HOME | DD
randomdinos β Sauropods of Maastrichtian North America
#alamosaurus #titanosaur #maastrichtian #alamosaurussanjuanensis #tyrannosaurusrex
Published: 2017-11-13 16:57:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 25635; Favourites: 203; Downloads: 66
Redirect to original
Description
Whom'st've may or may not all be growth stages of Alamosaurus sanjuanensis. We can't really know. It's also kind of a spiritual sequel to my old ''Growing up with Alamosaurus'' way back in 2015 (which appears to have disappeared).These don't represent every sauropod found from that time and place, of course; many specimens were just too similar in size (Lehman & Woodward describe over 25 specimens known from multiple bones, but most of their lengths differ by only a couple percent), too fragmentary (i.e. partial neural arches or metacarpals) or undescribed. Discoveries range throughout the southwestern US, including New Mexico, Utah (where it's known to have coexisted with Tyrannosaurus rex) and Texas.
Guest appearance by the largest and smallest known specimens of you-know-who, FMNH PR 2081 (Sue) and MOR 6625 (Chomper).
References:
's Alamosaurus skeletals
's FMNH PR 2081 skeletal
's MOR 6625 skeletal
-Lehman, T.M.; Coulson, A.B. (2002). "A juvenile specimen of the sauropodΒ Alamosaurus sanjuanensisΒ from the Upper Cretaceous of Big Bend National Park, Texas".
-Lehman, T.M.; Woodward, H.N. (2009). ''BONE HISTOLOGY AND MICROANATOMY OF ALAMOSAURUS SANJUANENSIS (SAUROPODA: TITANOSAURIA) FROM THE MAASTRICHTIAN OF BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK, TEXAS''.
-Fowler, D. W.; Sullivan, R. M. (2011). "The First Giant Titanosaurian Sauropod from the Upper Cretaceous of North America".
-Tykoski, R.S.; Fiorillo, A.R. (2016). "An articulated cervical series of Alamosaurus sanjuanensis Gilmore, 1922 (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from Texas: new perspective on the relationships of North America's last giant sauropod".
Related content
Comments: 52
alamosaurus weight the wrong.
weight the light
alamosaurus proper weight : 70t~80t
π: 1 β©: 2
π: 0 β©: 0
If you get the mass from wikipedia, those aren't reliable.
π: 1 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
I remember the old GDI that happened and it was 29.4 or 29 m? Not that it's a massive difference obviously lol, just a few cm or so
π: 1 β©: 0
You know what? I have my own opinions regarding how well Tyrannosaurus could hunt these, but I should probably stay out of that lest a clusterfuck result from that.
This is a very useful size comparison random. I thank you for making this.
π: 1 β©: 1
Thanks, and you're welcome!
π: 0 β©: 0
The smallest specimen is screwed and it knows it.
π: 1 β©: 1
Rip
I actualy had it booping the scale bar girl's head with its snout earlier, but then it got dragged to the other end of the chart.
π: 2 β©: 1
That would've been nice too.
π: 1 β©: 0
I can still feel the pain of BIBE 45854 scaling. Very nice chart though and thanks for the mention! (also fix the holotype thing, TMM 41541-1 is just yet another referred specimen)
π: 1 β©: 1
Evil ribcages are evilll
And thanks!
π: 2 β©: 0
Behold the last giants of North America!
π: 1 β©: 0
correction: TMM 41541-1 is not the holotype of Alamosaurus, that would be USNM v10846.
π: 0 β©: 0
North American Land whales. I like how robust their limbs are, even from side view...
π: 0 β©: 0
The three smallest ones seem to be viable targets for an adult rex, but for the most part....nah
π: 0 β©: 2
I'd say the three biggest ones are perhaps the only ones that could consider themselves safe from Tyrannosaurus attacks.
π: 0 β©: 1
I think Kirk's comment is pretty good regarding this tbh; TMM 41541 is definately very vulnerable, even easy compared to other gigantic potential prey like ceratopsians.Β And of course the 5000 and 3500 kg ones would just be inevitably roflstomped.
π: 0 β©: 2
A sauropod is IMHO even better defended than a ceratopsian.
A ceratopsian only has weapons on the front. Sauropods could kick sideways, and use both their necks and their tails.
π: 0 β©: 1
Your opinion however is contradicted by the analysis of the paleo ambients and their ecology; if ceratopsians were worse at defending theirselves relative to their size than sauropods, they would need to grow much larger in relation to their predators than sauropods do, due to the evolutionary pressures in order to be able to survive as viable organisms or species, and they don't; sauropods consistently get much larger than their potential predators compared to ceratopsians; this can be observed in a lot of sauropod species, such a strong convergence can only be explained by the fact that it was a need. Sauropods got that large because they needed to get that large, it is not a random occurance, it has ecological explanations.
This is only logical if you think about it; a stab from the horn of a ceratopsian equivalenty sized to a sauropod is always going to have a higher killing potential than a kick from said equivalently sized sauropod; think about this; you could be able to severely wound a 5 kg dog by kicking it, but you won't do shit to a 50 kg grey wolf, you would probably just bother it before it kills you. Why? Because it has a big mouth filled in with large, cutting teeth and a powerful bite, all things that you lack (like the sauropod in comparison to the theropod). However, you would be able to kill said wolf if what you did was using a katana. Weaponry is important. In order for a kick or a tail swap to be as harmful as a horn stab, you need the leg and the tail to be inmensely large in comparison to the animal that recives the hit; otherwise it won't do much; a kick from the 10 t or 5 t Alamosaurus to an elephant sized predator is not going to be deadly. However, a stab through it's heart is going to be a single killing blow.Β
π: 0 β©: 2
How would you explain some large bovines, hippos, rhinos, and elephants? They're all much larger than any of their predators but they have horns and tusks.
Yes, I know this is an old comment, but this is just meant to quench my curiosity.
π: 1 β©: 1
That takes the assumption that their tusks and horns evolved specifically for predation avoidance they predominantly use them for foraging and intraspecific combat although they naturally can double as deadly weapons when needed.
π: 0 β©: 0
Sauropods body size is also influenced by factors other than predation.
Also you seem to be forgetting that sauropods had claws and some have keratin reinforcements to their tails.
π: 0 β©: 1
I do agree with Franoys.
Sauropods were far from harmless but at weight parity they are toast.
I´d say a lone tyrannosaurid in the size range of Sue or ´´Dynamosaurus´´ would be able to take out a 10 tonne Alamosaurus without help. If they hunted in groups, the BIBE specimen would also be toast. A large group could conceivably take out even the largest listed specimen given they had a decent tactic and patience, though the tyrannosaurids would be desparate at that point.
The trend of going against the stereotype of weak sauropod hamburgers is good, but only up to a point.Β
π: 1 β©: 1
I seriously doubt teamwork would be enough to bring down the two large specimens. They have to be able to bite it somewhere where they can do crippling or fatal damage.
π: 0 β©: 1
SMP-VP is pretty much safe, yeah.
BIBE, ehh...I can see a group of Tyrannosaurus attacking it, biting the legs and tail base. If they rear up they can tear the throat out but this is extremely risky due to frontal attacks from the sauropod. They are not as well equipped for this as carcharodontosaurines, but they would be able to do the job.
I think BIBE would only be attacked by a pack, a very hungry one.
π: 0 β©: 2
LOL putting Sue and the BIBE side-to-side surprised me. The BIBE Alamosaurus would not dwarf a Sue-sized Tyrannosaurus, it was bigger, for sure, but it didn't dwarf itΒ thaaat badly. I guess 2 or 3 large T.rexes could have been able to kill an average Alamosaurus, but that'd be more like the last option before starving to death.
π: 0 β©: 0
As you said a frontal attack is incredibly risky and tyrannosaurs went for the caudofemoralis rather than the throat.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, they could indeed tear parts of the Caudofemoralis away.
π: 0 β©: 1
If they could bite it properly that is
π: 0 β©: 0
The largest one would be safe, the second big one would be in trouble but certainly not helpless and the last 6 would be toast.
Did you forget that sauropods need their size to survive these types of encounters? the first 6 are viable targets.
π: 0 β©: 2
You could say that about basically any animal. Sauropods arenβt exactly unarmed, even without size.
π: 0 β©: 1
At weightΒ parity sauropods would lose to almost every other animal in a combat situation yet you act like a fully grown 9000 kg predator would have trouble with sauropods much smaller than itself.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
I did say the three smallest specimens would be viable prey.
π: 0 β©: 1
You said the 3 smallest when in reality its all but the top 2.
π: 0 β©: 0
You're underestimating how well Sauropods could defend themselves.
π: 1 β©: 1
How so?
All I said was that the 2 largest ones here would likely survive an encounter with Tyrannosaurus while the rest would be pretty much screwed. (the 10t specimen can't really do anything to a predator with better weapons and similar size)
π: 0 β©: 2
Okay. I mean, I agree that the adults are safe but the others are not. I just think the smaller adult wouldn't be in trouble unless T.rex was hunting in packs.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well ok.
The Tyrannosaurus has the potential to inflict some wounds on it. However I think it's mostly safe in any case. A pack or unit of T.rex specimens would be able to pull off such a kill imo.
π: 0 β©: 1
I agree. Group hunting (depending on how many individuals) would probably take even the very biggest down, but I just wasn't sure if a single predator could do the job.
π: 0 β©: 0
He's really not underestimating them. Unfounded comment is unfounded.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't disagree with most of what he said. I haven't expressed myself clearly.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>