Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Thunder Lizard size comparison by ScottHartman Thunder Lizard size comparison by ScottHartman
Does what it says on the bottle. I did a write up on some details on my Facebook page here: [link]

I assume there will be lots of questions about scaling and which specimens I've used, so I'll see you in the comments section below.

Update: Added a gray silhouette of the mexican Alamosaurus specimen, and changed some of the scale people for more variety.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconthediremoose:
thediremoose Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2015
I wonder what we should call the OMNH monstrosity in light of Tschopp's findings. Probably "Apatosaurinae i.s." for now.
Reply
:icontheomnivore:
TheOmnivore Featured By Owner Apr 7, 2015
Good news, everyone! Brontosaurus might be valid again! peerj.com/articles/857/
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Apr 7, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
Good to see this finally get published. Yes, there's probably a decent argument for Brontosaurus (now that it's in the clear to talk about it).
Reply
:iconarchanubis:
Archanubis Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2015
Wondered if you had heard about that.  Do you plan on creating a skeletal reconstruction of Brontosaurus (assuming the reclassification sticks)?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
Assuming their phylogeny holds I've already done a Brontosaurus skeletal reconstruction.
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Mar 21, 2015
Hi Mr Hartman how are you?
after a lot of work and a interesting discussion with Mr Wedel I had finished a work on Sauroposeidon...
Can I send it to you for having your thoughts?

thank you
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 21, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
Sure, I'll take a look.
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Mar 23, 2015
Thank you !
I Will send it to your email
Reply
:iconsilverdragon234:
SilverDragon234 Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2015
Ah, sauropods - the most gentle of giants :)
Reply
:iconthediremoose:
thediremoose Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2015
I wouldn't be so sure. Most large herbivores today aren't all that gentle; there's no reason to assume sauropods were either.
Reply
:iconsilverdragon234:
SilverDragon234 Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2015
Only when solitary bulls are in musth
Reply
:iconjaynapavlin:
JaynaPavlin Featured By Owner Oct 13, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
the scale of these beasts, just amazing
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Agreed, it's completely beyond what we are used to in our day to day experience.
Reply
:iconasadsademochic:
ASadSadEmoChic Featured By Owner Sep 24, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
That little guy there looks very excited to be standing if front of a bunch of dinosaurs. xD
Reply
:iconangellis3:
angellis3 Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2014
Nice...
Reply
:iconturtleosaurus:
Turtleosaurus Featured By Owner Jul 21, 2014
Cool thanks for reply
Reply
:iconturtleosaurus:
Turtleosaurus Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2014
Cool comparison. But why is your Brachiosaurus taller than the Giraffatitan as my understanding is that Giraffatitan is taller based on Paleo-king's reconstructions. Cool work when are you going to put up Guanlong reconstruction looking forward to it.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jul 19, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
You'd have to ask him that. Anyhow, they're essentially identical in height - Giraffatitan has a more upright back, but its torso is longer. Brachiosaurus seems to have a back that is less upright, but it's torso is longer and the shoulder blades are longer. Either one could be made "taller" by craning the neck up more at the base, but I pose mine close to a neutral pose (I say "close" because in these taxa there isn't good enough data to establish the exact ONP, so I base it on their closest relatives that I can).
Reply
:icontascalo:
tascalo Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2014  Hobbyist Photographer
awesome!
Reply
:icondarklord86:
darklord86 Featured By Owner Mar 17, 2014
Awesome!
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2014
Nice but in the facebook you wrote Argentinosaurus is a little bit smaller than Puertasaurus, but I'm think it is a little bit larger, because the maximum size of Argentinosaurus is 35 m, while Puertasaurus is 30 m.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
My point is that I don't believe any estimate for Argentinosaurus until I restore it, and from my initial workup it doesn't look like it will be that large - length estimates from the web (and even peer-reviewed papers) are notoriously bad. But we'll see (if it gets chosen).
Reply
:icontascalo:
tascalo Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2014  Hobbyist Photographer
Wow!
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Thanks :)
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2014
It s pretty fun there is both one oversized Diplodocus and Apatosaurus
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
FWIW there's actually more than one giant apatosaur floating around out there, but the others haven't been published on yet. To my knowledge Diplodocus has only the one specimen (which was the one originally named Seismosaurus).
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2014
So probably a new species of Apatosaurus or only fully grown specimens I suppose...
I really in trip with "Seismosaurus", the Diplodocus genus is interesting for me 
Reply
:icondinobatfan:
dinobatfan Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2013
This is a pretty incredible display grouping here! It's good to see the comparison. Has Brachiosaurus brancai now been officially accepted as Giraffatitan brancai now as per Gregory S. Paul?  I knew he had put forth the proposed name change, but I haven't heard whether it's been accepted officially or not. Your mention of it here is the first I've heard anyone use it other than Gregory Paul.
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Aug 22, 2013
Yes, now for the majority the african brachiosaur species is regarded as a differenti genus, called Giraffatitan.
Reply
:icondinobatfan:
dinobatfan Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2013
Hi, Thanks for the info here. I just went back into my back issues of Prehistoric Times magazine and read the article where Gregory S. Paul talks about his desire to do this and why. It sounds pretty reasonable for the most part, but still a tad ego serving on his part. I do like Gregory Paul's writing, art, and efforts, but in some of his most recent writings (such as in recent PT articles and in the Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs) he does seem to come across as a bit egocentric and full of himself. I guess, achieving what he has, having to deal with what and who he's had to deal with it's pretty well earned and deserved, but it just somehow doesn't come across quite so well. That, and I guess if I were in the position of getting to rename a very famous species of dinosaur, maybe I would do it too, but I do hope I'm better than that. I guess, I'm just wondering whether this was really necessary or not. I wonder how long it will take the general public to accept the name Giraffatitan? Or if it even will? And if not, what really was the point?
Reply
:icondinobatfan:
dinobatfan Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
Wow! Thanks for this link to this amazing article! Yep, for as well read as I try to be, I' way out of my depth and still quite the rank amateur here on this. Yeah, I may be a touch critical of Gregory Paul in how he comes across at times, but in the end....who in the world am I to criticize? I have achieved only a fraction of what he's accomplished and been through. Giraffatitan Brancai it is. Thank you very much for the clarification and enlightenment here. Sometimes change goes down a with a bit of difficulty. :)
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Leaving aside personal criticisms, I wanted to note that technically taxonomy doesn't really "care" what the public accepts, because it's function is to label organisms so that scientists can communicate more precisely about them. That's not to say scientists shouldn't interact with the public (they very much should!) but scientific names need to function to make science work better first and foremost (and as you saw in that article, the new name was necessary as it refers to two animals that actually are not that close to one another).

