https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...IdMmKaWh7x7kjOdifkFx5zxerhFIEfL1CTGe3r40SeMk4
Earliest Jurassic could have seen large ice caps in the arctic
Earliest Jurassic could have seen large ice caps in the arctic
Zegh's Dinosaur Thread
- Thread starter zegh8578
- Start date
That's just Germans in general
Morgan_
Duckerz
Dinosaurs would have been scary, but I think I would have been most afraid of a Daeodon:
7ft tall, 2000lb pig.
I think I would have been most afraid by what ever is trying to kill and eat me.
Some paleo-artists are very invested in finding ways to depict dinosaurs in ways that would appear weird or even freakish - but still adhere closely to reference material, to ensure a kind of "anatomical guarantee"
That is how I myself work, always basing it on skeletal remains - in order to always ensure a skeleton could fit into what I depict - but then speculate around. I uuusually tend to stay on the bit more conservative side, because mooost large animals in the world today *are*
There's a lot of red foxes, a lot of brown bears, a lot of brown and gray birds, and these birds often tweet or shriek and get laid like that - there's always a certain proportion of something - and dinosaurs were a sprawling fauna with everything possible IN it.
Many dinosaurs would be fluffy, many would be scaly, many would be fast, many would be slow, many would be very bright, problem-solving social omnivores, many would be dull, unimpressive smash-brains, some would be full of awesome colors, others would be just brown - or BLACK
thats's something that most paleo-artist miss, and its usually practical, like fuck coloring that w a pencil or something, but many dinos would be just black.
Microraptor was actually *known* to have been jet black with a blueish metallic sheen. Size of a large crow/small raven.
(Metallic sheen is also detected in one more raptor, afaik, this one red/brown/gold speckles)
Microraptor in death-pose by awesome artist Ville Sinkkonen
Is it accurate though? I have read somwhere - not sure how much truth there is to it - that many skeletons might be actually "wrong". Even in museums. A lot of the fossils they found are relatively old and people in the past didn't really put too much thought in to how things actually fit. They would put it together after how they felt it must fit. Sometimes the bones are not even from the same species. As said, I am not sure if that's accurate I have read about it years ago.
Hmmm. They do look a bit like someone gave FEV to a raven or something.
Hmmm. They do look a bit like someone gave FEV to a raven or something.
Ueeeeh nooooooooo?
I've heard of one blatant "put together wrong"-story, which is kind of a dinosaur urban legend, about two rivalling historically real Americans, but none of them really did the skeleton-wrong-blunder.
People have generally always known where arms and legs go, especially specialists, zoologists, doctors, etc - its pretty basic
Now - the POSTURES change, that's an understanding thats continually evolving, although knowledge of dinosaur postures have kind of settled on a plateau, by now its about gathering more details, for example a recent revelation was that Sauropod neck-muscles attach way at the back, giving them much more beefy looking necks than previously thought.
As for accurate ART - that's going to depend on the artist. Remember, a lot of artists are comissioned, and many may not even have that much of an interest in dinosaurs OR they're young, and they aren't all that skilled yet.
Here's Archaeopteryx by Brazilian artist Julio Lacerda
German urvogel, with speculative white - but pretty certain black wing-tips, as a single feather - likely belonging to Archaeopteryx, was strongly suggested to have contained black pigmentation.
Especially among the young up-n-comers, there's a lot of REALLY good, accurate and artistic dinosaur art. You won't find all that much on Google image search, cus you'll come across a lot of stock images, random comissions, etc
(in fact, the feather depicted falling from the wing, has the exact shape of the feather imprint fossil, I didn't even notice before now!)
I've heard of one blatant "put together wrong"-story, which is kind of a dinosaur urban legend, about two rivalling historically real Americans, but none of them really did the skeleton-wrong-blunder.
People have generally always known where arms and legs go, especially specialists, zoologists, doctors, etc - its pretty basic
Now - the POSTURES change, that's an understanding thats continually evolving, although knowledge of dinosaur postures have kind of settled on a plateau, by now its about gathering more details, for example a recent revelation was that Sauropod neck-muscles attach way at the back, giving them much more beefy looking necks than previously thought.
As for accurate ART - that's going to depend on the artist. Remember, a lot of artists are comissioned, and many may not even have that much of an interest in dinosaurs OR they're young, and they aren't all that skilled yet.
Here's Archaeopteryx by Brazilian artist Julio Lacerda
German urvogel, with speculative white - but pretty certain black wing-tips, as a single feather - likely belonging to Archaeopteryx, was strongly suggested to have contained black pigmentation.
Especially among the young up-n-comers, there's a lot of REALLY good, accurate and artistic dinosaur art. You won't find all that much on Google image search, cus you'll come across a lot of stock images, random comissions, etc
(in fact, the feather depicted falling from the wing, has the exact shape of the feather imprint fossil, I didn't even notice before now!)
People have known how bones fit together since ancient Greece.
People also have known humans can't give birth to birds since before we recorded history and the Dark Ages still happened. People be dumb sometimes.
mustadiokeepsdying
Nobody's beating him.
i'd hitIs it accurate though? I have read somwhere - not sure how much truth there is to it - that many skeletons might be actually "wrong". Even in museums. A lot of the fossils they found are relatively old and people in the past didn't really put too much thought in to how things actually fit. They would put it together after how they felt it must fit. Sometimes the bones are not even from the same species. As said, I am not sure if that's accurate I have read about it years ago.
Hmmm. They do look a bit like someone gave FEV to a raven or something.
Interesting. Did not know that.
This is a meme, and a bit of an annoying one - one that was started inadvertedly by one of the leading peeps in paleo-art.
Reality is - the vast majority of paleo-artists know exactly what they are doing, and a skeleton will provide for a majority of hints and clues as to the shape of the soft tissue around it.
