HOME | DD
DrScottHartman — A real deceptive reptile
Published: 2013-05-10 16:48:40 +0000 UTC; Views: 14185; Favourites: 147; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Apatosaurus ajax is the type species of Apatosaurus ("deceptive reptile"), so if someone ever manages to resurrect Brontosaurus (which is tied to A. excelsus), this animal won't be changing its name. The skeletal is a long-needed revision to the skeletal I did for a paper I and colleagues published on Supersaurus back in 2007 (we subsequently dropped it from the final paper).The reconstruction is based on NSMT-PV 20375, a specimen on display in Tokyo (thankfully I had the opportunity to made a couple trips to see it). Like the type specimen it's not full grown, and it's probable that the animal would have "grown into" its fairly long limbs as it got larger. How much larger? Possibly quit a bit larger, as most of the largest reported specimens have been at least tentatively referred to A. ajax, although it's hard to be certain without proper descriptions.
Despite this, it seems evident that A. ajax wasn't as robust as A. excelsus, and it wasn't close to being the overbuilt steroid-user that A. louisae was [link]
Interestingly it also seems to retain the smaller pelvis and found in Supersaurus [link] although whether this has any phylogenetic value isn't clear.
Either way, this is the species that should actually be driving our understanding of Apatosaurus, and that makes it pretty darned interesting in my book.
Related content
Comments: 76
I reposed it to my current walking posture (away from the one Greg Paul uses), and updated the silhouette to reflect better knowledge about soft-tissue reconstruction, including the depth of the base of the tail and over the top of the neck.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Do we have enough of the OMNH apatosarine to say whether or not it was either a blown up version of your skeletal or significantly different?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Any chance you will post the giant oklahoma apatosaurus ? It looks large af
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Who doesn't like a gigantic long necked neckhammer with supersonic tail ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
People who suck
JK
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, JW
They made indominus killing the apatosaurs
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Gosh. This is my favorite dinosaur of all Sauropoda. The history and everything about it absolutely intrigues me to no end. Can't wait to learn more about it and its skeletal features when I study vertebrate paleontology.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's a pretty cool critter. Good luck!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yup they did Brontosaurus -( excelsus ) is back and also .... are you making or planning to do a Agustinia ligabuei skeletal reconstruction
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Agustinia is out until a more complete specimen is found.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok , Thanks for the info. , .... is that the same case with Saltasaurus I've try to make an accurate restored version of it but I can find an official skeletal reconstruction
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No Saltasaurus has enough remains to restore. Greg Paul published a reconstruction in his Field Guide to Dinosaurs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh ok thank you , By the way can I have your permission to use your skeletal reconstruction for some dinos I'm planning to make , of course I will make a mention to you and give you credit for your job .
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's fine with me
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks a lot I will let you know when I post one of them
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A real deceptive reptile indeed, since it was neither an Apatosaurus nor a Brontosaurus to begin with.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What do you think of Tschopp et.al. conclusion that this specimen belongs to a more basal apatosaur rather than Apatosaurus ajax? Do you have any plans to restore the holotype of A. ajax?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It doesn't seem too crazy to me. I would love to restore the type of A. ajax, but I have no idea when I will be able to get around to that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Looking at the recent diplodocid growth paper, this 'looks' quite juvenille; long legged with small vertebra.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Correct! I also indicated this very thing in the description.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I re-read the description shortly after writing that, then realised what a redundant comment it was. On the mobile version of DA it has the descriptions and comments of different tabs. Oh well. I wonder how much larger this Apatosaur could get, it's already quite large. Maybe it came out as basal in Tschopp's specimen analysis because it's more juvenile.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
In light of Tschopp et. al. 2015, do you think cmc vp 7180 is still referable to Apatosaurus ajax?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
When you think of Apatosaurus, you always think of this kid
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Um Littlefoot is actually a brontosaurus
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well actually by the confirm of the original release and the original creators like Don Bluth. Littlefoot is an Apatosaurus, but his species takes the old outdated look. So let's not get technical here over a fun and nostalgic movie.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I was just saying that Littlefoot was originally a brontosaurus in the first place. Even wikipedia said so. You can easily tell it from his classic camarasaur-headed brontosaurus appearance. He was just called apatosaurus in the sequels due to brontosaurus being a synonim of apatosaurus before it got validated back.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well Wikipedia tends to play the change game every once and a while. Real sources I go from Don Bluth's work including how Littlefoot is compared to his father. So yeah Apatosaurus through and through. And besides does this have any meaning?
vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/l…
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Strangely enough is that the last time I saw that picture it says "mama longneck"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That was for the head sketches.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The wikia ? I've talked to some of the moderators (scroll down and you'll see me in the comment). They have no proof that Littlefoot is an apatosaurus or brontosaurus. But Littlefoot is more likely to be brontosaurus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why no theories on the large thumb (that is the thumb claw right)? Could it have been used in intraspecific combat (which would be made more effective if Apatosaurus could rear).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There have been lots of explanations given for the large thumb claws. They've been hypothesized to be used for intraspecific combat (as you suggested), for anti-predator defense, and as a sort of crampon for digging intro trees when rearing up to feed. All of the proposed uses would seem to work better if they reared up when brandishing them, although it's possible to imagine other quadrupedal uses, including spreading mass on wet substrates to avoid sinking too far in, and good old-fashioned display (whether inter or intrasexual).
The main problem is there isn't a smoking-gun character that anyone has come up with so far to distinguish between the different hypotheses.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Any good skull images you know of for A.Ajax Scott ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Logged in to tell you that I admire your work and ask you if there is any chance to deviate ALL known diplodocid taxa, that you can possibly make by your method, and put them in the same chart for comparisson?
