My Prehistoric Saga

Tuesday, January 19, 2021

(News) New Giant Titanosaur Coexisted with Giganotosaurus!

New 2021 titanosaur (MOZ Pv 1221) with other smaller sauropods from the Candeleros Formation (Otero et al., 2021. Figure 5) (Scale bar is 2 meters):

Last year, I wrote a post that talked about a possible specimen of giant sauropod (probably a titanosaur, and either closely related to, or is, Argentinosaurus) from the Candeleros Formation. Now, it seems that there is another titanosaur that coexisted with Giganotosaurus in the Candeleros Formation. It is said to have even 40 tons or more, and even been bigger than Patagotitan and probably Argentinosaurus (Otero et al., 20201, "Abstract") (Ian Randall, 2021) (Amy Woodyatt, 2021) (Bob Yirka, 2021)! The specimen is catalogued as MOZ Pv 1221.

MOZ Pv 1221 Phylogenetic Tree (Figure 4):

Discovery Site and List of Bones (Figure 1):

Scale bar length for silhouette of titanosaur is 2 meters:

Coracoid (Figure 3):

Scale bar for coracoid is 10 cm:

Caudal (Tail) Vertebrae (Figure 2):

Scale bar for caudal vertebrae is 10 cm:

Centrum lengths for caudal vertebrae (Table 1):

I said in my post on the probable (?)Argentinosaurus specimen from Candeleros Formation that it was weird that Giganotosaurus carolinii never had giant titanosaurs to hunt within the Candeleros Formation, while it probably did hunt Patagotitan since it lived in the Albian alongside G. carolinii, but it came from a different formation. G. (Mapusaurus) roseae always hunted larger titanosaurs (Argentinosaurus and Puertasaurus, to name a few) than G. carolinii did in the Candeleros Formation (only the 80-foot long Andesaurus, but that (?)Argentinosaurus specimen is still there...). Perhaps this new unnamed giant titanosaur is related to that (?)Argentinosaurus/mystery titanosaur from Calvo (1999)?

All I know is that G. carolinii finally has a giant titanosaur to tangle with! I will try to extrapolate a length for this animal once I can get the measurements! For now, I would say that this new titanosaur might be the same size, or perhaps bigger, than Patagotitan, just to be safe.

Size Estimation of MOZ Pv 1221:
I can't access the actual paper, but I've decided to try and formulate a size estimate for MOZ Pv 1221.

Caudal Vertebra:
I decided to do the vertebra first. I measured the centrum length of caudal 4 (C4). I don't know how long the scale bar is, so I measured it using an estimated 5 and 10 cm each. Using 5 cm, I obtained a length of 18 cm for the centrum. Using 10 cm, I got 35 cm. I compared the centrum length of MOZ Pv 1221 to Dreadnaughtus.

1. Caudal Centrum 4:
Dreadnaughtus:
Centrum 4 Length: 33 cm.
Body Length: 30 m.

18 - 33 = 15.
15/33*100 = 45.5% decrease.
30 m - 45.5% = 54 feet (16.4 meters).

35 - 33 = 2.
2/33*100 = 6.1% increase.
30 m + 6.1% = 104 feet (31.8 meters).

Patagotitan:
Holotype's Centrum 4 Length: 36 cm (Carballido et al., 2017, Supplementary Materials, p. 32).
Body Length: 47.3 meters.

35 - 36 = 1.
1/36*100 = 2.8% decrease.
47.3 m - 2.8% = 151 feet (46.0 meters).

*Actual length: 32 cm.

Dreadnaughtus:
Centrum 4 Length: 33 cm.
Body Length: 30 m.

33 - 32 = 1.
1/33*100 = 3% decrease.
30 m - 3% = 96 feet (29.1 meters).

2. Caudal Centrum 11:
Length: 29 cm.

Dreadnaughtus:
Centrum 4 Length: 27.2 cm.
Body Length: 30 m.

27.2 - 29 = 1.8.
1.8/27.2*100 = 6.6% increase.
30 m + 6.6% = 105 feet (32.0 meters).

Caudal centrum 11 is unknown in Patagotitan.

Coracoid:
I measured MOZ Pv 1221's coracoid second.

5 cm: 41 cm.
*10 cm: 82 cm.

Patagotitan Holotype:

Coracoid: 61.5 cm (Carballido et al., 2017, Supplementary Materials, p. 33).

Body: 47.3 m.

41 - 61.5 = 20.5.

20.5/61.5*100 = 33.3% decrease.

47.3 m - 33.3% = 104 feet (31.6 meters).

*82 - 61.5 = 20.5

20.5/61.5*100 = 33.3% increase.

47.3 m + 33.3% = 207 feet (63.1 meters).

Dreadnaughtus:
Coracoid Length: 68 cm (Left).
Body Length: 30 m.

41 - 68 = 27.
27/68*100 = 39.7% decrease.
30 m - 39.7% = 59 feet (18.1 meters).

*82 - 68 = 14.
14/68*100 = 20.6% increase.
30 m + 20.6% = 119 feet (36.2 meters).

Update (2/3/21): The pubis has been stated as being 10% longer than Patagotitan's (Mercedes Benialgo, 2021, para. 4) (Madeleine Muzdakis, 2021, para. 3).

Mercedes Benialgo (2021) (Para. 4) (Translated):

Madeleine Muzdakis (2021) (Para. 3):

Only the holotype of Patagotitan (MPEF-PV 3400) has its pubis (140 cm) preserved (Carballido et al., 2017, Supplementary Materials, p. 34), and I got a length of 47.3 meters for it.

47.3 m + 10% = 171 feet (52.0 meters) for MOZ Pv 1221.
140 cm + 10% = 154 cm for MOZ Pv 1221's pubis.

If the scale bar for the silhouette of the titanosaur in the "Discovery Site and List of Bones" figure picture is 2 meters, then I've obtained a measurement of about 130 cm (at best) for the pubis.

Update (2/9/21): Scale bar is 2 meters, but the pubis length is 166 cm (Discussion, para. 8):

Pubis:
Length: 166 cm.

*Patagotitan Holotype:
140 - 166 = 26.
26/140*100 = 18.6% increase.
47.3 m + 18.6% = 184 feet (56.1 meters).

*New Patagotitan pubis length: 152 cm (Otero et al., 2020, p. 9 Table 2).

152 - 166 = 14.
14/152*100 = 9.2% increase.
47.3 m + 9.2% = 170 feet (51.7 meters).

Dreadnaughtus:
Pubis: 140 cm.
Body Length: 30 cm.

140 - 166 = 26.
26/140*100 = 18.6% increase.
30 m + 18.6% = 117 feet (35.6 meters).

Futalognknosaurus:
Pubis: 137 cm (Calvo et al., 2007, p. 521).
Body Length: 31.1 meters.

137 - 166 = 29.
29/137*100 = 21.2% increase.
31.1 m + 21.2% = 124 feet (37.7 meters).

In total, MOZ Pv 1221 was 170 feet long (51.7 meters), based on the pubis compared to the holotype of Patagotitan. Based on the coracoid, a wider range of 119-207 feet (36.2-63.1 meters) was obtained. I'll go with 51.7 meters, since the authors keep using the pubis length to give their estimate.

As to whether or not MOZ is Argentinosaurus, the authors say that they don't know. Argentinosaurus is extremely fragmentary, so more MOZ bones will have to be excavated to see if it is a specimen of Argentinosaurus ("Discussion" para. 4):

There might be hope yet that MOZ is Argentinosaurus, and that Argentinosaurus coexisted with Giganotosaurus. However, that question will have to remain open.

Link:
Otero et al., (2021):
"Abstract":
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019566712100001X
Link 2:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348461418_Report_of_a_giant_titanosaur_sauropod_from_the_Upper_Cretaceous_of_Neuquen_Province_Argentina
Specimen Name:
https://images.app.goo.gl/y3PyKdTeR8oA4e647
Discovery and List of Bones:
https://images.app.goo.gl/6PKmajb6s6KYZZCr5
Coracoid:
https://images.app.goo.gl/tvGwXytxtSigtrT76
Caudal (Tail) Vertebrae:
https://images.app.goo.gl/iveF5JwBh2LqRcG96
Mercedes Benialgo (2021) (Para. 4):
https://www.conicet.gov.ar/cientificos-del-conicet-hallan-un-gigantesco-dinosaurio-cuello-largo-en-neuquen/?fbclid=IwAR0jfIA8pgkgncKmN0Q9HJnV_vlYGU_tD7SpAkNLcTVgFiU885zpa0TlrAs
Madeleine Muzdakis (2021) (Para. 3):
https://mymodernmet.com/dinosaur-fossil-titanosaur-argentina/
Ian Randall (2021):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9160381/Fossils-98-million-year-old-dino-unearthed-Argentina-largest-land-animal-ever.html
Amy Woodyatt (2021):
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/19/americas/dinosaur-largest-titanosaur-intl-scli-scn/index.html
Bob Yirka (2021):
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-gigantic-dinosaur-unearthed-argentina-largest.html
My 2020 post on (?)Argentinosaurus/giant titanosaur from Candeleros Formation:
https://psdinosaurs.blogspot.com/2020/08/a-giant-sauropod-argentinosaurus-from_22.html
My lengths for the other titanosaurs mentioned in this post:
https://psdinosaurs.blogspot.com/2018/12/size-calculations-for-herbivorous.html
Lacovara et al., (2014):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265377777_A_Gigantic_Exceptionally_Complete_Titanosaurian_Sauropod_Dinosaur_from_Southern_Patagonia_Argentina
Link 2:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep06196
Supplementary Materials:
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fsrep06196/MediaObjects/41598_2014_BFsrep06196_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Carballido et al., (2017):
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1860/20171219
Supplementary Materials (Pg. 32-34):
https://figshare.com/articles/Electronic_Supplementary_material_from_A_new_giant_titanosaur_sheds_light_on_body_mass_evolution_among_sauropod_dinosaurs/5297611
Otero et al., (2020) (P. 9 Table 2):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344346605_The_Appendicular_Osteology_of_Patagotitan_Mayorum_Dinosauria_Sauropoda
Calvo et al., (2007) (P. 521):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237289209_Anatomy_of_Futalognkosaurus_dukei_Calvo_Porfiri_Gonzalez_Riga_Kellner_2007_Dinosauria_Titanosauridae_from_the_Neuquen_Group_Late_Cretaceous_Patagonia_Argentina

Thursday, November 19, 2020

Size Calculations for Crocodyliformes:

The Percentage Increase/Decrease Method:
1. Take new number and subtract it from original number.
2. Take that number and divide it by the original number and multiply by 100.
3. That number will by your percentage increase or decrease if it's negative.

Ex.: "Stan's" Femur is 130 and has a body length of 12.2 meters. "Wyrex" has a femur length of 132.7 cm.

132.7 - 130 = 2.7.
2.7 divided by (represented by "/") and multiplied by (represented by "*") equals 2.1.
(2.7/130*100 = 2.1)
2.1 is your percentage increase, or 2.1% increase.
12.2 m + 2.1% = 12.5 meters for "Wyrex."

Links:
Percentage Increase/Decrease Method Links:
"Percentage Change - Percentage Increase and Decrease." SkillsYouNeed:

https://www.skillsyouneed.com/num/percent-change.html
"Relative Increase." percentage.calculators.ro:
https://percentages.calculators.ro/15-percentage-increase-from-original-number-to-new-value.php

Model: Florida Alligator:
Skull: 26 cm (10 1/4 inches).
Body: 6 feet.

Link:
Worldwide Wildlife Products. "Alligator Skulls": "10-1/4 Alligator Skull":
https://www.worldwidewildlifeproducts.com/store/pc/10-1-4-inches-Good-Quality-Florida-Alligator-Skull-for-Sale-You-are-buying-this-one-for-59-99-125p7589.htm

1. Cerrejonisuchus:

Skulls (Largest): 31.4 cm (Table 1).

26 - 31.4 = 5.4.

5.4/26*100 = 20.8% increase.

1.829 m + 20.8% = 7 feet (2.2 meters).

Cerrejonisuchus' Total Length: 7 feet (2.2 meters).

Link:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724630903409204

2. Eothoracosaurus:

MSU 3293:
Skull: 89.7 cm (For now).

Cerrejonisuchus:

Skulls (Largest): 31.4 cm.

Body: 2.2 meters.

89.7 - 31.4 = 58.3.

58.3/31.4*100 = 185.7% increase.

2.2 m + 185.7% = 21 feet (6.3 meters).

Eothoracosaurus' Total Length: 21 feet (6.3 meters).

Links:

Carpenter (1983) (Pg. 4 Table 1 [24-33]):

https://www.mdeq.ms.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Vol_4_1.pdf

Species Name:
Brochu (2004): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40662929_A_new_Late_Cretaceous_gavialoid_crocodylian_from_eastern_North_America_and_the_phylogenetic_relationships_of_Thoracosaurs

Link 2:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4524750?seq=1

Time:

Fossilworks. "Eothoracosaurus":

http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=176554

Fossilworks. "Eothoracosaurus mississippiensis":

http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=176555

Family Tree:
Lee and Yates (2018) (Figure 1):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6030529/

3. Elosuchus:
Carcharodontosaurus and Elosuchus by David Bonadonna:

Largest Skull: 107.7 cm (Meunier and Larsson, 2017, Table 1).

Eothoracosaurus:

Skull: 89.7 cm.

Body: 6.3 m.

107.7 - 89.7 = 18.

18/89.7*100 = 20.1% increase.

6.3 m + 20.1% = 25 feet (7.6 meters).

Elosuchus' Total Length: 25 feet (7.6 meters).

Link:
Meunier and Larsson (2017) (Table 1):
https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/179/1/169/2870024
Picture:
David Bonadonna:
http://www.davidebonadonna.it/project/342/

4. Sarcosuchus:
Sarcosuchus vs. Suchomimus:

1. MNN 604:

Skull: 150 cm (Sereno et al., 2001, pg. 1518 Table 1).

Elosuchus:

Skull: 107.7 cm.

Body: 7.6 meters.

107.7 - 150 = 42.3.

42.3/107.7*100 = 39.3% increase.

7.6 m + 39.3% = 35 feet (10.6 meters).

Link:
Sereno et al., (2001) (Pg. 1518 Table 1):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11672584_The_Giant_Crocodyliform_Sarcosuchus_from_the_Cretaceous_of_Africa

2. BC-156:
Skull: 172.7 cm (Bone Clones).

Deinosuchus:

Skull: 167.6 cm.

Body: 11.8 m.

167.6 - 172.7 = 5.1.

5.1/167.6*100 = 3% increase.

11.8 m + 3% = 40 feet (12.2 meters).

Link:
Bone Clones:

https://boneclones.com/product/sarcosuchus-imperator-supercroc-skull-BC-156
Time Period:
Barremian and Older:
Douiret Formation:
Loeuff et al., (2010) (Pg. 753-754, 756-757):
http://doc.rero.ch/record/293777/files/S0016756810000178.pdf
El Rhaz Formation:
Bertozzo et al., (2017) ("Introduction"):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5480399/
Loeuff et al., (2012) (Pg. 3 and 8):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284617900_Between_Tendaguru_and_Bahariya_on_the_age_of_the_Early_Cretaceous_dinosaur_sites_from_the_Continental_Intercalaire_and_other_African_formations
Others:
Souza et al., (2019) (Pg. 2-3, and 5):
https://paleontologia.ufes.br/sites/paleontologia.ufes.br/files/field/anexo/souza_et_al._2019_-_sarcosuchus_0.pdf
Barremian-Aptian:
Contessa, Michela. Paleontological studies of Cretaceous vertebrate fossil beds in the Tataouine Basin (southern Tunisia). Pg. 12-13. 2013:
http://amsdottorato.unibo.it/5240/1/Contessi_Michela_tesi.pdf

Aptian-Albian:
Dridi (2018):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1464343X18301778?via%3Dihub
Albian:
Contessa, Michela. Paleontological studies of Cretaceous vertebrate fossil beds in the Tataouine Basin (southern Tunisia). 2013:
http://amsdottorato.unibo.it/5240/1/Contessi_Michela_tesi.pdf
Notes:
Age:
Pg. 14: Albian.
Fossils:
All: Pages 20-29; Sarcosuchus: Pg 25-26, 28; Spinosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, and ornithopod: Pg 27-29).

Sarcosuchus' Total Length: 35-40 feet (10.6-12.2 meters).

