HOME | DD
M0AI — Paleo Lineup
Published: 2008-09-10 18:23:54 +0000 UTC; Views: 57318; Favourites: 531; Downloads: 2451
Redirect to original
Description
First of all, this image needs several disclaimers.Disclaimer one: The fullsize image is ridiculously large. It's 5,000 pixels wide, and it's still only 25% as wide as the original PSD.
Disclaimer two: This image was made only to satisfy my own curiosity about the comparative sizes of extinct animals. I was not extremely precise. So, the relative sizes of the animals are probably not extremely correct.
Disclaimer three: I got most of the images from which I took these silhouettes from Wikipedia, but for some of the animals I wanted to include there were no images on Wikipedia, so I had to do a Google image search and take the silhouettes from there. I don't remember the sources of any of those images. I don't claim that any of the images from which I got these silhouettes belong to me.
So yeah, anyway, as I read through Palaeos.com some time ago, I was struck by how unexpectedly large some prehistoric creatures were. For example, Eotitanosuchus is estimated to be about 6 meters long, Prestosuchids were over 7 meters long, and some Phytosaurs were up to 12 meters long. I did not realize that some pre-dinosaurian land animals got this large; the fact that some Phytosaurs got as large as the later, more famous huge crocodylians was especially surprising. This, along with my long-held fascination with the sheer size of ancient animals, led me to make this image. Like the first disclaimer says, I made this only to satisfy my own curiosity, without worrying about whether it was 100% accurate.
UPDATE: Added Scutosaurus, Archelon, Megalodon, Great White Shark, Whale Shark, Deinosuchus, Andrewsarchus, and Kodiak Bear.
The species.
In the water: Anomalocaris, Isotelus rex, Cameroceras, some large Eurypterid, Dunkleosteus, Prionosuchus, Cymbospondylus, Shonisaurus, Nothosaurus, Temnodontosaurus, Leedsichthys, Kronosaurus, Koolasuchus, Hainosaurus, Elasmosaurus, Archelon Basilosaurus, Megalodon, Blue Whale, Sperm Whale, Giant Squid, Colossal Squid, 7-Armed Octopus, Orca, Great White Shark, Whale Shark
On land: Eryops, Dimetrodon, Cotylorhynchus, Edaphosaurus, Eotitanosuchus, Moschops, Inostravencia, Scutosaurus, Erythrosuchus, Cynognathus, Large Phytosaur, Placerias, Ornithosuchus, Saurosuchus, Postosuchus, Desmatosuchus, Coelophysis, Plateosaurus, Dilophosaurus, Shunosaurus, Stegosaurus, Mamenchisaurus, Diplodocus, Amphicoelias, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Camarasaurus, Brachiosaurus, Baryonyx, Utahraptor, Spinosaurus, Deltadromeus, Giganotosaurus, Carnotaurus, Tyrannosaurus, Therizinosaurus, Iguanodon, Large Ankylosaur, Walking Azdarchid, Shantungosaurus, Lambeosaurus, Triceratops, Deinosuchus, Titanis, Elephant Bird, Dromornis, Ostrich, Brontotherium, Andrewsaruchus, Paraceratherium, Daeodon, Paleoloxodon, Deinotherium, Imperial Mammoth, Giant Camel, Megatherium, Elasmotherium, Daedicurus, White Rhinoceros, Giraffe, Moose, Megalania, Komodo Dragon, Human, African Elephant, Kodiak Bear
In the air: Pteranodon, Azhdarchid, Argentavis
Related content
Comments: 148
well the shonisaurus is the one that looks like a giant itchyosaur, I meant the large fish looking leviathan pointing it's head at the shonisauruses tailfin
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, that one. That's Leedsichthys problematicus [link] , one of the largest fishes ever, if not the largest.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thanks for the link but judging by what iv'e read megalodon would still be the largest fish at 40 to 60 ft if i'm right while leedsichthys is only a definite span of 30 to 33 and a rather speculative 54 ft.. good bye
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, turns out I was somewhat out of date. It seems that they used to think it was bigger...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
oh well there could srill be bigger undiscovered species
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is awesome!!!!
You know what will be cool?? Made it in flash and when you hover the silhouette with the mouse you read the name of the specie
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That would be cool! I don't know how to do that, but it would definitely be cool.
Thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
after seeing this....
i feel how insignificant and weak humans are... hahaha
isn't it amazing how nature's millions of years' evolution has produced such vast diversity of fauna?
it's really something that will keep my mind preoccupied for a long time...
thank you for submitting this, this is awesome and cool indeed!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you! Life on Earth is amazing, isn't it? I just hope we get a handle on ourselves before we kill off too much of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is so cool! I find it so interesting and mind boggleing to see how huge animals can really get 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks! Fascination with the sheer size of some extinct animals is what caused me to make this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I can see you included a human, but a couple more apes wouldn't hurt. The Silverback gorilla would be a good one to add. A timberwolf would make a nice addition too.
