Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Megalosaur interrupted by ScottHartman Megalosaur interrupted by ScottHartman
As a general rule most books sort of gloss over the transition from basal coelophysoid or ceratosaurian grade theropods to allosaurids, but megalosaurs are actually a fascinating bunch. They not only rose to prominence during the Middle Jurassic, but they continued to compete in the Northern Hemisphere alongside sophisticated allosauroids, and managed an impressive Cretaceous radiation (as spinosaurids). Sadly a lot of these specimens are not terribly complete, so if we want to restore them we need to do a lot of gap filling.

Torvosaurus is actually surprisingly complete once all of the referred specimens are accounted for (mercifully they also have quite a bit of overlap between material, so cross-scaling isn't such a challenge). So perhaps not surprisingly that's what was used to help fill out Megalosaurus and the new T. gurneyi.

Marshosaurus is too far from Torvosaurus to use it, so instead Condorraptor and Piatnitzkysaurus stood in. Also, to be fair to the megalosaurs and the completeness issue some of the more basal taxa like Eustreptospondylus and Piatnitzkysaurus are more complete, but I haven't got to them (yet!).
Add a Comment:
 
:iconladymedusa218:
Ladymedusa218 Featured By Owner Jul 28, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
megalosaurs descended into spinosaurs??? wow ive never heard of that!!!what "links" would be between these two?? also is it thought that maybe the bones of megalosaurus may actually be juvenile torvos??? well i guess actually it would be megalosaurus that would be the correct genus name since it was named first. id love to know the details about all of this :) 
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jul 29, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Since I'm sort of swamped atm I'll point you to the appropriate Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalosa… Not only does it have some fairly recent family trees, but if you meander down towards the works cited at least one paper is available to download (and it has all the characters).

The easiest not-so-technical characters to see are a very large thumb claw, and an elongated head (sure, it's taken further in spinosaurids, but megalosaurs also have long heads).
Reply
:iconasuma17:
Asuma17 Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Come to pass the Torvosaurus seems to pretty well complete though I still can't see why it is so rare and plus on that Marshosaurus too and I wish they'd find more fossils of Megalosaurus it's been incomplete for so long and it was the first dinosaur ever discovered!
Reply
:icontheothertheropod:
TheOtherTheropod Featured By Owner Apr 12, 2015
Iguanodon was the first dinosaur ever discovered. Megalosaurus was the first one described.
Reply
:iconasuma17:
Asuma17 Featured By Owner Apr 12, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
No Megalosaurus was discovered first and then Iguanodon came second. William Buckland and other paleontologists had found bones of Megalosaurus in the Limestone Quarries since the 1700's back then it was first named Scrotum and over the future generations it would go by many variations of it's name and species. Iguanodon was found by Gideon Mantell's wife in 1822 that's 59 years after Megalosaurus' discovery and naming. If your trying to bolster your knowledge and correct some one who knows a lot more about his dinosaur knowledge just to make yourself seem better then you are sorely mistaken ~Seto Kaiba (This is boring) [V1] 
Reply
:icontheothertheropod:
Seriously? There was absolutely no need for that arrogance. That rudeness was completely unjustified and it's rather pitiful you claim to 'know a lot more about his dinosaur knowledge'. I get that I was wrong, and I accept that, but your pretentious attitude is annoying and bully-ish. You probably don't even know as much about dinosaurs as you think. Take a lesson in etiquette and preferably palaeontology, then come back later.
Reply
:iconasuma17:
Asuma17 Featured By Owner Apr 12, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Well you always try to and correct me with every single thing I write in my comments you and acepredator like the debate the Quetzalcoatlus and attacking it's prey swooping down at them or being scavengers as well like Vulture. Only reason why say that is because you keep annoying and I do know a little more about dinosaurs I'm no pushover and I take my studying and recaps very seriously and have take the potential to do so. If you want to talk about pretentious and being bully-ish than look in the mirror cause you always did to me and were sometimes high in ignorance beyond belief.

And how have you known about dinosaurs? like for 10 years or something? I've known about dinosaurs for 18 years now going on 19. For a person who knows over 1000 prehistoric animals all in one setting for 18 years...guess who wins? Maybe you should take more of the time learn from your own lessons, Just know that you...Paleo-hypocrite.Ciel Phantomhive (Serious Look) [V1] 
Reply
:icontheothertheropod:
That is a holier-than-thou attitude. I did not bully you: I critiqued, but you were the one that responded negatively and pushing the fact that 'you know' upon me. You did not respond well to me giving information. Remember when we talked about when Carnotaurus lived (on my previous account I forgot the login details of)? You were the one to respond with 'freaking idiot, do you have any brains left?'. Previously to that I had not insulted you. I'm tired of it. I've also looked through my comment archives and didn't find anything arguing with you about azhdarchid palaeobiology (probably just that apepredator), nor did I ever insult you. My corrections were all in good spirit. I have inferiority complex anyway so trying to demean you would be very unusual. I am tired of it because your responses are fallacious and most of all hurtful.
 Also, who the heck is acepredator?  
Reply
:iconasuma17:
Asuma17 Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Seijirou Kikuoka (Explanation) [V2] In way you still bullied me, your criticism isn't exactly saintly. Byakuya Togami (Serious Talk) [V1] And I do know a little bit more about dinosaurs and that doesn't have to do with arrogance that is just what I'm pointing out and Masato Inohara (Burning Spirit) [V2] I'm not hesitant to say so, you always seem to questioning my knowledge on dinosaurs with your criticism, but I try to tell you what is correct or is probable solution, but your ignorance is rampant to the point where you think I showing arrogance. Sorry pal that's not what is happening here despite my comment earlier.yu yu hakusho gif Hiei 

And yes I do remember actually and I had a right to say so since your ignorance was so beyond point where you refused to believe me and as I told you before that Carnotaurus was from the Upper Late Cretaceous period and Talenkaun both lived during that same stage of the period, but you refused to believe it and kept looking upon your own beliefs (which okay, but not good your defense) and was getting to the point you frustrated me. As I mentioned I also said AcePredator another Deviantmember who just like always tries to correct me in everything that involves dinosaurs, if anything I like to know how much you study on dinosaur in regular basis and if you say your corrections were pure then why didn't you just look up the dinosaurs yourself when had the conversation to get a recap on what we discussed. That's the problem you didn't in other words pure ignorance...Sayu Hmph Icon 
Reply
:icontheothertheropod:
I've looked through my comment archives and I didn't find anything from me insulting you. You were the one who started to get mad. For the record, my undergraduate paper will be on dinosaurs, the basal tyrannosauroids, to be precise (I won't be dwelling on this, but if you wish to know more tell me). I love talking about the biology, morphology, ecology of prehistoric biota, but you constantly deny everything I try to get across. I don't care how many years you've 'studied' dinosaurs, the fact that you think you know everything is a unusual attitude for someone that (i presume) is a person of science. To add, in science, you should always be open to criticism and corrections. We're all wrong at some point: just because we're knowledgeable in an field doesn't mean we're the all-encompassing entity. You know some things about dinosaurs, sure, but I should remind you you've constantly been saying 'I know more, I've studied this and that for this long'. A person of science doesn't get aggravated during scientific discussion. Here are some quotes of yours:

Jan 26 2014:

plus I know a lot about my dinosaur time periods, especially the Jurassic and Cretaceous...though I don't know all the stages I familiar with Champanian, Maastrichtian and Albian and a little bit of the Santonian with Cretaceous and the Tithonian, Oxfordian, Callovian and Kimmeridgian so get you're facts on track pal!

Sep 24, 2014:

Wow nice way of putting that do you make friends that way or what? 

April 12, 2015:

If your trying to bolster your knowledge and correct some one who knows a lot more about his dinosaur knowledge just to make yourself seem better then you are sorely mistaken

