Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Brachs and Guests. by Franoys Brachs and Guests. by Franoys
So here you have a chart with several Brachiosaurid specimens compared to several other animals. The groups are as follows:

Brachs (Info included in the chart)

Europasaurus.
Brachiosaurus sp.
Fusuisaurus zhaoi.
Brachiosaurus altithorax.
Giraffatitan brancai.
Breviparopus.
Cedarosaurus.

Guests: (left to right)

Palaeoloxodon namadicus: 5.2 m SH, 22 t. The largest land mammal reported, almost surely bigger than Paraceratherium. It matches and surpasses a good deal of sauropod dinosaurs in mass. But even the iconic Berlin's Giraffatitan, which is a subadult specimen, outweights it and greatly exceeds it's linear dimensions. Potter creek Brachiosaurus specimen is 2,43 times more massive.

Loxodonta africana (African elephant) 1) Jumbo: 3.23 m SH, ~6.15 t. 2) Largest known specimen; 3.96 m SH, ~10.4 t. The largest land animal alive today, and one that surpasses the smaller sauropods in size, but is still dwarfed by the bigger ones. It matches the giant theropods in size, and the biggest specimens known surpass all theropod specimens. However, the largest Brachiosaur in the chart is more that 5 times the mass of the record breaking Elephant.

Balaenoptera musculus: The largest animal to ever exist. The smaller specimen is a full grown, well fed specimen at 30 m long and 170 t, and the bigger one is the largest ever reported, with a body length of 33.6 meters, and a probable mass of 239 t asuming isometrical scaling. One specimen of Balaenoptera musculus is as heavy as several of the Brachiosaurids together.

Giraffe (Giraffa) 1) 5 m total height, 1200 kg. 2) Wold record Giraffe: 5.88 m total height and a probable mass of 2000 kg. Giraffes are the tallest land mammals to ever exist, and the largest ungulates alive today. Even Europasaurus, the smallest known brachiosaur, competes with the larger Giraffes in height and outweigths all of them.

Sauroposeidon proteles 26.9 m TL, 45-50 t. Haven't done a complete GDI on this one yet, but lateral view comparisons with Brachiosaurus, specially the torso, suggest that Sauroposeidon is lighter than the largest specimens, despite it being a bit longer and taller.

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus 15 m TL, 7.6 t .One of the largest predators to ever exist, Spinosaurus makes up for an interesting contrast with the Brachiosaurs, being short in height but very elongated. Potter creek specimen is over 7 times the mass of Spinosaurus, while Spinosaurus is almost 3 times as heavy as Europasaurus.

Futalognkosaurus dukei. 22.4 m TL, 41.4 t. Futalognkosaurus has been claimed to be one of the biggest dinosaurs ever and also bigger than Brachiosaurus. As it stands here, it is slightly smaller or comparable in size (mass) to the holotype of B altithorax and is smaller than the biggest Brachiosaurid specimens of several species. Most of them surpass it in height and body length in lateral view. So no it is not really bigger than Brachiosaurus.

***** DISCLAIMER: My Honor is called Loyalty, and my Art is Honorable – therefore I do not take credit for any other artist's skeletal or schematic references used as reference for this image. Nor do I claim them as my own.

This image is based on :iconscotthartman: (Giraffatitan, Brachiosaurus, Futalognkosaurus), :iconpaleo-king:(Europasaurus, Cedarosaurus) :iconasier-larramendi: (Loxodonta, Palaexolodon) and :iconsteveoc86: (Paluxysaurus) skeletals/schematics. ******

PD: Paleo-king's skeletals have some big differences with Hartman's, and since I started with Hartman's work and had almost everything done yet I had to adapt his skeletals in order for the chart to not look ugly ( I hope he isn't offended by this!) the changes are changing the neck posture, flexing the metatarsals closer to the ground to give the animals more plantigrade like stepping, and I also changed the limb posture to avoid GSP pose. The posture applied to Nima's sauropods limbs is similar to that of the mounted G.brancai in Berlin. ( The mount inspired me greatly after my travel to Berlin)

The mass estimations are based on vollumetric mathematical estimations (as almost every estimation that I upload) using a high precission matlab script that applies a Graphical double integration calculation.