Either way, this is a darned goo representation of the life chain of Planet Earth so far. I could only imagine what life chains would look like for other planets...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks! Those are good suggestions for different creatures to add.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
By the way, the walking and flying azdarchids are Quetzalcoatlus. The ankylosaur is called Euoplocephalus. Also, the eurypterid is called Pterygotus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The azdarchids could be either Quetzalcoatlus or Hatzegopteryx, which is also very large. The ankylosaur could be either Euoplocephalus or Tarchia. In these groups there seemed to be more than one species contending to be the biggest, so rather than choose one I just said "large azdarchid" and "large ankylosaur."
I think I was just too lazy to look up the name of the large eurypterid, though.
Thanks for the input!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Would you mind adding a North American lion, a Cave Lion, a Giant Short-Faced Bear, and a Steller's Sea Cow?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sure! I'll add at least some of those. It might be a while, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have seen an anomalocarid mouth ring that would put all others to shame, if it belonged to a conventional anomalocaris, the owner of the mouth would be 4 meters long!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Really? Well, prehistory just got that much more interesting!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I initially thought it was a large jellyfish, and then someone pointed out that it was an anomalcarid mouth ring, and I just about shat myself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Darn it! Forgot about Megalodon. I should probably put in a whale shark, also. And maybe a Mola mola (largest extant bony fish, you know).
I already updated the file on my computer to include Scutosaurus and Archelon (I'd forgotten about the anapsids). I need to update it again with some big fish, and then update this image here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That. Is. Awesome. I wish this was around when I gave my seminar on Amphicoelias - it puts a lot of things in perspective. Very well done.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the comment! I updated it with some new animals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cool stuff. Funny how in profile, the blue whale doesn't look that big. A. fragilis, even though could have been ridiculously big, has no physical remains anymore. It's more of a legend.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks, man. It's true that nothing more remains of Amphicoelias, but Darren Naish has argued pretty convincingly that it did actually exist, and it was actually that large.
I updated it with some new animals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I got a real kick out of this since I'm currently undertaking a fossil reconstruction of placoderm and "stegas" to more developed seymouriamorphas. They're a lot of hard work, but extremely fun. It's really great.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks! I updated it with some new animals.
That work sounds very interesting. Gotta love placoderms!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This image is pretty eyeopening for me as I never expected some of these animals to be so large.
Especially the Azhdarchid. I had no idea it was so large. I knew Leedsichthys was Huge, but never fully grasped it's scope until I saw this image.
I think the Man at the end is a little on the large side, especially when compared to the size of the moose.
Looking at this image, Im struck by a number of questions.
1. The upper limit of size reached by mammalian megafauna can not even compare with upper limits of size reached by the sauropod dinosaurs.
What's capping the size of mammal megafauna? And what allowed Dinosaurs to get so large.
2. The same can be said when comparing the flying reptiles and birds. Since similar niches and climates exist today, and principles of physics has not changed, what's capping the upperlimit of bird and flying mammal size?
3. Among terrestrial fauna, the largest creatures in terms of body mass are herbivores. Predation of large megafauna is largely limited to cooperative hunting. What's keeping predators from rivaling the sizes of their megafauna prey in the evolutionary arms race?
4. Conversely, the upper limit of size reached by aquatic organisms seem similar. The largest fish, aquatic reptiles and aquatic mammals seem comparable in size. What factors contribute to the upper limit on the body mass of aquatic organisms? Is this a physical limitation imposed by the vertebrate body?
5. Why are the largest aquatic invertebrates still smaller incomparable in size to the vertebrates?
Great piece. Looking at the silhouettes of such familiar animals, I was suddenly struck by their alien-ness, and that nothing imagines can compare to the ingenuity of form and function of all that has existed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
1. I'm not too sure about this one, but I believe that carbon dioxide levels were different during the Mesozoic than they were during the Cenozoic. This would have led dinosaurs to become very large. Sometimes, in the case of herbivores like sauropods and ornithopods, it had to do with having to reach the plants whose growth would be stimulated by CO2. This would, in turn, encourage size increases in carnivores. This hypothesis would only make sense if we definitively knew all CO2 levels throughout the earth's history. I'm just inferring based on plant size variation through time.
3. Carnivores may have evolved proportionally to their prey, or (referring to number one) could have just been restricted by atmospheric components. Maybe they just couldn't eat enough to survive if they were any bigger than they already were. Spinosaurus, for example, lived in a very plentiful environment filled with large fish that it could have eaten. By contrast, little desert carnivores like Velociraptor probably didn't get so big because of how sparsely populated deserts are. It's similar with today's mammals.
4. I'm drawing a complete blank on this one, whoops. Maybe water pressure effects size, and you can only get so big before it becomes excruciatingly hard to swim.