Btw, I looked up Talenkauen and Carnotaurus again, and Novas et al. (2004) and Bonaparte (1985) both confirm they're from Cenomanian and Maastrichtian strata respectively, meaning there is a 19 million year difference between them. There is more than one part of the Late Cretaceous.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconjeda45:
Jeda45 Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2014
What do you think of nasal crests/ridges in megalosauroids? Dennonyx says that it's parsimonious to assume that they had them, since most basal members of "carnosaur-grade" (Ceratosauria, Allosauroidea, Tyrannosauroidea) lineages had them. I'm especially interested in piatnitzkysaurids, so I can make my Marshosaurus reconstruction as accurate as possible.
On a related note, did they have lacrimal horns?
Reply
:iconthediremoose:
thediremoose Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2014
I'm curious. The specimen of Marshosaurus from the Carnegie Quarry included the back of the skull, the cervicals, and the first five dorsals (which are shown) but also a scapula and partial humerus (which are not). Is the forelimb material no longer considered part of that specimen?
Reply
:icondennonyx:
Dennonyx Featured By Owner Mar 23, 2014  Student General Artist
^agree
Reply
:iconezekiel-black:
Ezekiel-Black Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2014
Awesome, I love Torvosaurus. Maybe this is a sign for me to do more dino drawings.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
It's definitely a sign.
Reply
:iconasacquaf:
asacquaf Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014
Where does Edmarka come in on this scale?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Edmarka is just another specimen of Torvosaurus, so its remains have been included already (and the skeletals are not to scale).
Reply
:iconkazuma27:
Kazuma27 Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
What?!
And i thought we had at least one complete megalosauridd arm :P
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Well we have the arm of Torvosaurus, just not all of the wrist and hand.
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014
I recently saw your (modified) skeletal of T.gurneyi on the paper!
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Indeed :)
Reply
:icongojira5000:
Gojira5000 Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Torvosaurus probably wasn't the most amazing at running, judging from comparisons of it's upper-lower leg ratio to more high-speed animals like a cheetah or Carnotaurus; it's lower legs are almost laughably puny in comparison to a cheetah's.

In fact, it looks like a running Torvosaurus might just go at a "whopping" 20 miles an hour, I can't see it possibly running much faster unless it had the most freakin' roided-up drumstick legs in the animal kingdom.

Even still, 20 mph is enough to kill most people (and sauropods), so maybe I shouldn't mock it's speed.
Reply
:iconzegh8578:
ZEGH8578 Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2014
Had I come across this 10 years ago, I woulda fallen into a happy spasm. This is amazingly cool, über obscure critters together. Afrovenator and Dubreuillosaurus, how closely related are they?
All of them have this long, narrow snout, that I like to imagine as being dead-sauropod-stomach-content-scoops. Such a specialization possibly explaining their departure from more standard hunting body shapes (as in Allosaurus), and also their relation to Spinosaurids, whos elongated snout allready forms the basis around their specialization. Mid and especially late jurassic would be a time when dead, rotting sauropods would exist in quantities, here and there, not only sauropods, of course, but there would be a lot of sauropods around! A whole niche of long snouted, expert-sniffing prowlers wouldn't be too unlikely.

It also puzzled me before, how narrow Torvosaurus belly is. Is it unusually wide, to compensate for the seemingly diminished stomach size? If not, that too could reflect a specialization in Torvosaurus' life.
Lots of speculation on my part now, but someone's gotta do that too :D
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Torvosaurus does not have a particularly wide abdomen (no megalosaurs do to my knowledge). I'm not sure if the ribcage itself is unusually short as much as the pelvic girdle is. It's clearly a derived condition (and we have complete pelvic remains, so it's not a matter of mis-scaling something) but I have to admit I don't know what exactly they are doing with them. Maybe they can more easily crawl into a sauropod rib cage to get at the entrails? Or maybe it has something to do with respiration. One thing I can say (and hope to blog about) is that the legs of Torvosaurus are much more splayed than you see in carnosaurs (let alone coelurosaurs), so maybe that has an impact on the pelvic musculature.
Reply
:iconeriorguez:
Eriorguez Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2014
Mmm, Megalosaurus being ancestral to Torvosaurus, or at least quite similar to the animal Torvosaurus evolved from, is something that shouldn't be rule out, right?

Still, neat to see more of those animals, they tend to be labeled as generic and left forgotten, so they deserve a bit of attention.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
It absolutely shouldn't be ruled out. Megalosaurus clades with Torvosaurus, and existed sufficiently early relative to it. Of course we don't test literal ancestor-descendant relationships in modern phylogenetics, we test shared common ancestry, so currently there's no easy way to test the idea.
Reply
:iconolofmoleman:
olofmoleman Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Nice to see some love for Megalosaurs.
Reply
:iconzopteryx:
ZoPteryx Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Shame there's not more remains to go on.  I never realized they had a small notch at the end of the upper jaw.  Any particular reason for the longer arms on Marshosaurus?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
It's based on the arms of Piatnitzkysaurus, which seem to be similarly large (and is closer related to Marshosaurus). FWIW Eustreptospondylus seems to have a somewhat intermediate arm length. I think the take-home message is that megalosaurs dominated a lot of niches during the Middle Jurassic, so they evolved a bunch of sizes and proportions in response to those environments.
Reply
:iconblade-of-the-moon:
Blade-of-the-Moon Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
It's interesting out 4 species now how little we have..reminds of a similar issue spinosaurs face. 

