Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Gigantomakhia by GetAwayTrike Gigantomakhia by GetAwayTrike
Skeletal reconstructions of Giganotosaurus carolinii.
MUCPv-Ch1 (holotype; top) and MUCPv-95 (bottom).
Scale bar is 1m.
Add a Comment:
Franoys Featured By Owner Edited Jan 7, 2017  Student Digital Artist
May I ask you which are your sources for Mucpv Ch1 bones? There are some things that don't seem coherent with what is suggested by the papers and other authors, firstly, the skeleton does preserve a number of dorsal ribs, which is made clear in Coria and Salgado 1995…, and also in Scott hartman's restoration…. Secondly, there doesn't appear to be that many caudal vertebrae preserved, according again to Scott Hartman's skeletal and again Coria and Salgado, neither it is coherent with the material list that Mickey Mortimer made in the theropod database…

Furthermore, the body lenth isn't coherent with Scott's skeletal, GSP's skeletal, or the scientific papers, the giga here is 12,56-12,72 m in length along the centra, while in Coria and Salgado was cited to be 12,5 meters long which was overestimated, and in recent papers like Carpenter and Currie 2000 and in Coria and Currie 2006 giganotosaurus mount is listed as being 12,2 meters in length .

Citing Carpenter and Currie:

The total length of the skeleton (Fig.1) as mounted for display by the Black Hills Institute is 11.5 m. This would make it one of the largest known theropods, comparable in total length with Tyrannosaurus rex Osborn, 1905 (the mounted skeletons of BHI3033 and MOR555 are 11.5 m) and Giganotosaurus Coria & Salgado, 1995 (the mounted skeleton of MUCPv-CH1 is 12.2 m).

Citing Coria and Currie:

"  The shafts of a scapula (MCF-PVPH-108.185) and a pubis (-108.145) have similar dimensions to the same regions in the holotype of Giganotosaurus, whose estimated length reaches the 12.2 m. "

Do you have some extra data everyone has been missing? And if you do will you kindly share it please?

Also and about Giganotosaurus paratype, I see it is 8% bigger than the holotype as was suggested by Coria and Calvo (2000) but this measurement is greatly contradicted by the following paragraph in Coria and Currie (2006):

"  By comparison, the dentary of the Giganotosaurus holotype is 135 mm deep, and that of MUCPv-CH-95 (Calvo & Coria 2000) is 138 mm.
" That would mean that Mucpv 95's dentary is only 2,2% deeper than the dentary of Mucpv 95 and it is the only comparison between the two same measurements of both dentaries in the literature, and this paper was written mostly by the man who described the original Giganotosaurs specimen (Rodolfo Coria), only that it was published 11 years later . At least it makes that the 8% figure should be taken with several grains of salt and great skepticism. Furthermore, Hartman also found the 8% bigger estimation for Mucpv 95 to be exaggerated, and suggested a figure of 6,5% bigger at best….
GetAwayTrike Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2017  Hobbyist Artist
Thank you for asking.

I omitted ribs because of its fragmentary nature. All rib elements of MUCPv-Ch1 is broken and exact arrangements are unknown (because of no describing).

We can refer internet photos of original MUCPv-Ch1. Many (possibly consecutive) caudal vertebrae can be seen.
It is possible that when Coria and Salgado (1995) wrote, most recovered caudals were yet in preparation.

"Measurements of mounted skeleton" is difficult problem. It is the measurement of including artifacts. 
We should keep it in mind as a rough reference.

Estimating total length of MUCPv-95 is interesting but difficult. It is very difficult to accurately estimate the total length from a small fragment of the skull. My MUCPv-95 skeletal is only (one of) probable inaccurate estimation.

Unless a detailed osteological description of Gigantosaurus is published, it will not be possible to draw reasonably accurate skeletals of derived carcharodontosaurids. If published, WE MUST re-draw these fascinating theropod's skeletal.
Franoys Featured By Owner Edited Jan 7, 2017  Student Digital Artist
That image is interesting but it is easy to tell that it is filled with casts of a lot of bones; probably including the caudal vertebrae series. It is known, practically from fact, that Giganotosaurus doesn't have preserved forelimb elements and neither metatarsals if we go by Coria and Curre 2006 and Canale and Novas (2014). An of course not all of the skull was preserved, much less the lower jaw. Of course neither all of the teeth were preserved.

I completely disagree that it is not possible to do reasonably accurate skeletals of derived Carcharodontosaurids; Tyrannotitan chubutensis has had a very recent complete osteological study, in which every fundamental element of it's anatomy is at least partially represented, including good material from the dorsal vertebrae series, which is represented in it's totallity if MPEF pv 1157 and MPEF pv 1156 elements are cross scaled. As you may alredy know , Tyrannotitan has been re classified as as derived Carcharodontosaurid and a member of the subfamily Carcharodontosaurinae, which includes Carcharodontoraus, being the most basal member of Giganotosaurini that includes Mapusaurus and Giganotosaurus.

Tyrannotitan can be reconstructed in it's entirety with the material provided in Canale et al 2014……; and it's supplementary materials…… , and it is the best base to restore the missing elements of Carcharodontosaurus, which shares with it an important amount of characters, like the proportions of the hindlimbs (Stromer 1931, Novas 2005) , the shape and articulation of the jugal and the anteorbital fenestrae (Novas 2005) and others (Canale et al 2014), and as a consequence, it is listed as it's closest relative….

As for Giganotosaurus, and since you recognized that you don't have access to any extraordinary source about it's bone dimensions, I don't know where you got the measurements for the majority of the vertebrae series, I based the measurements of the cervical, dorsal, and caudal series of vertebrae on Scott Hartman's skeletal which probably has had access to measuring the skeletal or to data that we haven't had access yet.

I greatly appreciate your attention and you answer.

Best wishes.
GetAwayTrike Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2017  Hobbyist Artist
Off course El Chocon's Giganotosaurus have filled some artifacts;skull, forelimb, foot. However are its artifacts?

Tyrannotitan is well DESCRIBED but poorly PRESERVED, though it is good reference.

Canale et al. (2014) wrotes;

"Novas et al. (2005) identified a cervical vertebra of the paratype of Tyrannotitan as the ninth cervical. Through comparisons with the cervical series of Giganotosaurus (MUCPV-Ch 1), this element is reinterpreted here as the seventh cervical vertebra, given the presence of characters such as a marked opisthocoely of the centrum, a transverse process directed more ventrally than laterally and a neural
arch anteroposteriorly extended."

It is suggest that Novas who is leading researcher of South American theropods did not know detailed osteological information of Giganotosaurus vertebrae. Perhaps there is a possibility that neither restudy nor detailed skeletal elements measuring are done, though some researchers are working on restudy little by little. Did Hartman refer to unpublished measurements...? 

I refer many photos, and GSP's skeletal which must be based on photos for scaling vertebrae. Thus my Giganotosaurus skeletal must have some (or many?) errors. 

Please note that whoever drew it skeletal reconstruction must have errors. Because fossils always have distortion, damage. It is almost certainly that bone measurements have errors.   
Franoys Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2017  Student Digital Artist
Of course I agree with you that a good description of Giganotosaurus is desperately needed and would be amazing and I of course would base my skeletal of the animal on it once it comes out. It is true that all the information surrounding Giganotosaurus is extremely obscure, and has been for 22 years, it almost seems like it is made on purpose.

As for Hartman knowledge or not in the subject, it is just an idea I had, but why would an artist like Hartman do Giganotosaurus out of nowhere? (aside from the original description which is extremely poor) I'll try to ask him what his references are. It is clear that at least several elements in the skeletal are restored from Mapusaurus even if they are at the very least partially preserved in Giganotosaurus.

Tyrannotitan remains aren't that bad, any of the specimens is much better preserved than every Mapusaurus specimen and Carcharodontosaurus, it is the second best preserved Carcharodotosaurine after Giganotosaurus, and also the one that has the best and most detailed description, and it also seems to be the jack of all trades in the Carcharodontosaurine subfamily since it is strongly related to everything, so we must be thankful that we have it.

Novas is leading the research in a lot of Argentinian stuff, but the one that have spent the most ammount of time with Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus is Coria, and he probably didn't give him access to a lot of Giganotosaurus data prior to 2005.

Regarding Giganotosaurus again,  it seems then like most of the differences in proportions are because they are based on different restorations for the vertebrae measurements. And both are of course prone to error specially when we don't know how good the references of both artists are. I , much like yourself, did base as much as posible on the literature but sadly there isn't much. And yes I know everything has an error margin to it but the Futalognkosaurus is a really unfortunate example because mos tof the time the skeletals in the papers don't intend to be realistic but rather schematic.

Have a nice day and good luck with your works.
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2016  Professional Traditional Artist
Excellent! I agree with this version's skull more than with Scott Hartman's.
GetAwayTrike Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2016  Hobbyist Artist
acepredator Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2016
Looks a bit shrinkwrapped IMHO
MastermindIdol9476 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2017
It could probably use a bit of muscle to certain parts, but not very much.
JonaGold2000 Featured By Owner Edited Dec 23, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
It's a skeletal, those usually only show the musculature as silhouettte.
paleosir Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
It feels oddly different from Scott's skeletal....yet so similar.
Really nice skeletal again!
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2016
The skull is the most different part
paleosir Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Yu-Gi-Nos Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2016  Student General Artist
Giganotosaurus is my FAVORITE dinosaur! Thank you for doing this :)
GetAwayTrike Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2016  Hobbyist Artist
I'm glad to hear that.
ZEGH8578 Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2016
Interesting shape. Almost like giant Tyrannosaurids represented a later convergent evolution
Saberrex Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Indeed, but that's because it was relying on its head to do much of the killing. The arms were still useful, if only to grapple smaller prey or help carry and drag away carcasses.
PLASTOSPLEEN Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2016
The tail is longer than I imagined it to be
Add a Comment:


Submitted on
December 22, 2016
Image Size
140 KB


64 (who?)

Camera Data

EP-977A3 Series
Adobe Photoshop Elements 9.0 Windows