The mass estimations are made by me and :iconspinoinwonderland: . A big thank you to him for spending his time helping us with the mass estimations, it is greatly appreciated.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconmajestic-colossus:
Palaeoloxodon's torso is about the same size as Futa's torso, wow! Would the hypothetical adult B.Altithorax be roughly around 13m tall and 26m long? Could Giraffatitan get as long as 25m? As always, amazing size chart!
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Edited Apr 19, 2017
Only in lateral view, Futalongkosaurus is a lot wider :P

Honestly a 10 cm difference can be ignored and rounded and perhaps there is some bone that I didn't take into account, this scaling of Brachiosaurus was made using the humerus. Giraffatitan is just the size that Scott got for HMN XVll and is still closer to 24 m than to 25, but given the mess that can be the Janesnsch papers, it is still posible.
Reply
:iconmajestic-colossus:
Majestic-Colossus Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2017
Yes, I was talking about the lateral view. 

Thanks for the answer.
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Edited Apr 7, 2017
I know these are pretty small differences, but you can check it here that the actual size of Jumbo is 3.23 m and 6.15 t, the largest known specimen is 3.96 m and 10.4 t, and P. namadicus is 5.2 m and 22 t (it also needs an update with a more rounded back as you can see): www.app.pan.pl/archive/publish… Also, the tallest (5.88 m) giraffe was 1930 kg in weight.
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2017
Thank you for your comment, I edited the proboscideans according to your comment ( at least the description, the P.namadicus sil will need more work tan that , perhaps for a future update). About the Giraffe, was it weigthed? I remember getting a result close to that but it relied on extrapolations so i rounded it up a bit.
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Edited Apr 10, 2017
I think even the African bush elephant needs to be updated in the future, even if one or two centimeters is like one or two pixels on the picture. As for the giraffe, I've read the 1930 kg figure as max. weight based on some quite reliable sorces, although I've never seen the max. height (5.88 m) and the max. weight (1930 kg) written in the same source.
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2017
The elephant uses Asier's scalebar, so it must be right despite the typo when writing the value.
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Edited Apr 10, 2017
Typo? You did the scaling in a way to get 3.25 m for Jumbo and 3.95 m for the largest known specimen, didn't you? You didn't see the (published) paper before I sent it to you.
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Apr 11, 2017
I used the scale provided in Asier's deviation in his deviantart page. So it is perhaps accurate still despite the numbers (which could perfectly has been rpunded up, since a couple cm aren't significante), unless he made changes to his resorations since he uploaded them here and before publishing the papers.
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Apr 14, 2017
I hope I'm not annoying, but I've found that the largest accurately weighed Blue whale was 29.9 m long and weighed 173 tonnes (not 30 m and 170 tonnes), so maybe you should do a calculation again for the 33.6 m long specimen (and update size in the future). Source: www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual…
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Edited Apr 19, 2017
Don't worry you are not annoying if the feedback is well researched and exposed in a polite manner. I will make one big update to the chart soon. I was aware that the whale wasn't the biggest accurately measured specimen, I intended to use a more generic big specimen like the one Hartman used in the chart included in this blog post :  www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/s….

But will perhaps change it to the more exact measurements of the individual you brought up.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2017
Now I looked it up thoroughly, and I found a source mentioning the 5.88 m and 1930 kg figure mentioning together for the largest giraffe, so the 1930 kg figure is for the 5.88 m tall giraffe. Maybe you should update the description.
Reply
:iconstuchlik:
Stuchlik Featured By Owner Edited Mar 18, 2017
This 42 tons for Brachiosaurus is GDI? Hartman or who make this GDI?
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Edited Mar 19, 2017
I made a program that does them automatically, and :iconspinoinwonderland: executed the Brachiosaurus one with said program and using Hartman and :iconpaleo-king: restorations.
Reply
:iconforbiddenparadise64:
ForbiddenParadise64 Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2017
Awesome! Can think of a few others that would fit well on here, like Archbishop, Ultrasauripus, "Jensenosaurus", Abydosaurus and of course "B.nougaredi" if you have an estimate for that. 

Also so hilarious how Futalongkosaurus looks smaller than most of them yet outmasses many of them. Good old titanosaur bulk I guess. 

Also, sorry if it's a silly request, but would it be possible to add reasonably sized fictional creatures to compare to? 
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2017
A couple of those (Abydosaurus and Ultrasauripus) will be included in a future, much bigger chart, and perhaps I'll also include them in this one while I'm at it. I don't want to add B nougaredii due to the very fragmentary nature, the extreme inconsistencies on it's scaling and dubious phylogeny.

Also thank you and yes, Futalognkosaurus is heavier than some of them due to the width.

I wouldn't know what fictional creatures to add, perhaps I will do something like that for a future chart though.
Reply
:iconforbiddenparadise64:
ForbiddenParadise64 Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2017
Ah I understand. Random wants a little one, but Brick notes it's not only longer than HNM but is less mature, indicating a far larger adult.