It's also worth noting that Greg Paul actually did not erect Giraffatitan as a genus originally. He actually described as a subgenus (see here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subgenus ), a fairly obscure ranking mostly only used by biologists that work on living organisms. Mike Taylor was the person who first elevated the name to genus level, and he wasn't much of a fan of the name of Giraffatitan, but the agreed upon rules of the ICZN require that when a new genus is named that an existing subgenus (if any) must be used. 

So Greg's name was codified at the genus level by someone who didn't even really like it, but was following the rules that are there to ensure that taxonomy is as useful as possible (there are still plenty of problems, but imagine how bad it would be if we didn't try to follow the same set of rules!).
Reply
:iconthediremoose:
thediremoose Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2014
I would note that subgenera have been used for vertebrate paleontology before, albeit mostly prior to the 1950s or so. During my recent work on Tertiary rhinos, I found that Subhyracodon and Menoceras were originally named as subgenera of Rhinoceros and Diceratherium respectively.
Reply
:icondinobatfan:
dinobatfan Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2014
Thank you very much for taking the time to write this in depth reply. It's very informative, enlightening, and appreciated. I agree with and understand what you say here. I do know, understand, and do appreciate the workings of the names and naming, it's just that still some of the names as well as the familiarity and liking of them die hard for me. For one, I've never quite understood the whole Trachodon, Anatosaurus, Edmontosaurus confusion. Personally, I liked the Trachodon name, but that one really belongs to another creature entirely. Is the correct name for this animal now Anatosaurus or Edmontosaurus or something else. If memory and reading are correct wasn't this just kind of a catch all garbage pile for a number of different but similar animals?

 On the other hand, while I do accept and use the Apatosaurus name, I still prefer the Brontosaurus name. When that name is said the image comes to mind of just what that dinosaur looks like. And yes, it's the old school Camarasaurus headed image that comes to mind. I kind of keep the Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus separated by imaging the old school and current correct looks separately where the names are concerned.

