HOME | DD
Harry-the-Fox β Megafauna 3 land animal preview
#ceratopsid #dino #dinosaurs #elephants #hadrosaur #mammal #mammals #theropod #theropoda #titanosaur #sauropods #titanosaurs #proboscideans #titanosauria #dinoscale #dinochart #megafaunasize
Published: 2018-08-28 13:45:19 +0000 UTC; Views: 19396; Favourites: 238; Downloads: 188
Redirect to original
Description
I wanted to keep this under wraps until my "Megafauna Mk3" chart was complete, but decided there was no reason not to show something while I put together the missing animals (marine life, so they can be compared in size to these animals).
Rough descriptions- front row- from left to right, then the two sauropods. (Note, more detailed descriptions in individual images- also note, some specimens may be exceptional, typical of their kind or known from scant remains).
Human- roughly 6 feet tall.
Shantungosaurus- likely the largest non-sauropod dinosaur ever to have lived. Potentially larger specimens (likely also Shantungosaurus) suggest it may have been even bigger.
Hatzegopteryx- one of the largest Pterosaurs to have lived, with the possible exception of the mysterious "Arambourgiana", which is known from a few bones only.
Tyrannosaurus rex; believe it or not, this animal may actually BE the largest theropod, on a technicality of weighing more than other theropods (which easily outgrew this animal in terms of length).
African Bush Elephant. This is an exceptional specimen standing nearly 4 meters tall. A typical specimen would be about 320cm tall. Yes, this animal was actually a LOT bigger and heavier than a Tyrannosaurus... along with quite a few other large dinosaurs too.
Triceratops; this animal's size surprised me. This size is based on a fairly intact skull of about 2.4 meters long. Fragmentary remains suggest it *might* have grown quite a bit larger- easily rivaling (possibly surpassing?) T.rex in size.
Palaeoloxodon (namadicus). This behemoth is not only the absolute largest ever land mammal by an impressive margin (22t), but it's also vastly larger and heavier than any non-sauropod dinosaur (and quite a lot bigger than quite a few of those as well). However, it is dwarfed by the next two....
Brachiosaurus (altithorax). This is based on a specimen that showed signs it wasn't even fully grown, suggesting it may be larger.
Patagotitan mayorum. Yes, it's really that big. Claimed to be "the biggest dinosaur ever", and it certainly lends credit to that claim at least (a lot of interesting things to read on its individual chart, just to get an idea of how extreme its size is, but also to get an idea of how other massive sauropods may have matched its size in some regard).
Believe it or not, none of these animals even come close to the size of the Antarctic Blue Whale (in another preview chart).
Enjoy!
Related content
Comments: 85
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 1 β©: 0
i have question,on average tyrannosaurus would easily achieve heights above 320 cm from at least the height?
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
Are you planning to change the Rex to Scotty or no?
π: 0 β©: 1
Nah. I'll just make a new one for Sue at some point, and maybe do a composite of them both under the label "Tyrannosaurus rex size".
I'll just cover over the description with a suggestion to look at the Scotty image instead
π: 0 β©: 0
The size and number of pictures do not match at all.
Tyrannosaurus rex says it is 12 meters long.
But the painting is less than 12 meters long.
Above all, the T. rex is low in height.
The height shall be at least 3.7 meters to 4 meters.
Triceratops is said to be 9 meters long.
But the painting is only 8 meters long.
African bush elephants are 3.96 meters high.
However, the painting looks more than 4 meters tall.
π: 0 β©: 1
Tyrannosaurus Rex's tail is concealed behind the elephant, and the bones were scaled themselves. That said, I intend to replace it with Scotty (more accurately remade)- that aside, even that specimen would struggle to stand 4 meters tall, unless it stood perfectly straight and upright, and it would probably still be less. Sue would unlikely reach those heights.
Triceratops would need to stretch out both neck, head and tail into a perfectly straight line to reach 9 meters.
Thought the Patagotitan stands in the way of the scale bar, the elephant's head narrowly scrapes above the 4 meter mark, and the shoulder height, according to skeletals by Larramendi, do reach exactly the stated height while holding this posture.
That aside, all of the dinosaurs are scaled to the actual known bones, not alleged heights, and is thus more accurate.
π: 0 β©: 0
It's been said that the woolly mammoth was the size of african elephants today, at around 3.5 meters; so if what you're saying is true that the largest bush elephant(s) could've been 4 meter giants, could the largest wollies have acheived the same height and mass?