Good old titanosaurs.

Some good candidates are Rancor from SW (5m tall), Giants from ASOIAF/GOT (12-14 feet), troll from LOTR etc.
Reply
:iconasari13:
asari13 Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
nice
Reply
:iconpcawesomeness:
PCAwesomeness Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2017
Nice!
Reply
Hidden by Commenter
:iconpcawesomeness:
PCAwesomeness Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2017
Um, are you sure you replied to the right person?
Reply
:iconforbiddenparadise64:
ForbiddenParadise64 Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2017
Lol sorry that was meant to be a direct comment on the work. 
Reply
:iconpcawesomeness:
PCAwesomeness Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2017
lel
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2017
Thank you!
Reply
:iconpcawesomeness:
PCAwesomeness Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2017
You're welcome!
Reply
:iconvasix:
vasix Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Was Europasaurus really that big? I mean, relatively of course but still big
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Edited Feb 22, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
Yes. The adults were around 10m long according to Carballido and Sander (2013). Many of the known specimens are immature.
Reply
:iconrizkiusmaulanae:
RizkiusMaulanae Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2017  Student Traditional Artist
All heil the blur whal b*tches!!!
Reply
:iconspinosaurus14:
Spinosaurus14 Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2017
Good chart but... Where is my boi nanotyrannus?Dat Boi is triggered 
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2017
The brachs thought that there were too many guests alredy :p
Reply
:iconglavenychus:
Glavenychus Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2017  New Deviant Hobbyist Traditional Artist
This is why I don't dabble into brachiosaur mass estimates
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2017
Elaborate please xD
Reply
:iconglavenychus:
Glavenychus Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2017  New Deviant Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I mean that brachiosaur estimates vary between individuals, genus, and the researcher. Hell, I don't even know who's the tallest anymore lol xD
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
There are many researchers, but only one King. :D

The toughest thing about these animals, when you ask me, is how incomplete the biggest ones are. Especially Fusuisaurus and the Potter Creek brachiosaur. But it's always good to have some mass estimates rather than none at all. Most of the ones here are okay, though I would disagree with a few of them based on scaling.
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2017
Let me guess, the ones you disagree with are the Fusuisaurus, Potter creek and perhaps Breviparopus? :P

The only models that were GDI ed were the Brachiosaurus altithorax, the Giraffatitan, the Futalognkosaurus and the Spinosaurus, the extant animals are based on published estimations and the rest of the Brachiosaurids specimens are just scaled by the bone measurements published, I did avoid things like ilium scaling though and used the size of the Breviparopus footprints as preserved.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
Ok that pretty much explains the differences in our scaling.

Fusuisaurus isn't known from many bones and the biggest on is the ilium... what did you scale this species from?
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Edited Feb 23, 2017
Yes that is true, Fusuisaurus is very fragmentary; the ilium has problems however, while it is listed as 145 cm in the written description the figures yield 138 cm, perhaps this has to do with restoring the blade, however the blade as appears in the figure has some plaster alredy. That being said, it doesn't seem like you can make the ilium any longer than as is because according to the papers themselves: “The left ilium is mostly preserved, missing only the distal part of the pubic peduncle and central part of the iliac blade”. And if you enlengthen it too much, you break the isometry with Brachiosaurus precluding the isometrical scaling. I have seen Brachiosaurus ilium as roughly 1.25 m I believe in a measurements table but in the copy I have of Riggs (1903) the size of the ilium isn't listed and measuring Hartman's skeletal using the same landmarks as I used with Fusuisaurus the left ilium is 1.33 m long. Other measurements of the iliums yield contradictory results, while the Fusuisaurus ilum is longer, Brachiosaurus ilium yields a higher height over the acetabulum, (going again by Hartman's skeletal).

Fusuisaurus is a different genus of not very clear phylogenetic position; and Brachiosaurus is an animal with a proportionally diminute ilium (perhaps the reduction in the ilium size isn't as extreme in Fusuisaurus), so considering that ilium size varies several percentual points between individuals of the same species and that it doesn't mean that they are necessarily bigger, and the fact that theese are not just different specimens of the same species, buy different genuses plus the problems with the ilium measurements themselves, the ilium scaling didn't inspire me much confidence to use but there is more than that.

The biggest problem is perhaps that the other bones aren't coherent with the ilium scaling; the breadth of the distal condyle of the femur is 58 cm in Brachiosaurus according to Riggs and 60 cm in Fusuisaurus, a difference of just 3.4%; the rib fragments in Fusuisaurus as described and ilustrated in Mo 2006 fit well within the ribs of B althitorax and the pubis of Fusuisaurus is shorter than the pubis of Giraffatitan. There are indications that Fusuisaurus is differently proportioned. In the end I went with the femur based estimation using B.altithorax because it is somewhat in the middle of the possible estimates and long bones used to sustain weight are usually better for scalings between different species. The authors themselves acknowledge that Fusuisaurus remains are scarce and poorly preserved and go with a very vague "over 20 meters in length" so I guess this result is well within the possibilities.
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
slight note: it's Riggs (1904) that has the B. altithorax measurements, not Riggs (1903) xD
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
Ok I see what you did now. Good point, I did also make the similar point that we don't really know how Fusuisaurus was proportioned, however I went with a slightly elongated set of Brachiosaurus proportions because of the overall similarity in the remains. I did restore the ilium slightly longer than it was in the paper to compensate for the crushing in the specimen (I actually kept this "de-crushing" pretty limited though).

But I do concede it's always possible that Fusuisaurus was proportioned differently and may have been bigger or smaller than my version, heck it may have even been more like a supersized Atlasaurus than a supersized Brachiosaurus depending on how basal it is - not very likely IMO but still possible. In any case this animal is still crazy-big in terms of likely mass and though I never thought it was the biggest dinosaur in China, it certainly ranks in the top 10 of them. It would be interesting to see the ilium of Daxiatitan or Ruyangosaurus (I've seen pics rumored to be the ilia of these beasts but no official reports) in profile to compare it with Fusuisaurus.
Reply
:iconglavenychus:
Glavenychus Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2017  New Deviant Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Lmao I didn't know you were like that =P (Razz)  

I know, it's definitely better than nothing(especially those awesombro claims floating around the web...). But I feel until we find conclusive & enough skeletal material from those sauropods, almost every estimate scientists make aren't as close to the actual measurements if we even find that. But in the end, that's paleontology for ya. It's always about speculation.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
True, but you can at least have rough estimates.

That said, I'm like that for a good reason. My mass estimates are based on actual skeletal reconstructions I've worked out using related animals to fill in the gaps - which is MUCH better than the crappy non-visual method of limb-bone midshaft circumference that many armchair "experts" use to guess the mass. Limb-bone circumference method is really is only a guess, not even a truly "educated" guess either... The limb bone circumference method hinges entirely on that ONE measurement, so it assumes all sorts of other things about different animals (muscle mass, torso width and volume, pneumaticity, overall robustness) are identical, when they are NOT. So that method gives a lot of really weird estimates that make little sense. Like ridiculously light brachiosaurs and titanosaurs, and super-heavy basal sauropods (ignoring the fact that the derived sauropods actually reduce the midshaft of the limb bones and expand the ends, as well as saving bone mass in the spine, to support MORE weight more efficiently with LESS bone - since bone is far more nutrient-costly to build than muscle, especially for herbivores - not to mention that brachiosaurs and titanosaurs have wider rib cages and thus much more volume than more basal groups, something which limb-bone circumference TOTALLY ignores - Greg Paul busted the obvious flaws of this method way back in 1988 and yet some people STILL insist on treating it like gospel).

On the other extreme you have the retarded awesomebro estimates which are nearly always over twice what they should be (100-ton brachiosaurus and the like) and there is NO evidence used for that, not even a weak shred of evidence like with the limb circumference method.

My method is to reconstruct the skeleton as much as possible judging by which more complete species the described material is most similar to. And THEN estimate a mass either based on GDI or based on the typical 3D proportions of related animals where the mass can be reasonably estimated by GDI or water displacement (again, this requires an accurate and well-researched model). So the King never skimps out on data when estimating mass. If it's there, and reliable, I use it. (don't even get me started on papers with unreliable or inconsistent data... there's a reason some titanosaurs have estimates nobody can seem to agree on, when authors like Calvo can't even get their own measurements straight)
Reply
:iconglavenychus:
Glavenychus Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2017  New Deviant Hobbyist Traditional Artist
All very true, definitely gave me some excellent info about mass estimates(sauropods especially). Thank you for the talk!
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
No problem, happy to help :D
Reply
:iconjonagold2000:
JonaGold2000 Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Where is ''Muh Teewrecks''?
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2017
Wait for Random's Sauropods chart for that :p
Reply
:iconjonagold2000:
JonaGold2000 Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Nein
Reply
:icon105697:
105697 Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2017
Nice.....
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2017
Thanks! :D
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
February 20
Image Size
1.4 MB
Resolution
5972×2500
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
889 (10 today)
Favourites
39 (who?)
Comments
55
Downloads
12
×