to Paluxysaurus then it suggests that the dorsal vertebrae get shorter towards the sacrum like they do in brachiosaurs. Based on just how short the centrum is, I have assumed that it is the last dorsal.

The two rib fragments were only illustrated in front view and I'm not certain exactly where they go.

I used Scott Hartman's Brachiosaur tail as a guide to help estimate the positions of the illustrated caudal vertebrae within the tail. I have assumed 50 tail vertebra. With the exception of two vertebrae, I have assumed that all the illustrated caudals come from a similarly sized individual.


I have assumed that the limb material is from a similarly sized individual as the articulated 3rd and 4th dorsals. The radius and ulna are probably distorted or have a pathological condition, it's unclear how straight they would have been in life. I probably should attempt to correct for this but I have left them close to their shape in the fossils; these bones corrected would probably raise the shoulders a small bit. A few humeri are known, but only one was illustrated in side view and it is incomplete; because of this, it's unclear what the more complete humeri would look like in side view, so I have light greyed them out.

Three metacarpals are illustrated in the description, only one (that might represent number IV) was found near the other limb elements. I couldn't figure out how to get the known metacarpals to fit together so I just illustrated a fairly generic sauropod manus around metacarpal IV. I have illustrated a more basal manus like those of brachiosaurs and camarasaurs, which still have obvious finger bones. It could be that Paluxysaurus had the more derived condition in which the metacarpals are touching the ground and the finger bones are tiny stubs.

D'Emic redescribes the Cloverly sauropod material and refers it to Sauroposeidon. I haven't included Cloverly material yet, I do suspect the Cloverly material and the 'Paluxysaurus' material represent similar animals. I still not sure that they should be lumped into the same species yet, I prefer it when specimens are treated separately because it helps reduce the chance of variation being ignored.

For alternate, but otherwise similar, interpretation see Nima Sassani's version here: paleo-king.deviantart.com/art/…

Update 11/07/2013: Illustrated the hypothetical missing bones.

Update 02/10/2013: Added in the pelvic material described by Winkler et al. 2013.