π: 0 β©: 1
In theory, it could be possible. But so far, the largest woolly mammoths discovered were way smaller than the largest modern elephants (Asian or African).
However, the woolly mammoth was actually one of the smaller mammoth species; the three largest species of mammoth (Steppe, Columbian and Southern) were each much larger than modern elephants; the Steppe Mammoth in particular was one of the largest land mammals ever to exist with a 4.5m shoulder height.
π: 0 β©: 1
That I do know for certain. But I know at least one specimen dubbed M. Primigenius Fraasi, which was 3.7 meters tall at the shoulder, if not bigger. Though there's a debate going on as to whether it was a true Woolly, or a Steppe Mammoth, or even a hybrid animal.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm actually shocked they could reach such sizes!
That said, the largest African Bush Elephants were slightly over 3.9m tall at the shoulder.... they're surprisingly massive animals!
But of course, that specimen was extreme; usually African Bush Elephants grew to a more humble 3 meters tall at the shoulder.
π: 0 β©: 1
Either way, it's still debatable as to whether Fraasi is a woolly.
π: 0 β©: 1
It would be interesting to find out!
π: 0 β©: 1
Also, I just found this.
Third grey is the largest, confirmed m.primigenius specimen, and it's actually bigger than the common African Elephant, and close to the size of the largest African specimin recorded. Not much but still extraordinary.
π: 0 β©: 1
It actually is quite amazing I admit. I was convinced they were, at best, as large as a medium-sized Asian elephant!
If that's the case then.... this elephant may be among the substantially larger elephant species to exist, rather than the smaller. That's a seriously impressive size!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks, but like I said itβs still one specimen and itβs still smaller than the largest known African elephant.
The European woolly is about the size of the average African elephant, while those in Siberia were indeed closer to the size of Asian elephants, if not a little bigger or even smaller.
π: 1 β©: 0
No Spino/sauropganax/carcharo/giga ?
I mean the weight/fat is usually exaggrated, this doesn't mean it is the Tallest or the more muscular
π: 0 β©: 1
My number one reason for not including them was..... I didn't actually make any updated versions of those yet
My plan is to actually finish all of these animals and make a size chart literally just scaling them to Tyrannosaurus and Acrocanthosaurus (and Mapusaurus).
That said, the evidence does suggest Tyrannosaurus actually was the biggest and most muscular after all. The bones tend to be thicker, and the skeleton implies a larger, broader torso and muscular regions compared to any of the Allosauroids (or Spinosaurus) which seem to be leaner and more gracile. Like comparing a leopard to a jaguar (the latter is shorter and stockier, but much bigger due to extreme bulk).
However, I get the feeling that Acrocanthosaurus may actually turn out to be the biggest theropod of them all. Not only does it appear that this animal reached similar lengths..... but evidence appears to suggest most size estimates for this animal were massive underestimates.
I should point out the study that made THIS discovery also assumed it had a concave, sail-shaped back like Spinosaurus.... other sources bring strong evidence to suggest this specific anatomical assumption was not true... instead, it indicates the back was a round, solid, muscular hump... merely much thicker and taller than a typical theropod. IT makes more sense too- better thermoregulation, and implies it would have engaged prey by simply bringing more bodily power to attack.
π: 0 β©: 1
Alright. Meanwhile I agree that the (2014) Spinosaurus/Sigilmassasaurus debacle(lets be Honest Δ°brahim's rushed 'mess' 
However the possiblity that Spinosaurus actually used its sail as an organ, and as an energy booster is genuinely amazing, thank you for the mentioning that possiblity !
However about the tyrannosaurs muscularism, I have to disagree, that its not the tallest and likely not the most muscular as mapusaurus/charcaro/giga/baharia-deltadromeus because the animal likely supported immense Fat/tissue :Β www.livescience.com/16524-rex-β¦
There's an article that gave the example of tyrannosaurus weight, I read into it, they didn't described which specimens they scanned throughtly. They only mentioned Sue. They also mentioned that the majority of Tyrannosaurus weight might be Fat, not muscle; hence the quote; 'T. rex has pretty large, in fact, enormous leg muscles, but a lot of that leg muscle had to stabilize the animal and didn't translate into speed.' (!) Also they mentioned Tyrannosaurus head and body posture should be Lower to ground (?)
Turns out, as the adult animal became slower, likely because its torso got longer and heavier while its limbs grew relatively shorter and lighter. The result shifted its center of gravity forward.
As far as the article've said, they only mentioned Sue as the primary example, no mentioned which five specimens they scanned.Β
m.phys.org/news/2017-07-tyrannβ¦
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipediaβ¦
They also mentioed any other tissue that is other than fat likely only supported the legs and animals size. As far as the current size estimations go, I found this chart is the most up to date
ourplnt.com/wp-content/uploadsβ¦
However there's another chart that I found likely possible if the further specimens/legit conclusions other than ''dubious'' accounts of quora/ have been found for other theropods.
img00.deviantart.net/fd0f/i/20β¦
(I am aware the spinosaurus is longer legged but its an actual possibllity now, hence its described not as average long legged)
π: 0 β©: 1
I do confess, the function of Acrocanthosaurus' back wouldn't be unique special; the theory is it's literally just a large, thick back, with the elongated spines doing nothing more than making the whole thing taller. But that alone is what counts, as it means far more muscle-power, and with bigger muscles and a larger mass, it incidentally generates (and retains) more heat.
Spinosaurus. I agree that Ibrahim's reconstruction will most certainly turn out to be incorrect, though I'm still convinced it would have been an aquatic hunter, given its location and the anatomical features found so far. Obviously, it would need to be shaped differently (the Spinoinwonderland designs probably closest to the truth). I'm keeping an eye on the enhanced leg anatomy, as apparently the Hartman up-size may have been mistaken due to a missed scaling factor. Then again, if the legs Hartman suggested were correct, it would clearly be capable of both aquatic and terrestrial hunting (island hopping?). Though it's just a theory I have based on the 'missing evidence', I would guess it would have started developing a tailfin and was capable of speedy swimming, being that the often-touted "it just lingered around the surface and snatched up really stupid sharks that happened to pass beneath" predatory model isn't even a real-world dietary niche (birds that do this can also either dive for prey, hunt on land, or eat mostly vegetation- and they're less than a kilogram; let alone a few thousand). On that note, I also seriously doubt it would have been quadrupedal with a front-heavy sail; for no reason really beyond evolutionary; literally every other Spinosauroid clearly showed an anatomy where the sail's weight plateaus at the hips, meaning this animal would have evolved within the constraints of centered balance as the sail grew progressively larger- so it makes no sense that at some point it just shifts forward. Interestingly, another anatomical feature..... apparently its sail actually WAS a sail, due to lower levels of oxygen exposure near the tips of the spines compared to the base (suggesting the base was solid back muscle, but protruding from that was a slim, thin sail).
As for Tyrannosaurus, I meant it was the shorter of the two, not the longest or tallest (my scaled Acrocanthosaurus dwarfs it entirely in literally every way as far as measurable dimensions go). So it would be the 'short jaguar' not the 'tall leopard' in the analogy. I'm aware of the computer models where it breaks its legs from positioning them at non-perpendicular angles to the ground due to downward pressure; however I doubt this would be accurate, as we have evidence that Tyrannosaurus did this regularly (by crouching down) every time it needed to rest... with no broken legs (the evidence lies in the arms and corracoid showing signs of extreme musculature stress).
Based on evolutionary factors, I think the extreme dense musculature is likely to prove true; its skeleton has larger, denser limbs and bone joints where the muscles attach; its ancestors were most likely gracile meaning the form is likely a compensatory mechanism for the muscles, and its late-cretaceous contemporaries were all massive and clearly physically-powerful themselves, meaning the strength is vital. For gravity and weight distribution, Tyrannosaurus has extra-elongated pelvic/pubic bones and an exceptionally long tail for its size, so it would likely tip the weight back to the center (with a very, very low center of gravity for a theropod, which is handy for balance, though lowering the ground-clearance).
For the trend of theropods gaining larger, longer heads and smaller limbs to retain balance, it seems a major precursor (most mega-theropods had this feature, minus only Allosaurines and Spinosaurus), and potentially even a real trend (Utahraptor shows this, and I doubt its ancestors happened to have this layout prior to its gigantic growth spurt). Tyrannosaurids on the other hand, appear to have simply inherited this feature from its tiny Tyrannosauroid ancestors, also with tiny forelimbs. If anything, their already-tiny limbs have been evolving by getting progressively more powerful to cope with their size (the extreme tennis-elbow musculature... also scarred corracoids).
For fat, I always calculate a fat layer around all my images, and simply assumed they'd be roughly equal.
π: 0 β©: 1
At this time (I know; damn late answer but I did lost on the education 
There are more charts :
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipediaβ¦
images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca8877β¦
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm pretty sure it's not as well. I'd say Acrocanthosaurus and Giganotosaurus stood quite a bit taller.
That said, it's still the heaviest by a huge margin
π: 0 β©: 1
I would say many theropods likely stood taller than even scotty (Δ± am not sure 12.9 m or total 13.3m which one is true), like the Bahariasaurus, Oxalia, Spino, Deltadromeus; maybe even Charcha
So far, it seems so, althrough I am very sure future spinosaurus and giganatosaurus fossils'll change that
π: 0 β©: 1
The Scotty study actually lists the dimensions of large theropod femur bones. Besides being much shorter than Sue, I'm pretty sure it's shorter than a few other large therapods. That said, the extreme girth of the bones suggest he's bigger in terms of solid mass.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's kinda funny that this seems to be a VERY common pattern in dinosaurs.
You get dinosaurs whose bodies are completely dwarfed in terms of length, height etc.... yet massively outweigh their "bigger" counterpart merely by having a stockier body.
π: 0 β©: 1
Agreed 
That's quite weird .d
π: 0 β©: 0
Both of these megafauna images look awesome. Now I'm even more sceptical now about that Patagotitan was about 36-38 m long though, as now we have the first under 30 m estimate for it (28.5 m).
π: 0 β©: 1
Cheers.
TBH, the length could vary a lot, as it's basically guesswork from the missing bones of the neck and tail.
That said, from the check I made, it does seem fairly plausible the missing bones were as large as the reconstruction suggests.... reason being the most ridiculously massive bones on that skeleton were based on the real fossils, and not the missing ones (I had to triple check to make sure my eyes weren't playing tricks on me).
π: 0 β©: 0
Fun fact- the legendary fragilimus bone wasn't much larger than Patagotitan (the animal shown here).
It's very slightly longer, and with slightly more elongated neural spines than Patagotitan's.
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't see any bush elephants exceeding T.Rex in size today.
π: 0 β©: 2
This specimen was an exceptionally huge one. On average, Bush Elephants only reach about 320cm at the shoulder.
That said, the Tyrannosaurus is based on Sue- also an exceptionally large specimen estimated to be over 9000kg. Most adult Tyrannosauruses are between 5000-7000kg- smaller than the average Bush elephant as well.
π: 0 β©: 2
No.
The average adult Tyrannosaurus size and weight is
similar to or large and heavy to the average adult Bush elephant.
π: 0 β©: 1
Could I please see your source?
π: 0 β©: 0
Jesus, I can't believe Elephants are bigger than a T-rex...
π: 0 β©: 1
Shocked me too; and it's not just Tyrannosaurus; modern elephants can reach ridiculously massive sizes that seem to surpass literally every dinosaur besides the sauropods and a few extremely massive hadrosaurs.
π: 0 β©: 1
And there intelligent too...
π: 0 β©: 1
Yep, which I find especially fascinating- that there would exist an animal that has almost every typical advantage an animal could possibly have- size, strength and cleverness.
I guess it makes sense- elephants are herbivores with huge appetites, yet frequently demand more nutrient-rich plant matter than grass and leaves- which are more difficult to obtain. A major problem that demands a smarter, more cunning animal.
π: 0 β©: 0
The one represented here is the biggest individual ever measured, which weighed 10 tons. Bull bush elephants average 6 tons.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah but that was just one individual.
π: 0 β©: 1
Itβs supposed to be using the largest known individual for each one. But for some reason the T.rex is too small and the Triceratops too big.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
I remember hearing that the largest land animal was a vegetarian. And obviously, being huge helps an animal avoid being attacked by a solo predator; the Tyrannosaurus may be one of the largest land predators to have ever lived, but theoretically, even it can't take down an adult Patagotitan when alone.
π: 0 β©: 1
The part that I find particularly interesting is that these animals would have survived growing up before reaching these massive sizes. Either they lived in herds where the adults defended the young, or perhaps these animals have a few extra methods for defending themselves during their smaller, younger years?
They'd certainly be packing a LOT of strength.
π: 0 β©: 0
This is amazing. Thank you so much for educating me on this! I was really underinformed about Patagotitan. WOW, that thing is enormous.Β
π: 0 β©: 2
Tell me about it. I was completely shocked when I saw it.
π: 0 β©: 0
Neck and tail length is a bit uncertain, though. The animal may have been considerably shorter, depending on how you interpret where the vertebrae were placed in the neck and how many caudals the tail had.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>