Comments: 17
Artlover1214 [2018-12-25 10:01:13 +0000 UTC]
Which species were you going for?
π: 0 β©: 1
TheDinoDrawer66 [2018-12-25 02:50:46 +0000 UTC]
Amazing! Cant wait for this baby to be finalized! Also seen you have added those crocodilian under scales as well.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
TheDinoDrawer66 In reply to PrehistoryByLiam [2018-12-25 04:51:16 +0000 UTC]
Your welcome. And also please don't stress yourself during the holidays.
π: 0 β©: 0
SaurArch [2018-12-24 21:48:25 +0000 UTC]
I can't wait for the final version. This entire series of sketches demonstrates how much research and guess work goes into reconstrucning extinct animals, even if it is one of the most well known. Merry Christmas!
π: 0 β©: 1
PrehistoryByLiam In reply to SaurArch [2018-12-24 22:03:10 +0000 UTC]
Thanks, you too!!! Part of it (for me at least) is that if I'm putting in all this effort into detail, texture etc, I don't want any blatant errors that'll distract from that. And I've found that the more popular/well-known, the more scrutiny. Eeeveryone's an expert lol
π: 0 β©: 1
SaurArch In reply to PrehistoryByLiam [2018-12-24 22:10:19 +0000 UTC]
Yeah not to mention that there is always the factor of not knowing what you don't know. You can spend hours doing research only to get a comment on your drawing informing you that there is an obscure paper that hasn't even been published yet which immediately renders your drawing outdated.
π: 0 β©: 1
PrehistoryByLiam In reply to SaurArch [2018-12-24 22:23:25 +0000 UTC]
Love it when that happens. I did a super detailed portrait of the Cenozoic turtle Meiolania with a terrestrial turtle/tortoise-like visage, and then an SVP abstract came out basically saying meiolanids were aquaticΒ Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Carnoferox [2018-12-24 18:30:17 +0000 UTC]
Those spikes on the tubercles are inaccurate. If they had been present they would have been preserved in the impressions, but only the small nipple-like projections have been found.
π: 0 β©: 1
PrehistoryByLiam In reply to Carnoferox [2018-12-24 20:39:06 +0000 UTC]
For one, that's a rough concept to show their placement for the most part. And how can you be certain on unpublished fossils? Without close first-hand examination (and I don't mean looking at a cast or from a distance in a museum with glass in between) and research, even experts wouldn't claim to know their exact nature, especially how they would look in life.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Carnoferox In reply to PrehistoryByLiam [2018-12-24 21:45:19 +0000 UTC]
Like I said previously, since they are impressions of scales an extensive covering like the spikes shown here would be evident. However, just the very small bumps are present like in the photos I sent you. This doesn't take much examination to discern.
π: 0 β©: 1
PrehistoryByLiam In reply to Carnoferox [2018-12-24 22:14:45 +0000 UTC]
Some of the pics you sent (which I'm grateful for!) do show smaller bumps. But I've seen other pics, perhaps from different parts of that specimen or from another individual (not sure how many we have for Triceratops) that show larger ones. Plus animals tend to lose a lot of their features in life very shortly after death/early in the decomposition process. I'm not suggesting it would have giant spikes (remember that's a sketch) but the interpretation of the tubercles is not certain until someone's put pen to paper on the thing. Mark Witton is an expert on interpreting soft tissue structures from their osteological correlates, and he's depicted his Triceratops with fairly large "sheaths" on the tubercles.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Carnoferox In reply to PrehistoryByLiam [2018-12-25 04:43:15 +0000 UTC]
If the scales themselves resisted decay then I don't think any extensions of the tubercles would have decayed either. The skin is three-dimensionally preserved and appears pretty much how it would have in life (not including color). You are of course still free to include speculative spikes, but I tend to be more conservative.
π: 0 β©: 0