I've always wanted to create a 1:1 Megalosaurus and Iguanodon.. but I generally shy away from species with such incomplete skeletons as Megalosaurus...though your reconstructions here make me think it might just work out.
Reply
:iconfloyatoy:
Floyatoy Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2014
Thanks Scott.  I'd love to see them to scale. 
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
That was my original intent, but I have to decide how to scale Megalosaurus, since the shotgun-style of referred specimens by Benton has lead to more than one size class of individuals.
Reply
:iconangrydinobirds:
Angrydinobirds Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2014  Hobbyist
So when might you get to the other megalosaurs like Eustreptospondylus?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
I really have no idea. I have Eustreptospondylus AND Piatnitzkysaurus totally scaled and ready to go, but precious little time for anything but research, course work, and teaching right now.
Reply
:iconangrydinobirds:
Angrydinobirds Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014  Hobbyist
All right. Guess I could wait. ;) (Wink) 
Reply
:iconkitwhitham:
KitWhitham Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2014
So is it starting to be a more accepted view that magalosaurs/torvosaurs evolved into spinosaurs?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
It seems pretty settled that spinosaurs are megalosauroids. They probably didn't literally evolve from the Megalosaurus/Torvosaurus clade though.
Reply
:iconkitwhitham:
KitWhitham Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2014
 I see. When I was looking at the arms of Torvosaurus and Baryonyx, I did notice that they were similar. Hopefully we'll find a transitional Megalo-to-spinosaurid in 2014!
Reply
:iconthediremoose:
thediremoose Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2014
Actually, we may already have one. Monolophosaurus has shown up as immediately basal to the meg+spin clade, and it has a prominent midline crest on its skull and sort of "rosette" of teeth on its lower jaw like spinosaurs do.
Reply
:iconkitwhitham:
KitWhitham Featured By Owner Mar 13, 2014
Huh, of all the times I've looked at his skeletals I've failed to notice that.
Reply
:iconjeda45:
Jeda45 Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2014
How big were Megalosaurus and Marshosaurus? Gregory Paul has all of the piatnitzkysaurs as being 4.5 meters long, and Megalosaurus at 6 meters, is that right?
Also, did megalosaurs have lacrimal horns? It looks to me like Marshosaurus has some, but I see that the lacrimals aren't preserved and I could be misinterpreting them.

Thanks.
Reply
:iconspinodontosaur4:
Spinodontosaur4 Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2014
If I recall correctly the largest material referred to Megalosaurus is an 83 cm illium, so based on the skeletal above that would indicate a tip-to-tip length of something like 8.3 meters, for over the curves I'm not sure, I lack the means to measure it atm, but something like 8.5 - 9 meters is probably in the ballpark.
Doing the same for Marshosaurus (largest remain is, I believe, a 37.5 cm illium) gives a tip-to-tip length of 4.1 meters.

So I think Paul is probably close to the money with Marshosaurus, but not Megalosaurus.
Reply
:iconjeda45:
Jeda45 Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2014
Wow, Marshosaurus was hardly bigger than a big Deinonychus. Surprisingly tiny for something so stock-"carnosaur"-y. Is this true of Piatnitzkysaurus too?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Yeah, Piatnitzkysaurus isn't very large either.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Marshosaurus isn't terribly large, but Megalosaurus is something of an enigma - most of the composite material seems to come from a ~7m long theropod, but one of the isolated ilia looks like it could scale up to a 10m long animal to me.
Reply
:iconblazze92:
bLAZZE92 Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2014
That femur in Torvosaurus tanneri (Britt (1991) says the femur is unknown) is part of the unpublished specimen you mentioned before right? or is it something you can't say?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
There is a complete leg with the "Brontoraptor" specimen.
Reply
:iconblazze92:
bLAZZE92 Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2014
Looking at the supplemental material of Benson et al. (2014) I'm seeing that the Brontoraptor specimen is comparable in size to the subadult from dry mesa, is that correct? I always thought that it was supposed to be gigantic.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
That's about right. It was supposed to be robust (and it is), but it's not special in size. Nor in morphology...
Reply
:iconblazze92:
bLAZZE92 Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2014
Oh, thanks.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
March 8, 2014
Image Size
3.8 MB
Resolution
4800×6362
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
5,154
Favourites
123 (who?)
Comments
63
×