5. Deinosuchus:
Deinosuchus vs. Albertosaurus or Gorgosaurus:

Skull: 5.5 feet/5 feet 6 inches (167.6 cm) (Prehistoric Planet Store) (Bay State Replicas).

Sarcosuchus holotype:

Skull: 150 cm.

Body: 10.6 m.

150 - 167.6 = 17.6.

17.6/150*100 = 11.7% increase.

10.6 m + 11.7% = 39 feet (11.8 meters).

Deinosuchus' Total Length: 39 feet (11.8 meters).

Link:
Prehistoric Planet Store:

http://www.prehistoricstore.com/item.php?item=1475

Bay State Replicas:

http://www.baystatereplicas2.com/product/deinosuchus-skull/

6. Purussaurus:

Skull (Mandible): 175 cm (Aureliano et al., 2015, "Introduction" p. 4).

Sarcosuchus Specimen 2:

Skull: 172.7 cm.

Body: 12.2 m.

175 - 172.7 = 2.3.

2.3/172.7*100 = 1.3% increase.

12.2 m + 1.3% = 41 feet (12.4 meters).

Purussaurus' Total Length: 41 feet (12.4 meters).

Link:
Aureliano et al., (2015) ("Introduction" p. 4):

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117944

7. Stomatosuchus:
Skull from Paleofile:

Skull: 2 meters (Stromer, 1925, pg. 1) (Stromer, 1933, pg. 45).

Purussaurus:

Skull (Mandible): 175 cm.
Body: 12.4 meters.

175 - 200 = 25.

25/175*100 = 14.3% increase.

12.4 m + 14.3% = 47 feet (14.2 meters).

Stomatosuchus' Total Length: 47 feet (14.2 meters).

Links:
Stromer (1925) (Pg. 1):

https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Abhandlungen-Akademie-Bayern_30_0001-0022.pdf

Stromer (1933) (Pg. 45):

https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Abhandlungen-Akademie-Bayern_NF_15_0001-0055.pdf
Skull Pic:
Paleofile:
https://images.app.goo.gl/uwizbwGoJxtrJgsNA

Saturday, August 22, 2020

What If: A Giant Sauropod (Argentinosaurus?) from the Candeleros Formation.

For the second post in my "What If" series, I'll be discussing whether or not Argentinosaurus actually lived in the Candeleros Formation.

Argentinosaurus from Dinosaurs: Giants of Patagonia:

Like I mentioned before in my "Were Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus the Same Genus?" post, I was told, and read, some things about Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus that contradicted each other over the years. After examining the two animals' skeletons, and looking up how old their formations are, I've come to three conclusions:

1. Mapusaurus (10.9-15.3 meters) is bigger than Giganotosaurus (12.4-13.1 meters). This makes sense because, back in the day, I read that Giganotosaurus didn't coexist with Argentinosaurus, and that it hunted smaller titanosaurs (despite being 13.2 meters long). Mapusaurus was the carcharodontosaurid that coexisted with Argentinosaurus, despite being 10.2 meters long. Why would a carcharodontosaurid, which evolved after a larger carcharodontosaurid, get smaller in order to hunt a larger animal? Now I know that isn't the case. We'll get back to Argentinosaurus shortly.

2. Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus seem to have coexisted, based on microfossils discovered, and U-Pb dating done, in the Candeleros and Huincul Formations.

3. Mapusaurus roseae seems to be a species of Giganotosaurus: Giganotosaurus roseae. I mainly go with Giganotosaurus (Mapusaurus) roseae.

Now, we'll talk about Argentinosaurus again. Back when I thought that Giganotosaurus was bigger than Mapusaurus, I was perplexed when I read/was told that Giganotosaurus hunted Andesaurus, not Argentinosaurus. It confused me because Andesaurus was only 80 feet long (24.4 meters). This is small compared to the 170-foot long (51.8 meters) Argentinosaurus. I asked myself this question for years: How could the larger Giganotosaurus hunt such a smaller sauropod, while the smaller Mapusaurus hunted a bigger sauropod? Nowadays, with a larger size for Mapusaurus, along with the possibility of Mapusaurus roseae being Giganotosaurus roseae, based on my analysis, I don't fret over this question anymore. This is not the end of the story though.

A couple of years ago now, I read in Calvo (1999) about the bones of a large sauropod, called Sauropoda gen. et sp. indet., discovered in the Candeleros Formation, which is the same formation that Giganotosaurus carolinii came from. Labelled as MUCPv-251, it consisted of a possible dorsal vertebra and rib. It seems to have come from a large sauropod, and Calvo says that it might be related to Argentinosaurus (pg. 26).

Statement on the specimen from Calvo (1999) (P. 26):

Info. on MUCPv-251 from Calvo (1999) (Pg. 26):

-Consists of a dorsal vertebra and rib.
-Rib is 175 cm long, but it's partial/the proximal half. ("Proximal" means closer to the body, as explained by Merriam-Webster and Lexico)
-Width at proximal end: 21 cm.
-Width at distal end: 12 cm.

-Rib is probably a dorsal, but I'm making that assumption because Calvo says that the vertebra found with the rib is probably a dorsal.
-Calvo thinks there's a possibility that these bones could be related with Argentinosaurus. However, I can't find any other papers that talk about this specimen.

Last year or so, I tried to find a way to estimate a length for this animal, but I couldn't find one. I was use to estimating dinosaur lengths based on limb and skull bones, not ribs. However, using the bones of the Chinese titanosaur Ruyangosaurus, I was able to get a size estimate for MUCPv-251.

Size Estimates for MUCPv-251:

1. Proximal Part of Rib Length:

Ruyangosaurus:

Dorsal Rib Length: 127 cm (proximal portion) (Sassani and Bivens, 2017, pg. 8).

Length: 47.1 meters.

127 - 175 = 48.

48/127*100 = 37.8% increase.

47.1 m + 37.8% = 213 feet (64.9 meters).

Hypothetically Complete Rib for Ruyangosaurus:
"Huangetitan" ruyangensis' Largest Dorsal Rib Length: 293 cm (Sassani and Bivens, 2017, pg. 28).
Width: 17.2 cm (Sassani and Bivens, 2017, pg. 15).

Ruyangosaurus' Dorsal Rib Width: 18 cm (Sassani and Bivens, 2017, pg. 15).

Dorsal Rib Length (Proximal half only): 127 cm (Sassani and Bivens, 2017, pg. 8).
Body Length: 47.1 meters.

17.2 - 18 = 0.8.
0.8/17.2*100 = 4.7% increase.
293 cm + 4.7% = 306.8 cm for Ruyangosaurus' complete dorsal rib.

Hypothetically Complete Rib for MUCPv-251:

Ruyangosaurus:

Dorsal Rib Length (Complete): 306.8 cm.
Width: 18 cm (Sassani and Bivens, 2017, pg. 15).

Length: 47.1 meters.

21 - 18 = 3.
3/18*100 = 16.7% increase.
306.8 + 16.7% = 358 cm for MUCPv-251's complete dorsal rib.

2. Hypothetically Complete Rib Length:

Ruyangosaurus:

Dorsal Rib Length (Complete): 306.8 cm.
Width: 18 cm (Sassani and Bivens, 2017, pg. 15).

Length: 47.1 meters.

306.8 - 358 = 51.2.
51.2/306.8*100 = 16.7% increase.
47.1 m + 16.7% = 181 feet (55.0 meters).

MUCPv-251's Total Length: 181 feet (55.0 meters).

Is MUCPv-251 Argentinosaurus?
Now that we have a size estimate for MUCPv-251, the question we have to ask now is whether or not MUCPv-251 belongs to Argentinosaurus, let alone a titanosaur? Based on the sauropod fauna discovered in the Candeleros Formation, consisting on the titanosaurs Andesaurus (80 feet long; 24.4 meters) and MMCH-Pv 47 (81 feet; 24.7 meters), and the rebbachisaur Limaysaurus (71-84 feet; 21.5-25.6 meters). Limaysaurus was bigger than the two titanosaurs, but its ribs were small.

Limaysaurus Skeleton:

I think the size of MUCPv-251 seems to put it in the titanosaur family. The width of the rib matches the widths of the titanosaurs Ruyangosaurus' and "Huangetitan" ruyangensis' rib widths. In fact, MUCPv-251's rib width was larger than both of them. Width aside, the size of this animal's bones puts it up there with Argentinosaurus! Argentinosaurus was 167 feet long (51.8 meters). Based on my estimates, MUCPv-251 was 181 feet long (55.0 meters). It was larger than Argentinosaurus!

Argentinosaurus was the largest titanosaur from South America. However, no Argentinosaurus fossils were discovered in the Candeleros Formation... As far as I know. However, MUCPv-251 seems to suggest that this might not be the case. What we do know is that its bones belong to a sauropod, as stated in Calvo (1999). Based on the size of the bones, the animal seems to have been a titanosaur. It might not be too

crazy to say that this animal was Argentinosaurus. A couple of sauropod dinosaurs from the Candeleros and Huincul Formations were found in other formations. Limaysaurus was discovered in both the Candeleros and Huincul Formations (Calvo and Salgado, 1995, pg. 15). Andesaurus was discovered in the Candeleros (Calvo, 1999, pg. 16, 22-24) (Calvo and Salgado, 1995, pg. 14), but also in the Bajo Barrea Formations. A titanosaur caudal vertebra was discovered there that has been attributed to Andesaurus (Casal et al., 2016, pg. 57). The Bajo Barrea Formation has been dated from the Albian-Turonian (Casal et al., 2009, "Abstract," "Introduction" p. 1). Pollen and spore samples assigned it to the Albian-Cenomanian, but radiometic dating (Ar/Ar), and U-Pb dates, place it at 99-91 million years (Casal et al., 2016, pg. 56, "Edad de la Formacion Bajo Barreal"). Therefore, the Bajo Barrea Formation is 113-90 million years old (Albian-Turonian), and so is Andesaurus. Therefore, we cannot throw out the possibility that MUCPv-251 could be the first fossils of Argentinosaurus from the Candeleros Formation.

Based on microfossils and U-Pb dating, the Huincul Formation was also Albian-Cenomanian in age (Vallati (2001) ("Abstract") (List of Microflora), Vallati (2006) ("Abstract"), Musacchio and Vallati (2007) ("Introduction"), and Vallati (2013) ("Paleotropical representatives in Northern Patagonia" 1-1.2, "Conclusions") (Corbella et al., 2004, "Abstract," "Characteristics and radiometric age of the tuff bed" pg. 229) (Garrido, 2010, pg. 138), just like the Candeleros Formation (Baez et al., 2000, pg. 491, "Geological Setting") (David Cannatella, 2015, "Temporal Data: Ages of Fossils and Calibration Priors," p. 20) (Tunik et al., 2010, pg. 270-271) (Di Giullo et al., 2012, pg. 600 "Results") (Garrido, 2010, pg. 134) (Halupczok et al., 2017, "Geological setting" pg. 2). The time frame of both formations makes it even more likely that MUCPv-251 could actually be Argentinosaurus.

The only other titanosaurs from the Candeleros Formation is Andesaurus and MMCH-Pv 47. Andesaurus is probably too small to be the real genus, but we only have one specimen to demonstrate this (Mannion and Calvo, 2011, "Additional Remains Referred To Andesaurus" p. 3). Perhaps Andesaurus grew larger than we've previously thought? I would like to think so, but this cannot be verified. Based on the skeleton we have now, Andesaurus is too small to be the real genus of MUCPv-251. MMCH-Pv 47 is slightly larger than Andesaurus, but we only have its vertebrae and no ribs. MMCH-Pv 47 is an unidentified titanosaur as well, so maybe comparing MUCPv-251 to it wouldn't be the best choice. Along with that, I cannot compare the specimens either way because I don't have a picture of MUCPv-251's bones. All I have are the size and width of its dorsal width. Therefore, based on the size, and width, of the bones, perhaps MMCH-Pv 47 isn't the real genus either. It's still small compared to Argentinosaurus.

Since I cannot find any other sources on MUCPv-251 other than Calvo (1999), I will place it as a titanosaur. Based on the size of the bones, this could possibly be the oldest recorded specimen of Argentinosaurus.

Update (2/4-9/21): A new large titanosaur has been discovered in the Candeleros Formation! Based on the size of the 166-cm long pubis, the animal was 170 feet long (51.7 meters), with a wider range of 119-207 feet (36.2-63.1 meters) based on the coracoid. Whether or not this mystery titanosaur is the owner of MUCPv-251 is unknown, but it's a possibility. However, this new titanosaur, catalogued as MOZ Pv 1221, proves that Giganotosaurus carolinii lived alongside massive sauropods!