There are obviously excptions - for example - did you know that crest-less Hadrosaurs such as Edmontosaurus are known to have had a fleshy crest on their head, like chickens do?
This was discovered in a single specimen, where skin-impressions on the head were preserved.
Now - a beaver and its tail is a bit of an outlier - most rodents do not have the beavers tail - most would be reconstructed correctly. The beavers tail though - is different! The vertebrae are flatter - there is a hint there, the bones are telling a story - and "future paleoartists" would catch on to this - why are the tailbones flatter? This wouldn't simply go unnoticed or be shrugged off as irrelevant - it would most certainly be taken into account!
Again - there are some excellent paleo-artists out there, among a lot of lazy or inexperienced artists, but certainly good and observant ones, who *will* wonder what "extra" hides in the clues of a skeleton.
And don't get me wrong - like the fleshy crest on Edmontosaurus - there are little secrets and surprises there - but these memes make it seem like paleo-artists just don't know that muscles fit on top of bones, or what cavities and holes in a skull would be covered with skin or tissues, etc etc
Last edited:
TJQKA
Boomer Anarchist
Whoever thought a bone could tell such a story?
hahahahha *delete account*
hahahahha *delete account*
Some bones tell awesome stories - a favorite of mine are 2 elements on the skeleton of Sue, the largest Tyrannosaurus ever discovered, and one of the few dinosaur specimens complete enough to safely determine sex
Her skeleton shows signs of a broken legbone, and such a break would take months to heal, months where this animal would be immobile and extremely vulnerable - but the bone *did* heal, and she was then able to continue living and hunting. This is strongly indicative of a partner, someone who fed her in the time it took to heal.
Her same skeleton also contain a large gap from the back base of the neck, that by some have been interpreted as a deep chomp - only possible if done by another Tyrannosaurus - uuunlikely to be her mate? Possibly another rival? Theropod females were usually larger than males, kind of like hyenas of today - so maybe Sue got pwned by an even larger Tyrannosaur female, whos skeleton ended up elsewhere, or most likely, never became fossilized.
Her skeleton shows signs of a broken legbone, and such a break would take months to heal, months where this animal would be immobile and extremely vulnerable - but the bone *did* heal, and she was then able to continue living and hunting. This is strongly indicative of a partner, someone who fed her in the time it took to heal.
Her same skeleton also contain a large gap from the back base of the neck, that by some have been interpreted as a deep chomp - only possible if done by another Tyrannosaurus - uuunlikely to be her mate? Possibly another rival? Theropod females were usually larger than males, kind of like hyenas of today - so maybe Sue got pwned by an even larger Tyrannosaur female, whos skeleton ended up elsewhere, or most likely, never became fossilized.
Sounds like made up names. Hadrosaurus, Edmontosaurus. What about Zeghosaurus? Bulbasaur? Is that how this works? You all just tricking us normal folks into believing that those things really exist?
Seriously though how they actually come up with those names?
As of now, there's an organ called the ICZN (international commitee of zoologic nomenclature) that determines the legitimacy of names.
You can essentially name your discovery anything, there's probably a little ethical caveat here and there, and there are some unwritten rules - like, don't name an animal in your own honor. Some researchers do, and recently a Pakistani paleontologist with a terrible track record (although he seems to be showing some progress) named a dubious sauropod after himself, along with a dozen other sauropods, all of them based on real sauropod material, but none of them diagnostic, so all his names are considered "nomen dubium", which means they are essentially worthless.
Names are traditionally latin or greek, but Chinese researchers often do chinese names, with -Long replacing -Saurus, while other places will use various indigenous languages, like Kakuru for example, an Australian dino.
The only real requirement, afaik, is that the name makes grammatical sense. If you're using greek or latin, it's important that you're using it properly. Languages are obviously mixed willy nilly in these cases, like the name Dilong paradoxus, where the genus-name is Chinese, and the species name in latin - and this is a type and only species in the genus.
In terms of procedure, your name is valid if you publish the name alongside a proper description of the material you are attaching the name to. If you do not publish a name AND analysis of material, then your name will not be valid, and will most likely be ignored altogether. These names are labelled "nomen nudum", and are - sometimes incredibly - included on many a species-list. "valid" nomina nuda may include temporary names a scientist has given a fossil he is currently working on, for example "Elvissaurus" is a numen nudum, that eventually got published as Cryolophosaurus.
Less "valid" ones include names published in dinosaur books, even TV-docus, that may have been mispronounciations or misinterpratations, or even authors suggesting names for unnamed dinosaurs, without offering any further analysis - such as an author suggesting a whole list of names for different Giraffatitan-remains in Tanzania, such as "Abdallahsaurus", "Salimosaurus", "Blancocerosaurus" - ALL of them invalid.
A japanese book misinterpreted "Hadrosaurus" as "Gadolosaurus" and then treated "Gadolosaurus" as a type of Hadrosaur, making a forever numen nudum there.
If you give a name to a broken fragment, a tooth, or something undiagnostic - first of all, paleontologists will be upset with you, and secondly - you have now created a new genus/species that can never be compared to any other living thing, cus you went and named a loose, broken fragment of no diagnostic value. These names are "nomen dubium", and are always ignored in further research, once given such a status. Sometimes they are re-validated, if for example under a microscope, you are able to detect some important features, strengthening your claim that the bones truly are special and unique.
In fact, among my favorite paths to new discovery is the validation of old forgotten fossils in museum collections. Just recently a "Plateosaurus sp." from Greenland was reexamined, and turned out to be a brand new Plateosaurid (a German sauropod) - after *decades* of gathering dust! They named it Issi - a Greenlandic name! I. saaneq.
Last edited: