Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×
  • Art Print
  • Canvas
  • Photo
500 Purchase Purchased Download Purchase Soon
2.4 MB ZIP File. Includes JPG
View Attachments
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
13,697 (4 today)
Favourites
282 (who?)
Comments
123
×
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:
 
:iconsilverdragon234:
SilverDragon234 Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2015
Ah, sauropods - the most gentle of giants :)
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
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
It points to a sauropod that's likely in the Puertasaurus/Argentinosaurus/Mexican Alamosaurus size range. But whether it was bigger, or smaller (but with a big pelvis) or somewhere inbetween isn't really clear.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
As I wrote on my website and the Facebook page, I simply ignore A. fragillimus because it doesn't exist. It would be awesome if it weren't lost (and if the measurements were correct), but in the absence of any testability it's just not worth worrying about.

The giant footprints are a different issue altogether. I'm not sure that the SV-POWskateers were getting exactly the right answer because the feet on the Berlin mounts are of the digitigrade type that most biomechanics people seem to be disregarding. I don't know how much this impacts foot-size relative to mass, but it would need to be double-checked.

Second, it's not clear which (if any) of those are actually preserving the actual size of a foot. The Broome tracks are described like this:

"Relatively abundant, sub-circular structures interpreted as degraded sauropod underprints in the lowermost third of the intertidal zone (within a 280 m long and 30 m wide area), approximately 2 km south of James Price Point."

"Degraded underprints" don't really inspire confidence when it comes to estimating the animal's size. The Plagne tracks also look ill defined in the photos I've seen, and even non-underprints can sometimes be larger than a foot (or smaller, depends on the substrate). It would be nice to get stride length and track gauge measurements to have other ways to test the inferred size.

So basically I'm intrigued, but not willing to assign any of them blue-whale sized masses (yet). I'm sure they are gigantic individuals, but whether "gigantic" is the more normal 70-90 ton range, or the colossal 100-200 ton range are issues I can't really tackle without more data.

As for Parabrontopodus, I'm unaware of any claims for giants of that ichnotaxon? I've seen claims of large Breviparopus tracks, but they seem to top out at what I'd expect for the titanosaurs in the poster above.
Reply
:iconcommonhousegecko:
CommonHouseGecko Featured By Owner Sep 8, 2013
"I simply ignore A. fragillimus because it doesn't exist. It would be awesome if it weren't lost (and if the measurements were correct), but in the absence of any testability it's just not worth worrying about."

Allelujah! Sometimes I feel so hipsterish and contrarian when I point that out (after all, with all due respect, Cope seemed to be prone to, sometimes humiliating, errors).

But I admit that there are only a few things I would like to see as much as your rendering of A. altus.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Sep 9, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Ah, I would dearly like to do do A. altus. That's definitely one I'd have to see in person (or be supplied with photos and measurements of) before I could tackle though.
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2013
Thanks for the response!
Breviparopus doesn't seem to be that large, at best around the size of Sauroposeidon. The largest tracks of Parabrontopodus are described at 1,45-1,65m, but the difficulty is whether it is lenght or width, which matters a lot.
Plagne and broome seem to be the largest, one of Thulborns tracks is reported at 1,7m long. He wrote a very passionate comment on SVPOW stating the measurements were not those of underprints:
[link]

If 1,5m is really width, the plagne tracks might even be bigger. Sounds promising, but some more documentation, especially of the blagne tracks would be helpful.

So you are not bothering with estimating them, but you don't exclude the higher estimates, right?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
I exclude them for now as the need more substantiation, but I'm not ruling them out.
Reply
:iconstuchlik:
Stuchlik Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2013
Supersaurus was really wonderfull :)
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
I've always been a fan of it, but then I'm also biased since I worked on it.
Reply
:iconvitor-silva:
Vitor-Silva Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2013  Student
I have one thing to say: :clap:
Reply
:iconcbsorgeartworks:
CBSorgeArtworks Featured By Owner Jun 17, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
I love the scale human is like "WOOHOOO OH YEEEEAH!! DINOSAURS!!" because that is the only acceptable reaction.
Reply
Add a Comment: