HOME | DD
dewlap — Elephant and giants
Published: 2008-05-24 14:31:18 +0000 UTC; Views: 41770; Favourites: 405; Downloads: 7925
Redirect to original
Description
From left to right: Deinotherium giganteum, Mammut borsoni, Moeritherium lyonsi, Indricotherium transouralicum (not an elephant but the largest mammal- just for size comparison), Loxodonta africana (african elephant), Mammuthus trogontherii (mammoth), Gomphotherium angustidens and an eskimo(?)Related content
Comments: 95
actually elephants are back on top
The Asian Straight-tusked elephant is bigger, Palaeoloxodon namadicus
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indricotherium is close to the rhinoceros!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Great artwork. That said, both M. Borsoni and M. Trogontherii seem too small.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
like I said earlier (probably years back, somewhere in the comment), what I did was probably within their size range (whether it was the biggest or smallest individual). They are probably based on some specimens at the time; so unfortunately if you ask me now I would have no idea (which specimen it is).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Indricotherium is not the largest anymore
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I guess not, but the drawing was posted in 2008 (according to the first comment/critic) so I suppose it probably was right (widely accepted) at the time. Unfortunately I can't do much about this because I don't have the drawing anymore...
There is always new discoveries so maybe all we can do is to time-stamp the drawings.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i know the new record breaker was heavier than diplodocus
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Based on the date of the posting; is it really a big deal?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
no of course not i just pointed it out
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you are pointing out something is wrong when at the time it was right? You are funny
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
i actually ment taht you should make an updated version with Palaeoloxodon namadicus
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
While it is true that Palaeoloxodon namadicus is probably the largest land mammal found. It is not possible to reconstruct the proportions properly (i haven't read through the whole paper yet www.app.pan.pl/archive/publish… ) all we have is its thigh bone (part of it is greyed out I'm not sure if part of it is a scaled up version of another specimen, so I'm not even sure if the thigh is complete at all)... The size estimate from the paper is based on a formula but not measurement from an almost complete specimen. Then I'm quite sure that someone someday would like you and ask for another update when or if we have more of the animal. As of now you might as well be just looking at the silhouette from the paper. The same probably goes for Indricotherium as well but it was for a job which my employer at the time wants an Indricotherium.
I might have mentioned this before but I just don't have the original anymore so I have no plan in updating this. Again it was right at the time (as your estimate is based on a paper in 2015). So what you are asking me is to make a new one and all I can say is someday maybe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Well, the largest known Paraceratherium specimen is based off a single metacarpel, which is not only even smaller than the partial femur, but metacarpels are far more variable in size proportionally and thus less reliable. Normal sized complete Paraceratherium specimens are only about 8-10 tonnes too. Nice picture though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just saw the comment. Sorry for the late reply; I rarely check my account. As in regards to the mass of Paraceratherium, it was based on the paper by Larramendi (2016) and his estimate was around 17 t (AMNH 26168/75) and shoulder height around 480 cm (which is similar to the quick sketch above). I don't know if there are complete specimens anywhere (as you claimed) if there are then I suppose I couldn't find the paper for them (at the time the picture was published or even now). If you have the paper could you please email me a copy. Because as of now all I can say is it was probably right at the time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Larramendi mentions them in that same paper. We only have 8-11 tonne compete-ish Paraceratherium specimens while we have multiple 12+ tonne completeish proboscideans. Another contender is Zygolophodon borsoni, of which we have 3 specimens Asier estimates at 4.1m SH and 16 tonnes, which indicates this was a normal size for that species. Makes you wonder what the outlier was.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is hard to say since they have included the silhouette of the AMNH specimen; if they don't see the AMNH specimen is a possibility then it becomes pointless to have it in the same paper. Unless the AMNH specimen belongs to another species other than Paraceratherium then I don't see how this would be an issue for the current image.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I didn't say that. It's a misunderstanding. Asier had no issue obviously with putting it in. What I mean is that it's inconsistent for Internet people to deny the giant P.Namadicus specimen because it is fragmentary while simultaneously accepting the even more fragmentary (and less reliable) giant Paraceratherium specimen without question. I'm not saying you're doing it, it's something I see on the internet often. So when it comes to evidence, the giant P.namadicus specimen has if anything more evidence for it than the giant Paraceratherium, and so in that context, elephants trump Paraceratherium by a significant margin.
Even if youre one of those people who only include relatively complete specimens, the largest Paraceratherium specimens we have are 8-11 tonnes, well below what we have for complete elephant specimens.
The point is whether we use only complete specimens or include fragmentary specimens, the elephants come out on top on both cases.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't know if people are denying it (Palaeoloxodon namadicus) but perhaps it isn't as well documented (there are only two articles on the wiki page compare to the page on Paraceratherium/indricotheres which was covered by multiple articles). The two animals in question (Paraceratherium and Palaeoloxodon) are both incomplete and none of them have enough to build a full size animal. Personally I don't see one trump over the other by a considerable amount (if the size of the bull Paraceratherium is indeed 17 t and Paraceratherium is around 22 t). Unfortunately, this sketch was originally created in 2013 (before the LARRAMENDI paper was published) at the time I just have no other means to work out a more exact size to these animals.
I normally don't date any of my drawings and cause confusion sometimes and get feedback from people that say there are certain things that is not accurate based on current evidence but I can honestly say in most cases that would be the best we can do at the time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
yeah sure i just wanted to see your drawnig of p. namadicus because you are an awsome artist
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is gorgeous! Forgive the late comment, but I had to congratulate you on such an astounding pic. You've made this pachyderm enthusiast very happy
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks, I'm glad you like it. Pachyderm enthusiast? really? (probably should have guessed it from looking at your avatar 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lol yah, my avatar does kinda scream "pachyderm nut, comin' 'atcha"!. But what can I say, I just love those large, lumbering beasts
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice picture.. There are some mistakes...African elephant looks bigger and taller than...Deinotherium. Mammuthus trogontherii is much bigger than african elephant..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Please read comment above, I've been going through this quite a few times now. The bottom line is what was presented are just the range of different adult sized animals (some are world record sizes and some aren't), and unfortunately it would only be a mistake if I said that they are all in their maximum adult sizes or they are all in their minimum adult sizes...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Awesome drawing, but i thought deinotherium was much bigger then an african elephant.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, about that please read earlier comments.
Basically, what happen was I've used the world record size African Elephant and an "average" size adult Deinotherium in the drawing (of course there are bigger individuals, but I didn't have access to the references for them then and not even now). Since they are both adult size animals therefore I was asked (by my ex boss) to keep them as they are for a bigger contrast.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah I stand thoroughly corrected, still an amazing piece though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I suppose it is partially correct, yes sure there are adult individuals that are bigger than an African Elephant however, at the same time "not all" adult individuals are bigger than an African Elephant. It's pretty much variation among the adult sized animals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah i understand now, you should do a rhino size chart next you already got Indricotherium on there so the rest should be cake.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well, if you've actually read the title of the drawing then I'm sure that you'll see that not everything on the page are elephants (or Proboscidea). The inclusion of the Indricotherium is due to its size rather than anything else. If you didn't get it then I'm very sorry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Umm I got that, what i'm saying is why not a size chart of prehistoric rhinos you know elasmotherium, coelodonta, chilotherium hmm? And maybe a titanotherium chart as well?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is a drawing that I did for a client. Personally, I don't like to draw at all but a job is a job and I get paid. Why don't I do a chart on prehistoric rhinos? (I'm sure someone would have done one and way better than what I can do anyway) I've mentioned in a number of occasions that I'm just an amateur illustrator. So the simple answer to your question would be... I don't see why I would need to work on one. I'm sorry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
no mamuthus sungari? it's only slightly smaller than indricotherium...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for noticing this however, I have gone over this quite sometime ago with Asier11. If you don't mind please read the previous comments on the first page. Thanks again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Great artwork, I love it! It's a great idea to compare these animals on one drawing to the same scale, I especially like your style of the strong pencil lines.
Cheers
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Thanks, the whole drawing was done with a black ball point pen. Perhaps that is why the lines look quite dark.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your great drawing inspired me to make an attempt to show all proboscideans of the last 10.000 years on one drawing, you can see it on my gallery if you are interested. Your stile is pretty cool, do you draw all your artworks with ball point pen?
Cheers
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I don't do all my artworks with ball point pens. It really depends on the look that my clients want and how much time I have for the piece. Here are a few different examples (please see links below) and if you go to my gallery ([link] ) then you'll see my work on other medium. They look amateurish since I'm not a professional illustrator.
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
I've just seen you artwork on the proboscideans, it looks nice but one thing that you probably should be watch out for is the way they walk. Some of the poses aren't too natural, here is a link for an elephant walk cycle ([link] ) You don't have to be exact but at least somewhere in between. Because often your animal or part of it seems to be floating when the weight distribution (placement of the foot) doesn't seem right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>