HOME | DD
DrScottHartman β African Fisher
Published: 2011-03-05 16:26:09 +0000 UTC; Views: 16308; Favourites: 228; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Suchomimus, the semi-fin-backed relative of Baryonyx and (to a lesser degree) Spinosaurus.Related content
Comments: 60
Yes, yes it does. It's coming.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm excited to see it
π: 0 β©: 1
Did Suchomimus had the neck curve like your Baryonyx?
π: 0 β©: 1
I wish I knew. It seems like it ought to be sort of similar, but Evers et al., 2015 note some differences in how the curve is created (beveling of the centra vs inclined zygapophyses) between Suchomimus and Baryonyx, so I'm not comfortable assuming they are the same (which is why I haven't updated it yet).
Hopefully someday Suchomimus will get the osteology monograph it deserves.
π: 0 β©: 0
Spinosaurodae is an amazing genera of species;
They are truly a unic genera
Don't you think ?
π: 0 β©: 0
If you know, how complete is the skeleton for this dinosaur in comparison to either Spinosaurus or Baryonyx?
π: 0 β©: 1
This complete:Β www-news.uchicago.edu/releasesβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
So more so than either.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, but tragically it's more poorly described (by a long shot). I need to update it in light of the Baryonyx revamp, but honestly without either personal access or a better description it almost doesn't seem worth it.
π: 0 β©: 0
My version
pedrosalas.deviantart.com/art/β¦
π: 0 β©: 0
Exactly how big is the skull?? and, howΒ long is the stretchedΒ animal? and how long is theΒ animal inΒ axial length?Β
π: 0 β©: 1
I measured skull ~1.4m from premaxilla to quadrate, axial length ~11.4m, using a GIMP script.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks, I thought it was about 11.7 m, the 1.4 m skull is something I can reason with, but my estimates came up to about 1.35-1.4 m
π: 0 β©: 0
Hey, I recently attempted to model a Sucho in zbrush using this as a reference, that i have uploaded to my profile recently! It is quite useful to have such a great artist such as yourself offering these resources for others to use man. many thanks
π: 0 β©: 0
What was updated on this one ? I recently printed out your old one to base a piece one eventually.
π: 0 β©: 3
As Blaze and Steve have noted, the pose is now consistent with my new biped pose, there were some adjustments to the rib cage and the pectoral girdle, and there were also some updates to the silhouette to reflect some changes in soft-tissue anatomy.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah okay, thank you all then. I shall need a new copy then before basing a sculpt off of it.. lol Fortunately I haven't done much yet but figure up the size.
If you ever get around to it I would love multiple angles for many if not all of the skeletals. It's amazing how thin so many theropod dinos are.
I'm currently working off your Allosaurus pieces to do a 1:1 sculpture. It is a little difficult going from one skeletal to someone else's from a different perspective.
π: 0 β©: 1
I would love to do more multi-view skeletals, but those take even longer than side views, so unless someone specifically commissions them they rarely get done I'm afraid
π: 0 β©: 1
I understand that too well.
I did have an idea I think is original. One could make a three dimensional skeleton on a turn table. It can be viewed from any angle then . Add the options to view it with musculature and flesh added. It could be paused and printed out from any spot. Might be the ultimate resource for reconstructing dinosaurs if done right.
π: 0 β©: 1
Honestly, I've considered doing something like this, but it needs to be done right, and I'm concerned that instead someone will rip one out that is wrong and do more harm than good. I've worked with several scanned datasets, and I think any attempts absolutely must be done this way - having created about two dozen dinosaur mounts I have to say that people who have only drawn them in 2D probably don't understanding how dinosaurs go together in three dimensions, and trying to sculpt them in 3d without being constrained by the actual fossils will almost certainly be in error. I've done a little bit of work in Zbrush as well as Autodesk Softimage (including making some 3D build ups of scanned data) but it would take a couple of weeks and a commission to actually get one done and ready for public consumption, which sadly isn't time I have right now.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm pretty computer illiterate..especially when it comes to using art programs. I mostly prefer sculpting or pen/pencil.
Your quite right..I can easily see how it could go awry. Without an actual mount to study it is really difficult wrapping your head around some dinosaurian shapes and placements. Hence using as many skeletal references as possible and even then things go off track when missing an angle you need. Replicas and figures help a little but what if the artist who made them had the same issue ? Quite frustrating.
If you ever get the chance to work on it, I would guarantee it would a big hit with other artists who just can't find what they need to proceed. There is a lot up in the air still concerning dinosaurs..but there is enough known to get the basics right I think..one just needs access to the materials.
π: 0 β©: 0
Another update is that the arm and shoulder has been moved forward, due to a change in the arangement of the anterior ribs.
π: 0 β©: 0
your art is amazing! Suchomimus is a interesting species.... I am using some of you work as a reference,okay? ^^ sorry for the bad english,I'm brasilian...
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks, and don't worry about your English, it's better than my Portuguese. Please do use it for reference for life reconstructions. If the medium is appropriate I always appreciate a credit or link.
Happy dino-drawing!
π: 0 β©: 1
thanks ^^ I did some drawings of dino-reconstructions using you work,a while ago,and I specified that I used your art as a reference,okay?...Well,is all in my gallery.Sorry,if you don't like :/ P.s- my art is simple.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's perfect. Glad they were of help to you
π: 0 β©: 1
Scott, i just realized something.