There might be hope yet that MOZ is Argentinosaurus, and that Argentinosaurus coexisted with Giganotosaurus. However, that question will have to remain open.

Links on MOZ Pv 1221:
https://psdinosaurs.blogspot.com/2021/01/giant-titanosaurs-40-tons-or-more.html
Size:
https://psdinosaurs.blogspot.com/2018/12/size-calculations-for-herbivorous.html

Links:
Calvo (1999) (Pg. 26):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284053211_Dinosaurs_and_other_vertebrates_of_the_Lake_Ezequiel_Ramos_Mexia_Area_Neuquen-Patagonia_Argentina
Merriam-Webster. "Proximal":
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proximal
Lexico. "Proximal":
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/proximal

Sassani and Bivens (2017) (Pg. 7-8, 15, and 28):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332553212_The_Chinese_colossus_an_evaluation_of_the_phylogeny_of_Ruyangosaurus_giganteus_and_its_implications_for_titanosaur_evolution

Link 2:
https://peerj.com/preprints/2988v1.pdf

Mannion and Calvo (2011) ("Additional Remains Referred To Andesaurus" p. 3):

https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/163/1/155/2625609

Sizes of Other Sauropods:
https://psdinosaurs.blogspot.com/2018/12/size-calculations-for-herbivorous.html
Time of Candeleros and Huincul Formations:
https://psdinosaurs.blogspot.com/2020/07/were-giganotosaurus-and-mapusaurus-same_24.html
Sellers et al., (2013):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3864407/

Monday, July 27, 2020

Dino Bios: Alamosaurus.

Alamosaurus:

Time: Campanian-Maastrichtian of the late Cretaceous period: 84-66 million years ago.
Place: North America.
Length: 67-223 feet (20.4-67.9 meters).
Diet: Herbivore.

Let's talk about Alamosaurus, one of the largest animals that ever lived!

Description:
Alamosaurus lived 84-66 million years ago in North America, during the Campanian-Maastrichtian of the late Cretaceous period (Woodward, 2005, Chapter 2 Part 2: "Tectonic Setting" pg. 6) (Rivera-Sylva et al., 2006, pg. 66 "Geologic and Stratigraphic Setting") (Lehman et al., 2006, "Abstract") (Longrich et al., 2010, "Abstract," pg. 276) (Fowler and Sullivan, 2011, pg. 686 "Geological setting") (Wick et al., 2015, "Abstract") (Carrano and D'Emic, 2015, p. 2) (Tykoski and Fiorillo, 2016, "Geological setting"). It was

67-223 feet long (20.4-67.9 meters), and was the largest dinosaur in its environment. Alamosaurus had osteoderms on its body, which is similar to saltasaurids (Carrano and D'Emic, 2015, pg. 3).

Sauropod dinosaurs had rhamphotheca, or a beak-like structure made of keratin. This beak would have protected the sauropod's teeth and kept them in place, since fossilized sauropod teeth are usually found in good condition and connected to their skulls (John Pickrell, 10/10/19) (Pickrell, 10/17/19). Interestingly, dinosaurs couldn't move their tongues (Mindy Weisberger, 2018) (ScienceDaily, 2018).

Alamosaurus Skeleton Reconstruction (EurekAlert!, 2016):

Friends:
Alamosaurus coexisted with Triceratops (20-30 feet; 6.2-9.2 meters), Ankylosaurus (18-20 feet; 5.5-6.1 meters), Denversaurus (18 feet; 5.5 meters), Edmontosaurus (24-51 feet; 7.4-15.6 meters), Pachycephalosaurus (10 feet; 3.0 meters), and Struthiomimus (16 feet; 4.9 meters).

Enemies:
Alamosaurus' predators consisted mainly of T. rex, but the tyrannosauroid Dryptosaurus
(24 feet; 7.3 meters) would've been a threat to the younger individuals. Another predator included the dromaeosaur Dakotaraptor (13-17 feet; 3.8-5.2 meters). Another enemy (maybe for the young mainly) was the azhdarchid pterasaur Quetzalcoatlus (52 feet; 15.7 meters).

Alamosaurus vs. T. rex from Black (2009):