In the end, I do much prefer everything to be accurate, and correct and named correctly and consistently. So while a number of my old well known and favored names have wound up on the trash heap, I still would prefer it this way for accuracy sakes. It's just a difficult pill to swallow sometimes.
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Sep 3, 2013
You're welcome :-)
Reply
:iconbrolyeuphyfusion9500:
brolyeuphyfusion9500 Featured By Owner Aug 5, 2013
Am I right in thinking that OMNH 1670 is an adult/fully grown Apatosaurus specimen?

The OMNH, iirc, lists OMNH 1670 as an Apatosaurus ajax. Scaling your A. ajax skeletal to fit OMNH 1670 in, yields total lengths in excess of ~30 meters.
Reply
:iconthediremoose:
thediremoose Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2013
The OMNH estimated their specimen at a little over 28 meters, for what it's worth.
Reply
:iconbrolyeuphyfusion9500:
brolyeuphyfusion9500 Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2013
Yeah, but apparently, scaling it using shartman's Apatosaurus ajax skeletal gets it larger than that.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Whether it's fully grown, a new species, or just a really big "trophy specimen" isn't clear at this point I'm afraid.
Reply
:iconbrolyeuphyfusion9500:
Well, for what it's worth, the 2013 SVPCA mentions that it was likely not fully grown and actually implies that it was probably around half the mass(or ~80% of the dimensions) of it's hypothetical fully grown version, using Diplodocus and Giraffatitan specimens as the basis.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Due to a lack of vertebral fusion?
Reply
:iconbrolyeuphyfusion9500:
Yes, along with the notion of cervical rib fusion coming afterward and how large an individual with unfused cervical ribs are compared to an adult in Diplodocus and Brachiosaurus.
Reply
:iconstudiospectre:
StudioSpectre Featured By Owner Jul 23, 2013  Professional General Artist
The Arms and Femurs of Alamosaurus are so much more robust.  Could that Alamosaurus have been built like a tank, supporting a thicker exterior, perhaps with Armour I wonder?
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2013
Although I am no Expert I would say that it's pretty likely.
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2013
What do you think about gigapods like Amphicoelias fragillimus' or some of the truly huge ichnotaxa (plagne, broome and parabrontopodus)? What's your guess on their size, and what would you consider feasible? Also, how about "Brachiosaurus nougaredi"? It seems truly enourmous, the sacrum seems ~70% bigger than in the holotype of Brachiosaurus altithorax, which could make the animal about 4,7 times heavier.

Roughly 100-200t was proposed on SVPOW for the plagne trackmaker, would you agree with this? And what's your opinion on sauropods in this size range in general?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Brachiosaurus has a really small sacrum for a sauropod, while "Brachiosaurus" nougaredi seems to be a more derived macronarian. Without a feel for who it's most closely related to it's hard to make an estimate, but regardless I wouldn't use Brachiosaurus to do it.
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2013
Just came to mind in part this may be because Eutitanosaurs have 6 sacrals, so if we compare to them, we have to add another sacral, increasing the lenght of the sacrum.

Taxa like Euhelopus or Futalognkosaurus also seem to have pretty small sacra (but I may be wrong since that's merely an impression I get from looking at skeletals), compared to Alamosaurus.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
The key is not how many sacrals there are, but how large the individual vertebrae are relative to the overall size of the animal. Brachiosaurus is about as small as they come, so comparing unknown sacral verts to them will inevitably produce the largest possible size estimates.
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2013
A 1,6m sacrum still seems damn big, what do you think? And better than what we usually have of sauropods in this size range (footprints or drawings of parts of vertebrae).

It seems pretty understudied and is often ignored on the search for the biggest sauropod.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
  • Art Print
  • Canvas
  • Photo
500 Purchase Purchased Download Purchase Soon
2.4 MB ZIP File. Includes JPG
Thunder Lizard size comparison.jpg
3.2 MB
Add Your Rating! Thanks for Rating! Change Your Rating




Details

Submitted on
June 14, 2013
Image Size
3.3 MB
Resolution
4781×3071
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
14,474 (2 today)
Favourites
288 (who?)
Comments
133
×