If scientists are using dinosaurs like Suchomimus and Baryonyx to get the size of Spinosaurus, then someone has screwed up big time. I've read that Spinosaurus's head is 8 feet long. Is that correct?
I decided to do a scale measurement of this dinosaur (like on a map where 1 inch = ? miles). I measured the skull in the picture and it came to 4 cm. If this was a Spinosaurus, then that would mean every 1 cm = 2 feet. So i measured the rest of this body and it came to 23 cm. If i double that, it becomes 46. So, if we are using the Suchomimus as a reference to the Spinosaurus's size, wouldn't that mean that the Spinosaurus is only 46 feet long? I've heard that it was estimated to be 70 feet long. Where the heck did we get that number? Since the complete skeleton has not been found yet, we need to rely on relatives of Spinosaurus for an estimate of it's length. Though the scientific community says it is 70 feet long, i disagree. If my scale measurement was correct, then it would only be 46 feet long.
If you think i am wrong, please let me know why?
π: 0 β©: 1
I think you are closer to being right then the estimate of 70 feet is (I've never bought that estimate). It's possible that the skull of Spinosaurus wasn't quite as large relative to body size, but not by anything that would increase the length estimate by 10+ feet.
Also, it's worth noting that when you read length estimates that you can't measure a straight line from snout to tail tip, but rather the length is measured along the curve of the spine (biologists and paleontologists inherited this measuring standard from hunters that compare trophy kills...and who collected a great deal of biological specimens during centuries past). So probably the animal would be a couple feet longer than your measurement in the "official" sense.
Anyhow, I think 50' is reasonable but about as large as I'd feel comfortable estimating the thing given current fossils (although probably "trophy" individuals got larger). That's still an animal in the 8-12 ton range, which is ginormous for a theropod.
π: 0 β©: 1
+10 feet? More like +24 feet!
That just makes it more confusing. Now we're gotta measure the curve of the spine? no wonder everyone thinks Spinosaurus is so long.
i'd have to say, at shortest, Spino is 46 feet and, at longest, 55 feet.
Also, when you think about it, a 70 foot long Spinosaurus seems improbable. The tail would have been crazily long, meaning that most of it's weight would be in the back and thus causing it to fall flat on it's... butt. Counterbalance is important, and having a tail that is much longer than you're body would not be good for counterbalancing the weight. Especially if it is supposed to weigh 8 to 12 tons. If the Spinosaurus was really 70 feet long, watching it walk would probable be the funniest thing ever. Either it would look like it was drunk, or it would be dragging its butt across the ground like a dog.
π: 0 β©: 2
Actually many sources say 60 feet long for Spinosaurus based on Dal Sasso's estimates.
Also, to get a 60 foot long Spinosaurus, you would need to add 6.5 feet long of tail: [link] (the sail is outdated, but the other body proportions remain the same anyway) Not a bigger animal, just an animal with a ridiculously longer tail.
π: 0 β©: 1
That tail in that last picture should probably be slightly larger (though not nearly as large as the one it overlaps). But you're right. Anything larger than 55 feet is WAY to long for this guy. That length is almost as long as some of the sauropods!
π: 0 β©: 2
What difference? Some sauropods were rather small, about rhinoceros mass, so one should expect theropods larger and longer than some sauropods. That objection to Spinosaurus' length holds very little water. I'm thinking about 50 feet myself, with a few trophy 70 footers possible.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
BTW check this out: [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
BTW, do you know when they will be showing new episodes of TF Prime again? Last week's episode was a rerun
π: 0 β©: 1
Not sure when they will show new episodes of TFP.
π: 0 β©: 0
Wow. Who says "70 ft"? The longest I ever heard was "64 ft". Most sources I know of say "55-62 ft".
I may not know anything about measuring dinosaurs but that "70 ft" sounds like a complete exaggeration. I'd say those sources can't be trusted.
btw, <3 Spinosaurus
π: 0 β©: 1
A definite exaggeration. i remember several internet sources saying 70 feet.
π: 0 β©: 0
Nice work Scott. For the new changes of this skeletal, what references you used?
π: 0 β©: 1
Well most of the changes are of the soft-tissue variety, and are based on some of my ongoing research and discussions with others doing research (e.g. the recent Persons & Currie work on tails). I did notice that I'd seemed to mis-scaled the pelvis elements slightly when I did them originally, so I grabbed the original description and some photos to lock down the proportions a bit better. Also, in the original version I'd restored the missing tail vertebrae a bit too hastily and generally done a shoddy job of it, so I gave the caudal series the attention it deserved.
π: 0 β©: 0
imo there are too many dinosaur genera, and i tend to lean towards lumping in many case, this is one of them. could be a B. tenerensis fine by me :]
π: 0 β©: 1
It would be fine by me too. But there's been precious little formal discussion on synonymizing it; mostly it comes down to me not believing in "activist" taxonomy, especially on non-science sites and in popular books.
π: 0 β©: 0
Cool, Scott! As usual. 
π: 0 β©: 0
Does this mean that we'll be seeing an updated version of your Spinosaurid skeletals?
In any case, Spinosaurs (and Megalosaurs in general) have some odd proportions, from what I'm seeing.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>