Dinheirosaurus would be mostly appreciated since there are disapointingly few educated illustrations around.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Just noticed the odd forward kink in the upper femur... this is a feature more commonly found in euhelopodids and other somphospondyli. A bit odd why a diplodocid has it, but then again A. ajax does show some interesting convergences with macronarians, in hip proportions and coracoid size/shape among other things.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A. ajax is weird all around IMO.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
From what I can see, the Dinheirosaurus model fron Dinosaur Revolution is based on this particular species of Apatosaurus (A. ajax), am I right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think that's an entirely reasonable speculation
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just as so you know, here's the Japanese trailer of WWD3D movie: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Gah. Ah well, the dinosaurs will still be the most accurate to date.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I must say the Troodon in WWD3D looks brilliant, quite an improvement (aside from the scaly face) over the one in Dinosaur Revolution.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice pose! Why so undernourished on the leg muscles? This question applies to most of your restorations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No offense, but that's a truly bizarre question. I restore far more limb muscles on my sauropods than anyone else doing scientifically rigorous reconstructions. There's literally twice the volume of tricep and at least that much more calve muscle than say Greg Paul restores on his sauropods.
The limb musculature on my flex-limbed dinosaurs also exceeds what most restore, and the tendon thickness in the distal elements is significantly thicker (and based on data from living dinosaurs), so I'm sort of at a loss as to how to respond to this question.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Basically, I base my opinions on what I see of living creatures. No, there are no modern animals that completely parallel dinosaurs. However, it seems to me that most modern paleoartists are using lizards/crocodilians as their leg analogs, not birds or modern mammals (elephants, rhinos) of similar build. Yes, you add more muscle than Greg Paul, but, it seems to me that...IMO...probable musculature, skin, and cardiovascular tissue is ignored. One cannot simply draw a thin line around the shins and toes and claim it accurately represents the bone/tendon/skin relations on the living animal. Too many modern artists do just that. Another artist here-one whom I respect highly-claims that sauropods needed only minimal musculature because they needed only to walk slowly forward as they munched on their favorite veggies and their bones were more than strong enough to carry the load.
Don't matter at all if the bones were made of tungsten steel; weak tendons, ligaments, and muscle tissue = a weak skeleton/animal. While muscles don't need to be bulging (though they often DO bulge in wild animals; horses and jaguars anyone? Rhinos?), they do need to exist thickly enough to do their job.
Thin lower limbs? Yes! Thick lower limb elements are characteristic of crocodilians and large lizards-komodo dragons-rather than erect limbed creatures, as in cats, dogs, ruminants, horses, hippos, rhinos and such. Thin, anorexic UPPER limbs? I do not think so. Yes, I could be wrong.
You have the scientific pedigree, yes....I respect and admire and LIKE your work...but I have to say what I believe, based on my observations of reality.
I don't like balloon legged restorations either; they ignore the kind of gait dinosaurs had. Do my observations prove my theories? No, but they do show my reasons for them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmm, here's something I can agree with you on - skin IS being ignored in my skeletals. Those skeletals are flayed; they're covered in muscles and connective tissue, but not skin. I actually have a blog post on that coming, as it's become clear that this is not taken into account enough.
That said, the tendon thicknesses I use are drawn from data from living animals (that's actually one of the reasons almost all of my skeletals have been revised in the last 18 months), and why they are thicker than both my earlier attempts and those of other people doing skeletals.
So let's see if I can parse your "skinny upper limbs" comment. The thighs on my nnon-sauropod dinosaurs (and all modern dinosaur reconstructions) are much larger than in living mammals (and dinosaurs get to string the biggest leg muscles along the undersides of their tails rather than the pathetic mammalian tush). The calves are also far larger than equivalently-sized mammals.
So I have to assume you are referring to the forelimbs? It's true that quadrupedal mammals tend to have triceps that are very triangular in side view which makes the upper arm look bigger, but dinosaurs have larger shoulder and pectoral insertions - those muscles just aren't as obvious in a side view skeletal. So I fail to see any discrepancies there.
As for sauropods, I would ask you to more closely look at elephants - they in fact have muscles that are just as "skinny" as Greg Paul and others draw sauropods, despite being as big as...elephants. Elephants have triceps that look a larger in side view, but again pack less shoulder muscles than sauropods appear to have had. So there's no way that "observing reality" can prove to you that a sauropod would need bigger muscles, because the biggest living land animals are built exactly that way.
That said, I don't agree with giving sauropods muscles as light as those of elephants, as the origins for several groups of muscles are better developed than in elephants, so I restore them correspondingly larger. But you can't continue to drape on muscle past what the bones themselves have room for - indeed, in most animals once you shave/pick/skin them they actually look quite bony.
By the way, I have to take issue when you write: "I have to say what I believe, based on my observations of reality". Of course you should say what you see, but it comes across as if that's different from what scientists do - what exactly do you think science is, except for the systematic observation of reality? Dissections, comparative anatomy, and being forced to run your work past equally qualified peers helps to weed out our own mistakes and results in better observations of reality. That's not to disparage your own attempts to understand the world, but they aren't inherently more closely tied to reality than an entire field of people trying to do the same thing while double and triple-checking one another.
What would really help here would be if you have some specific measurements, photos, etc., to try and illustrate where you think modern animals are showing off more upper limb bulk than modern reconstructions of dinosaurs, as I'm just not seeing it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>