Comments: 13
asari13 [2021-05-11 11:34:47 +0000 UTC]
π: 1 β©: 1
asari13 [2020-09-19 10:47:08 +0000 UTC]
π: 1 β©: 1
LordKaizen [2017-06-26 15:59:52 +0000 UTC]
I love seeing the same species reconstructed in different ways. Β This would be something to demonstrate to laymen about how widely different the same prehistoric animal could be reconstructed by paleontologists.
π: 2 β©: 0
LWPaleoArt In reply to TrilobiteCannibal [2017-05-28 01:39:50 +0000 UTC]
Thank you so very much, I'm glad to hear you like them!
π: 0 β©: 1
Glavenychus [2017-05-26 11:32:02 +0000 UTC]
Megaraptorans are a hard bunch to figure out anyway. So far the execution is very promising!
π: 1 β©: 1
NashD1 [2017-05-26 10:14:26 +0000 UTC]
And why shouldn't we have more than one approximations for how these animals could have looked? I certainly want to try more of these sort of juxtapositions of style - while what you prefer is subjective to one's own whims and attitudes we can't explicitly denounce any one of these.
π: 1 β©: 1
LWPaleoArt In reply to NashD1 [2017-05-26 22:59:41 +0000 UTC]
Yes, that's true. We all have our own biases about how a prehistoric animal may have looked. I do, other paleoartists and paleontologists do, the public does, and so on. I personally like the last two the best, and feel like something in between those two depictions would be the closest to what Australovenator actually looked like. However, I still think there's a possibility that the top depiction could be true. After all, paleontological discoveries are continuously surprising. Who could have ever predicted Yi qi for instance.
I'll be interested in seeing your juxtapositions of style as well. I'm probably the most interested in seeing how you think the megaraptorids looked. Can't imagine how the abelisaurids could get any stranger, either.
π: 0 β©: 0