5. Maybe it's the structure of the invertebrates that prevents them from getting so big?
As for the Azhdarchid and Leedsichthys, the author of the deviation said: "Disclaimer two: This image was made only to satisfy my own curiosity about the comparative sizes of extinct animals. I was not extremely precise. So, the relative sizes of the animals are probably not extremely correct." The size may be a tad off. Either way, Leedsichthys was nowhere near its portrayed size in BBC's Walking With Dinosaurs, and the size of big Azhdarchids like Quetzalcoatlus and Hatzegopteryx has been contested since their specimens were unearthed.
Good questions, all the same. I hope that my proposed answers weren't too long-winded for you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
When I was reading about this, I started thinking: Could it be possible that changes in gaseous composition in the atmosphere be a factor, especially considering oxygen affects growth of mammals. So, possibly minute changes in nitrogen, oxygen, and other similar gases have enough of a change to allow creatures to get a certain size?
Oh, and relating to your question about why would short lifespans be better for organisms such as Architeuthis: shorter generations means adaptations and immunities can be used to an evolutionary advantage relatively faster. Just think of cockroaches. The reason why its so hard to keep them in check using the same poisons is because of the short generations. Cockroach populations are much more versatile than human counterparts because sickness and poisons can be overcome very quickly in cockroach terms.
I think its awesome this piece can incite so much side-discussion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
1. About 20 tons
2. The largest flying birds are teratorns. Some have wing spans over 25 feet. Feathered wings are better than skinned wings.
3. Predators cannot grow very large because they would require too much food or the size would limit their predatory ability.
4. I don't think it's true. Modern whales are by far much larger than known prehistoric fish. Leedsichthys is not as big as BBC portrays. And pliosaurs and mosasaurs rarely exceeds 15 meters. Some Ichthyosaurs probably approaches large baleen whales in size.
5. IDK. But if you are talking about cephalopods, they usually have a short life span, which prevents them to grow very large.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. Yes, but Why? What's keeping herbivorous mammal megafauna occupying similar niches to reach sauropod size?
2. Feathered wings more adaptive? How so?
What's keeping modern birds from reaching Pterosaur size? The wandering albatross has the largest wingspan at 13 feet, but that's still nowhere near Pterandon or Azhdarchid size. Why?
3. Youre Right... I forgot.
4. I need some more time on this one.
5. Colossal Squids are fairly large, their size being comparable to animals with much longer lifespans like the smaller cetaceans. Does lifespan really have a correlation with size? Parakeets can live around 15-20 years where as hamsters of the same body mass and similar metabolism rate lives about 2-3.
This is fascinating area, in that if cephalopods have an extremely fast generation time and short lifespan, they stand to respond to evolutionary change much faster as well.
Architeuthis kirk is speculated to have a life span of around 2 years. Humbolt Squid has an average of 1. These are large intelligent predators with the generation time comparable to rodents, why? What's the adaptive advantage of a short generation time in these creatures, when related molluscs such as bivalves can live for decades?
Thanks for raising interesting questions and possibilities.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. Probably due to high metabolic rate. Mammals require much more food and water to sustain themselves than reptiles.
2. I am not saying it's more adaptive. A friend who studies ornithology told me that.
5.I really can't answer your questions. But I am not saying there's a correlation between life span and size.
I am saying with a relatively short life span, there's not enough time for cephalopods to grow extremely large.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
But most people agree that dinosaurs were warm-blooded like mammals, in which case they would need similar amounts of food and water.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
1. But that's assuming that dinosaurs had a metabolic rate comparable to modern reptiles.
2. HaHa... Okay.
5. But they can gradually evolve longer and longer lifespans, short generation time must offer some kind of adaptive advantage to these large predators. Im not sure what that advantage is. I mean if Architeuthis can have eyes the size of dinner plates in 2 years, time doesn't seem to be a limiting factor on size.
Sorry, Im not looking for any answers. I more or less just interested in discussing evolutionary biology questions raised by this piece.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
And I'm just happy to have made an image that raises questions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
1. Uh, no. Most mammals and birds have a much higher metabolic rate, 10 times greater than most modern reptiles. Dinosaur is somewhere in between. Sauropods are probably on the lower spectrum of dino metabolic scale, so the difference is still significant.
5. Maybe a longer life span doesn't help them survive or reproduce in any way so the gene doesn't get passed on. I am not an expert on evolutionary mechanism or anything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Epic! I'll have to look at this more closely again!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks! Now would be a good time to look at it again, because I've updated it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I still love this piece XD .. it's really fascinating to look at. You've done a lovely job with the silhouettes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hehe, well, all I did with the silhouettes was cut, paste, resize, and fill with gray. I didn't draw any of them.
But thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Man, our fauna looks so measly compared to the Jurassic. C'mon, guys, let's get it together!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
*strains and strains in an attemt to grow larger* 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Haha!
Updated it with some new animals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |