ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
Description
Long ago i created a journal mentioning that the Paraceratherium can't be the largest land mammal.
sameerprehistorica.deviantart.…
Now it is proved that it is indeed not the largest land mammal.
eofauna.deviantart.com/art/The…
The first time when i heard about large extinct animals, it was very interesting. I was not surprised to hear about some Dinosaurs being very large but i was surprised when i came to know that a hornless Rhinoceros is the largest land mammal. Also at that time i didn't knew that there were several members from the Proboscidean family. It was quite
interesting but it's not much surprising to know that there were some giant cousins in them because after all the largest land animal alive today belong to those groups. So i had a doubt about which is the largest land mammal because the largest members from Proboscideans could have weighed more.
Our amazing artist here jagroar.deviantart.com who had mentioned couple of times that some of the Proboscideans weighed over 10 tonnes on average and he is indeed right. Now it is proved that the largest land mammal ever is from the group Proboscideans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previously i mentioned to check this out for sure ---- (Fortelius, Mikael and Kappelman, John. 1993. The largest land mammals ever imagined.)
There are lots of things to read in it.All the different estimates for Paraceratherium is mentioned there as well as the higher estimates they got for Steppe Mammoth using Loxodonta and Elephas.They say that the mean weight for the Paracerathierum is 10 tonnes with a slight - or +. (That puts it equal to some Proboscideans.)
Some important quotes from it :
("The Oligocene giant rhinocerotoid Indricotherium transouralicum (= Baluchitherium grangeri), ‘the largest mammal that ever lived,’ was smaller than is generally believed. Over 90 estimates based on head-and-body length, skull size, molar length and proximal limb bone diameters agree well on a mean mass estimate of about 11 tonnes (t) rather than the 20–30 t given by most texts. A maximum mass estimate between 15 and 20 t seems probable. Marked sexual dimorphism is possible but the material is insufficient to assess the problem properly. The single source of the inflated, widely cited mass estimates seems to be the famous Granger-Gregory-Ziska reconstruction from 1935–36, which was itself inflated by arbitrary, isometric scaling up of individual elements ‘to a hypothetical maximum size’. Paraceralherium bugtiense and P. prohorovi seem to have
been somewhat smaller than I. transouralicum. The largest indricotheres were similar in size to the largest fossil proboscideans, and extend the known size range of terrestrial mammals marginally if at all.
The mean of Loxodonta-based estimates for a 500 cm shoulder height is 18.9 tonne, for 450 cm is 14 tonne and even for a small mammoth of 410 cm shoulder height, it is 10.7 tonne. Based on these data it will be difficult to argue convincingly that the largest indricotheres were larger than the largest proboscideans. Certainly they were not twice the size of the largest mammoths.")
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References :
Gingerich, Phillip D. 1990. Predictions of body mass in mammalian species from long bone lengths and diameters. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, 28: 79-92.
Fortelius, Mikael and Kappelman, John. 1993. The largest land mammals ever imagined. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 107: 85-101.
Christiansen, Per. 2004. Body size in proboscideans, with notes on elephant metabolism. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 140, 523–549.
Prothero, D. R. 2013. Rhinoceros Giants: The paleobiology of indricotheres. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Larramendi, A. 201X. Shoulder height, body mass and shape of proboscideans. Acta. Palaeontologica Polonica XX (X): xxx–xxx. dx.doi.org/10.4202/app.00136.2…
sameerprehistorica.deviantart.…
Now it is proved that it is indeed not the largest land mammal.
eofauna.deviantart.com/art/The…
The first time when i heard about large extinct animals, it was very interesting. I was not surprised to hear about some Dinosaurs being very large but i was surprised when i came to know that a hornless Rhinoceros is the largest land mammal. Also at that time i didn't knew that there were several members from the Proboscidean family. It was quite
interesting but it's not much surprising to know that there were some giant cousins in them because after all the largest land animal alive today belong to those groups. So i had a doubt about which is the largest land mammal because the largest members from Proboscideans could have weighed more.
Our amazing artist here jagroar.deviantart.com who had mentioned couple of times that some of the Proboscideans weighed over 10 tonnes on average and he is indeed right. Now it is proved that the largest land mammal ever is from the group Proboscideans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previously i mentioned to check this out for sure ---- (Fortelius, Mikael and Kappelman, John. 1993. The largest land mammals ever imagined.)
There are lots of things to read in it.All the different estimates for Paraceratherium is mentioned there as well as the higher estimates they got for Steppe Mammoth using Loxodonta and Elephas.They say that the mean weight for the Paracerathierum is 10 tonnes with a slight - or +. (That puts it equal to some Proboscideans.)
Some important quotes from it :
("The Oligocene giant rhinocerotoid Indricotherium transouralicum (= Baluchitherium grangeri), ‘the largest mammal that ever lived,’ was smaller than is generally believed. Over 90 estimates based on head-and-body length, skull size, molar length and proximal limb bone diameters agree well on a mean mass estimate of about 11 tonnes (t) rather than the 20–30 t given by most texts. A maximum mass estimate between 15 and 20 t seems probable. Marked sexual dimorphism is possible but the material is insufficient to assess the problem properly. The single source of the inflated, widely cited mass estimates seems to be the famous Granger-Gregory-Ziska reconstruction from 1935–36, which was itself inflated by arbitrary, isometric scaling up of individual elements ‘to a hypothetical maximum size’. Paraceralherium bugtiense and P. prohorovi seem to have
been somewhat smaller than I. transouralicum. The largest indricotheres were similar in size to the largest fossil proboscideans, and extend the known size range of terrestrial mammals marginally if at all.
The mean of Loxodonta-based estimates for a 500 cm shoulder height is 18.9 tonne, for 450 cm is 14 tonne and even for a small mammoth of 410 cm shoulder height, it is 10.7 tonne. Based on these data it will be difficult to argue convincingly that the largest indricotheres were larger than the largest proboscideans. Certainly they were not twice the size of the largest mammoths.")
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References :
Gingerich, Phillip D. 1990. Predictions of body mass in mammalian species from long bone lengths and diameters. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, 28: 79-92.
Fortelius, Mikael and Kappelman, John. 1993. The largest land mammals ever imagined. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 107: 85-101.
Christiansen, Per. 2004. Body size in proboscideans, with notes on elephant metabolism. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 140, 523–549.
Prothero, D. R. 2013. Rhinoceros Giants: The paleobiology of indricotheres. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Larramendi, A. 201X. Shoulder height, body mass and shape of proboscideans. Acta. Palaeontologica Polonica XX (X): xxx–xxx. dx.doi.org/10.4202/app.00136.2…
Image size
1050x400px 116.99 KB
© 2015 - 2024 SameerPrehistorica
Comments34
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
iv never seen photos of the large paleoxodon leg bones ,so if you know any links to the photos of there large skulls or thigh bones post them here.
mammoths and indricotheres are vastly understudied yet they should be the forefront of all prehistoric beasts because they represent the largest land mammals of all time.
eofauna has put alot of research into these esp mammoths and there reports show beasts of huge size possibly there remains stored away in museums somewere,record size thigh bones ect.
mammoths and indricotheres are vastly understudied yet they should be the forefront of all prehistoric beasts because they represent the largest land mammals of all time.
eofauna has put alot of research into these esp mammoths and there reports show beasts of huge size possibly there remains stored away in museums somewere,record size thigh bones ect.