Dear Miguel,

Try this link:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n3/full/ncomms2516.html

Regards,

Bob Skiles

Miguel,

Here is snippage from the article suggesting that the Arctic specimen, if Paracamelus, was about 30% larger than modern camelids like the dromedary.

 ... suggesting that the Ellesmere artiodactyl specimen most likely represents a member of Camelini. Camelini includes the living camels (Camelus), their probable ancestor the Eurasian Paracamelus, multiple North American fossil forms, Procamelus, Titanotylopus, Megatylopus, Megacamelus and Gigantocamelus1, as well as the Yukon giant camel (cf. Paracamelus)4. Figure 3: Fossil remains of Arctic giant camelines. (a) Lateral view of right tibia specimen (NUFV 210), from FLB site, Strathcona Fiord (Ellesmere Island), shown within the tibia of an extant camel (Camelus dromedaries, ROM MAM 94191). The modern Camelus tibia has been scaled up 30% to match the size of the fossil tibia. Scale bar, 10 cm. (b,c) Lateral and occlusal view of upper left second molar of Yukon camel (CMN 47895). (d) Medial view of lower right second (?) molar of Yukon giant camel (CMN 47914). (e) Posterior view of first proximal phalanx of Yukon giant camel (CMN 48074).

Full size image (130 KB)

Previous

Figures index

Next

In order to estimate the relative size of the fossil specimen, it was compared with modern dromedary (Camelus dromedarius) and Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus) tibiae. The modern specimens were also visualized using computed tomography (CT) to allow for cortical thickness comparisons. Informed by the cortical thickness and surficial dimensions the Ellesmere tibia is estimated to have been approximately 575 mm in length, 29% larger than that of modern camels ...

Regards,

Bob Skiles

I am a bit skeptical about putting a % value on the size of Paracamelus. Adult modern camels (Camelus dromedarius) can be very large too as the enclose picture of a camel with a shoulder height of over 2.30 meters shows (the man is 1.85 meters)

I agree with Dr Dioli that %'s are hard to assign to any species due to the varied range of it's morphology.  That being said, the range I have seen from others who are not so conservative, was on average 29% taller. This figure would have placed an above average specimen such as the one mentioned in Dr Dioli's response at 2.97 meters...! 

Many thanks guys! I see that there is a lot of variation within modern Camelus, so those % are quite risky to be used. I will go with a more conservative "at least as big as the biggest Camelus". Footprints found near the area I am working on point towards a 2,40 acetabular height which should be similar to Dioli's picture.

Is also a bit risky to use footprint since some camel breeds have big feet but small bodies. By the way front feet are larger then rear feet (65% of the body weight is in front). It is also important to establish the sex of the specimen since male camels are considerably larger the female camels and 29% higher values may be simply bones of males individuals. The geology of the area, in the time period when the fossils was living, should be known since camels of hilly areas are never very tall (1.7-1.8 m fem, 2 m males) while camels of flat areas, like the one in the picture, tend to be very tall