The problem with Puertasaurus
June 20, 2013
When I released my Thunder Lizards size comparison I was asked why a few of the largest animals were rendered in gray, and when I would be making the actual skeletal available. Using gray silhouettes solved an aesthetic concern (the image was threatening to get too busy), but it turns out that those critters have another problem: they are not known from very incomplete remains.
So here is the skeletal of Puertasaurus in all its “glory”. I have a fully restored version as well, but it’s not going to be making a public appearance, as frankly I don’t want it to be separated from the rigorous version, as that could give off the impression that the animal is better known. In fact even this version is somewhat misleading, as the two tail vertebrae were reported but not figured or described - I don’t actually know how big they were!
That’s not to say the reconstruction is a fantasy - it’s status as a lognkosaur seems secure, and we have very good remains of some of its relatives. And the neck and back vertebrae actually provide a pretty reasonable basis for scaling the largest parts of Puertasaurus. That said, I feel it’s important for scientists (and scientific illustrators) not to inadvertently mislead people about the level of inference involved.
So enjoy the skeletal, but please do so responsibly!
9 comments
I would argue that there is some value in that it makes explicit the assumptions that are being made for the missing parts. But you are right that thee fully restored ones on their own are more useful as learning/heuristic tools as they are most frequently used - and that's fine and good, but I do think that rigorous ones should always be included (alternatively, if space is limited you could always make the restored bones 50% gray).
Thanks for stopping by and commenting!
A little smaller than many think...heck, I'd assume Argentinosaurus tops it in length and height for sure, but maybe not weight... :)
It's going to be really close it looks like. Probably another week or two before I can add it in.
And by "week" clearly I meant "year".
Will be great:)
I see that Peurtasaurus is haunted. There's a little cartoon ghost flying up its neck.
I don't know how I missed that, but clearly you are right!
If you don't want to separate the full reconstructed skeletal from this one, why not just do what you did with Spinosaurus, Amargasaurus, Ceratosaurus dentisulcatus, etc.? Also, do you know when you can complete the Argentinosaurus skeletal?
The Argentinosaurus commission fell through, so I'm not sure when I'll get back to it. I'd love to do it, but it's not really relevant to my current research, so....?
Join the discussion
Thanks — your comment is in the queue!
It'll appear here in about 5–10 minutes, once I've approved it — you'll need to refresh the page to see it. (Comments don't post instantly anymore.)