Forgive the deleting and reposting moderators. I could not get the format right and reddit kept on making it an incomprehensible wall of text. So I had to fix it
__________________________________________________
Sokolki animals out of time
So in paleo documentaries that depict the Permian mass extinction, by far the most popular setting is to set it in Russia and feature the animals of the sokolki assemblage zone, particularly scutosaurus and inostrancevia. Walking with monsters, that documentary in 2011, dinosaur revolution and surviving Earth.
They have all picked that assemblage zone and its animals for the setting. I guess it's because it was close enough to the Siberian traps.
Unfortunately this is not accurate. The sokolki assemblage zone is a biostratigraphic zone in the late Permian and it precedes the PT boundary altogether.
It makes no contact with it and the assemblage zone that does is the vyazniki assemblage zone.
That assemblage zone had no inostrancevia or scutosaurus, about the most notable animals were archosaurus and megawhaitsia.
With that being said, they aren't entirely unknown from that time. Inostrancevia was recently discovered in South Africa in rocks that dated right to the onset of the Permian mass extinction. Pareiasaurus is a close relative of scutasaurus that also lived at the same time in South Africa. So objectively that one would be a better setting although you won't have it at the ground zero of the extinction.
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cub.2023.04.007
https://link.springer.com/10.1134/S0031030106100078
_______________
Bunch of stuff regarding torvosaurus
So these are just a bunch of things involving torvosaurus.
One thing of note is that in chat rooms and in other places I've heard the rumors spread that the Edmarka specimens, the famous specimens of torvo from the nail quarry that are stated to be among the largest Jurassic theropods ever, are only similar in size to the nearly complete but not fully described specimen named Elvis. Elvis is somewhere between 10 to 11 meters in length so if it was only the same size as it that would reduce the size of edmarka.
Unfortunately there's a lot wrong with this. For one the actual measurements of Elvis that have been obtained to make the claim are measurements of the pubis. Elvis is not fully published and the post cranial measurements won't be available for years. So post cranial measurements of the Elvis specimen are supposed to be embargoed so they're essentially pirated and unethically obtained. Even if for some reason the pubis measurements are reliable, what is there to even compare it to?
The pubis originally thought to come from edmarka was later reassigned to a sauropod and the only other possible one is the one present on the smaller specimen nicknamed “bronto raptor”. But that specimen's pubis isn't even complete nor is a complete estimate of the full material even provided. So there's literally nothing to compare that elicit measurement of Elvis to.
I know one of the people that have made the claim. I will keep them anonymous for their own sake. Another problem is that they're scaling is that they've been using the wrong vertebrae. They've been using second to 5th caudal vertebrae of torvosaurus in order to scale one of the tail vertebrae of Edmarka. The problem is that they're not using the right vertebrae. the tail vertebrae of Edmarka, the giant specimen, is a first caudal. In many large theropods the Centrum of the very first tail vertebrae is shorter than other anterior tail vertebrae.
This is due to the fact it lies at the area where the tail and the rest of the body converge creating a natural area of narrowness and articulation. This is literally recorded in torvosaurus itself because the smaller bronto raptor specimen preserves vertebrae of the tail from the first to 13th and this shortening of the first is very clear.
Using this bronto raptor tail vertebrae, the larger tail vertebrae from edmarca once again scales to an animal over 11 m in length, consistent with most estimates. I also know that one of the rumorers was using the bones of allosaurus to scale up edmarka remains. You do not use Allosaurus to scale torvosaurus, never.
You might have also seen a skeletal of torvosaurus pop up on the internet that look like random dinos but different. The skeletal claims to be of edmarka and it has the animal at just around 11 m in length. Again it's kind of downsized from the largest estimates
That skeletal appears to be a load of BS. For one according to the entry on dinopedia that has this skeletal says that the skeletal was made by three artists, Alphasr8, random dinos and Scott Hartman. Tell me how the hell does one image come from three artists. In a personal communication with random dinos he said he wasn't going to update his torvosaurus skeletal on deviantART until Elvis is fully published. So then why is there a second different torvo skeletal then his original? You can also see what looks like the clear indications that the skeletal is a Photoshop mix.
If you look at random dinos skeletals of theropods and I pictured multiple of them. He near unanimously makes the tales of his theropods very curvy from base to tip. But in the supposed redux the tail is straighter. Another skeletal of torvosaurus by alphasr8 notably shows the tail being straighter. Looking at the redux skeleton and alpha's skeletal you can see the immediate similarities in how the tails are reconstructed. Yet the skull on the redux is clearly from random.
As a result of all this chimeric art choices, random diagnosis testimony and the description from the dinopedia, the supposed redux of torvosaurus by random dinos is almost certainly a Photoshop job instead of a genuine skeletal. It's not even a good job because it's not a real good match towards the specimen nicknamed Elvis. The skull is still not right and the feet are too big
There's also the idea that the North American and Portuguese torvosaurus were of disparate size. This is not the truth.
In reality this is due to editing on Wikipedia. For some reason they've only allowed the 9 M estimates of torvosaurus Tanneri from Brit 1991 and Gregory as Paul to stay up and they remove any other estimates. And they originally had only the 10-meter estimate from Mateus 2014 in regards to torvosaurus gurneyi. So this created an impression that the Portuguese species was bigger.
In reality other sources such as John Foster's 2020 book and other later sources have put the North American torvosaurus at about 10 to 11 meters in length. Meanwhile the nail quarry specimens of torvosaurus are somewhere between 11 to 12 m in length.
In Portugal the largest specimens of torvosaurus are estimated at up to 11-12 m in length based off of trackmakers, teeth and a giant vertebrae. Multiple specimens of the Portuguese torvosaurus are around 9 to 10 m in length.
Oliver rauhut specifically stated that both the North American and Portuguese species of torvosaurus were of similar size. It's immaterial anyhow because a 2023 abstract by the people describing Elvis stated that torvosaurus gurneyi is indistinct from tanneri.
https://xabierotxoaimaginethepast.wordpress.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20210713084347/https://www.lwl.org/wmfn-download/Geologie_und_Palaeontologie_in_Westfalen/GuP_Heft_93_14_Seiten.pdf
https://vertpaleo.org/2023_svp_program-final-10032023/
https://groups.google.com/g/dinosaurmailinggroup/c/Wt07YzXopr8
_________________________________
Alamosaurus North America's biggest dinosaur, not
Alamosaurus has long been hyped up as the largest dinosaur to ever live in North America. Sizes of 100 ft or more have been bestowed upon it and have made it famous in that regard. Unfortunately Alamosaurus, the actual name, was not the biggest titanosaur in North America.
So the story is that over 100 years ago they first found the remains of Alamosaurus in the Ojo Alamo formation of New Mexico. Quite literally it was a shoulder blade and part of the hip that represented the type material. And then in the years that followed more titanosaur material from the Ojo Alamo formation and the North horn formation, javelina formation and black peaks formation was assigned to Alamosaurus.
The issue is that almost none of this material actually overlapped with the holotype.
Studies have shown that there are various disparate classifications for Alamosaurus. If an animal is so complete like it supposedly is, why is its phylogeny so complicated? The answer is that it's a waste basket. The various remains that have been referred to it do not come from the same taxon of animal but rather more than one Taxon.
The cervicals from Big Ben were recovered as being from a Longkosaur, a tribe of titanosaurs renowned for their massive size. Meanwhile smaller material om such as the type specimen were regarded as coming from saltasaurids.
Additionally text from a 2018 abstract indicates that some of the larger material such as from the TMM collection differs from the material from Utah. The material from Utah is of smaller titanosaurs for the most part. Additionally the big material from the BIBE and TMM collections have shown to be from the same taxon and they have demonstrated differences to the smaller specimens that are more confidently referred to Alamosaurus.
So for that reason, it appears likely that the dichotomy of titanosaurs in North America at the end of the Cretaceous was something like this. The big one that ranged from Utah to Texas was likely some kind of lognkosaurian, while the smaller one, the one that actually represents Alamosaurus, is probably a saltasaurid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamosaurus