Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Tyrannotitan chubutensis skull bones. by Franoys Tyrannotitan chubutensis skull bones. by Franoys
This is the Paratype and largest individual of Tyrannotitan. It was about 7% larger than the holotype. The bones were obtained from Canale, Novas (2014) . Missing skull bones were restored after Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Oct 11, 2016
I think the skull could be shorter, it looks like it's dentary tip wouldn't get past the maxilla if it closes the mouth ;)
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Edited Oct 11, 2016
This is how the skull looks when closed, I didn't do any modifications to it, just closed the mouth:

drive.google.com/open?id=0B-K0…

This is how Scott's Giga looks with it's mouth closed:

drive.google.com/open?id=0B-K0…

Anyway, the overbite is frequent in theropods. This one does show, in fact, a small overbite; you don't even have to look far from here to get a glaring example of overbite in skulls preserved in pristine conditions: 

franoys.deviantart.com/art/Tyr…

Or this: qilong.files.wordpress.com/201…

65.media.tumblr.com/2dbb54f803…

All of the upper jaw bones and the posterior cranium ones are based of close relatives of Tyrannotitan, scaled to the size of the preserved jugal and quadratojugal.

The maxilla is from one of the closest relatives of Tyrannotitan; Carcharodontosaurus.

drive.google.com/open?id=0B-K0…

The other close relative would be Giganotosaurus. The only Carcharodontosaurine with a fully preserved maxilla is Carcharodontosaurus, so it isn't that crazy. The long maxilla is what makes up for most of the skull length, since the other bones really can't be made any smaller; The braincase and quadrate part is as compact as the preserved bones allow, and the premaxilla is alredy reduced from that that Sereno drew for Carcharodontosaurus in 1996. 

The most speculative part is the lower jaw; no carcharodontosaurine has a fully preserved dentary ( they all are fragmentary). I reconstructed the missing part of the dentary after the 2013 osteological study on Tyrannotitan. The angular and the surangular bones are the most speculative ones and only guesses, since no carcharodontosaurine preserves one bit of them. So if a modification was necessary it would be done on the most speculative/ infered bones, not in the ones actually based of preserved bones of close relatives.
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Oct 11, 2016
Oh, okay. Looks like eyeballing fooled me :| (Blank Stare)
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Oct 11, 2016
No problem.

Eyeballing can be really dangerous!
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Oct 2, 2016
Very good work!
If you Will post a complete skeletal of Tyrannotitan I would compare it to mine if for you is ok...
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Oct 2, 2016
Thank you! And of course you can, it will be ready tomorrow.

I didn't knew you had a Tyrannotitan skeletal!
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Oct 3, 2016
After Paleojoe posted his Tyrannotitan skeletal I started cheking out ALL Tyrannotitan elements from papers and "the theropod database"...
Reply
:iconspinosaurus14:
Spinosaurus14 Featured By Owner Sep 30, 2016
What would be the lenght of the whole animal?
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Edited Oct 2, 2016
I'm working on a full restoration of it. At the moment, i have no answer to this question. For now, it looks to be substantially shorter than Mucpv Ch1.
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Sep 28, 2016
well done,  it`s too bad this animal isn't as popular as other large theropods. 

BTW do you agree with paleojoe`s reconstruction of the skull and body?
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2016
The skulls seem to differ somewhat; as for the whole body proportions I can't tell you a lot right now, I have to finish the whole skeletal yet. Once I finish it I will be able to tell you better.
Reply
:iconpaleojoe:
PaleoJoe Featured By Owner Oct 3, 2016  Student Traditional Artist
I based mine on my unpublished Mapusaurus skull, per the phylogeny of the Theropod Database.
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Oct 3, 2016
This is the phylogeny i used for it:

drive.google.com/open?id=0B-K0…

It is from the most recent Osteological study on Tytannotitan (Canale, Novas) (2014). It places Tytannotitan as a derived carcharodontosaurid, a basal member of Giganotosaurini, and a link between Carcharodontosaurus and the derived Giganotosaurines, such as Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus. Also, i lacked good references for Mapusaurus, while I had a lot of information about Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus at hand. And according to the info I had, they are the closest relatives.

I just checked Theropoda database, it seems like they haven't acknowledged/analized the last papers on Tyrannotitan yet. I don't know if you have seen them, but here they are: drive.google.com/open?id=0B-K0…
Reply
:iconpaleojoe:
PaleoJoe Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2016  Student Traditional Artist
Thank you for the information, that is the paper I used to reconstruct Tyrannotitan, yet I forgot to cite it on accident.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
September 28, 2016
Image Size
442 KB
Resolution
1749×1093
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
601 (3 today)
Favourites
26 (who?)
Comments
14
×