Zegh's Dinosaur Thread

eissa said:
What a non sexist move! Finally both can be termed as T. King, without male being 'emperor' but female being just a 'queen' /s
Click to expand...

A point of irony is that these morphotypes are generally (and by majority still, including me) regarded as possible gender-differences, with the robust morph (including "Sue") representing female individuals, and the lighter morphs representing males.
 
This seems pretty interesting:

Scientists find fossil of dinosaur ‘killed on day of asteroid strike’

The perfectly preserved leg, which even includes remnants of the animal’s skin, can be accurately dated to the time the asteroid that brought about the dinosaurs’ extinction struck Earth 66m years ago, experts say, because of the presence of debris from the impact, which rained down only in its immediate aftermath.
Click to expand...
“When Sir David [Attenborough] looked at ‘[the leg], he smiled and said ‘that is an impossible fossil’. And I agreed,” Manning said.
Click to expand...
The BBC reported that the team had also found the fossilised remains of a turtle that was skewered by a wooden stake and small mammals and their burrows, as well as skin from a triceratops, a pterosaur embryo inside its egg and what scientists think could be a fragment from the asteroid impactor itself.
Click to expand...
 
As a paleo-artist, that leg is just a sheer miracle of science.

There are some amazing one-in-a-million fossils out there though, such as a small dinosaur tail trapped inside Myanmar amber; skin, feathers and all:
_92893708_tailbreachingsurfacewithant2blackbackground.jpg


or an entire vulture's head molded into its clay enclosing, for the mold then to fill up with mineral, and create a death-mask sculpture of the vulture itself:
image-1-90.png


That Thescelosaurus leg is pretty damn close (I LOVE the foot itself, the toes!), and just goes to show what still awaits us in the fossilized sediments around the world. It is only a matter of time before we hit the real jackpot, and pull a fully preserved fossil mold of a dinosaur death-mask up from the ground!
 
I'm to lazy to read through a near 30 page thread to see if you posted it already.

Has a modern artist rendition of what a Velociraptor actually looks like been made than you can verify as accurate?
(When I say modern I mean non-Jurassic Park dino lizard bs).

EDIT:

Also this "artist rendering" makes the T-Rex look like a giant rooster, which I can't accept.

rex1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Here's my rendition of Velociraptor, for whatever it's worth:
velociraptor_by_zegh8578.jpg


There's a fair roster of good artists, but you won't find most of them by Google-image searches, which seem to favor a lot of stock crap, unfortunately.

As for Tyrannosaurus fluffyness, all skin impressions suggest rough, scaly skin - but earlier, more primitive Tyrannosaurids, such as Yutyrannus are definitely known to not only be feathery, but deeply fluffy, so Tyrannosaurus definitely had the genes for feather growth, but being warm blooded, I doubt it would be covered like that, since it would overheat - think elephants vs rodents, when it comes to integument density.

Smaller animals usually more fluffy, big animals tend to be significantly less so.
 
Crni Vuk said:
If they are not called Dinosaurs like the danger chickens, than what are they called? Permians?
Click to expand...

They are called many things.
"Dinosaur" isn't to say "scary and awesome" - it's a taxonomical clade, currently defined as Triceratops + Birds, as well as a short list of anatomical features. If an organism falls within these definitions, they are Dinosaur.
Silesaurs *might* fall under the definition, for example, but there's no consensus yet. Pterosaurs fall *right* outside, and form the *very* closest relatives of dinosaurs, alongside Silesaurs.

Lots of Permian animals fall under primitive synapsids, for example. WE are synapsids too, but we are much more derived. Other than synapsids (proto-mammals), there were plenty of reptiles and crocodylians.
 
I dunno bruh, I just want to hunt dinos for meat and I hope they won't taste like chicken.
 
eissa said:
No red meat Dino?
Click to expand...

Tbh it has more to do with mass, so yes - large active dinos, heavy weight, would have - I suspect, red meat, maybe even very beefy, whaley, like black meat - in particular the giants.
Smaller animals tend to have leaner meat, pigs and humans are more pinkish, you get to rabbit and chicken you get the light pink, which would be true for dinos, lil raptors et al would prolly have lean, pork/poultry-like meat.
 
Dromaeosauries bornholmensis
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromaeosauroides
Is a species of raptor which has only been discovered on the island of Bornholm which is where I'am from. It is also the only place where we've found fossilized remains of Dinosaurs inside the Danish territory. Fun fact the Dromaeosauries was consindered to make a appearence in one of the Jurassic Park movies.
 
Post-War Tribal said:
Dromaeosauries bornholmensis
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromaeosauroides
Is a species of raptor which has only been discovered on the island of Bornholm which is where I'am from. It is also the only place where we've found fossilized remains of Dinosaurs inside the Danish territory. Fun fact the Dromaeosauries was consindered to make a appearence in one of the Jurassic Park movies.
Click to expand...

I have my own personal problem with Dromaeosauroides, and that is that it should never have been named!
These are paleo-technicalities, but there's an unwritten rule about NOT naming *any more* dinosaurs that are only known from teeth: And Dromaeosauroides is only known from teeth! It is shockingly undiagnostic, beyond "some kind of raptor" - which is exactly why you *don't* go through with naming teeth!
As a fellow Scandinavian, I *fully understand the urge* to name Denmark's first dinosaurs... but :D the problem is now, let's say they find very similar teeth in Germany or Sweden - OR - let's say they find a complete skeleton of a raptor IN DENMARK: Would it be Dromaeosauroides you found? Who knows: Teeth are not diagnostic, and cannot be compared. So - you'd would have to name it something else now, even if it might very well have been a complete Dromaeosauroides!

In other words: Dromaeosauroides is a "form taxon", and it will only ever be valid for those two teeth, and no other fossil remains EVEN IF new remains should indeed belong to the same species, even the same individual!

Another pet peeve is: Dromaeosaurus is a Canadian raptor, Dromaeosauroides means "similar to Dromaeosaurus", like, come on! Call it Daniaraptor or something, at the very least! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top