|
|
Post by kevin on Sept 30, 2009 8:06:06 GMT
Ok, I have not gone looking yet, but I just got the summer PT, and an add for a trike model in there says the skin is based off of recent mummified trike skin that suggests they may have had back quills? What's the deal on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Sept 30, 2009 8:16:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Sept 30, 2009 8:30:27 GMT
Yes, I think it was. This link has been deleted. I have found a few blog references to this, but not much else, and nothing overly scientific. One blogger said there was substantial skin recovered for triceratops, and had some bizzar features including oversized scales that were similar to outgrowths that had been broken off. Like spines, or large quills, apparently around a dozen. But, just some guy blogging about some article somewhere so you know....
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 30, 2009 9:19:29 GMT
I like the illustration made by one Wikipedian on the matter. Freaky!  |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 30, 2009 14:43:34 GMT
Well that's going to take some time to get used to if it is indeed true.  |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 30, 2009 15:14:56 GMT
Well that's going to take some time to get used to if it is indeed true. Indeed it will. I hear some people are still getting over feathered dromaeosaurs. *Runs for the hills* Really though, it does make sense, given the discovery of the quilled Psittacosaurus, which was closely related to Triceratops' direct ancestor, if it was not a direct ancestor itself. |
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Sept 30, 2009 15:41:24 GMT
Hmmm. Defensive spines/quills is not that bad an idea, really. And, if true, this points out just how much we really don't know about the look of these animals.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Sept 30, 2009 16:17:20 GMT
I found this, also from wiki, which I think looks more reasonable, and kinda fits with the description I had originally read:  |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 30, 2009 16:22:48 GMT
That one appears to be missing the crocodilian belly scales, though, whereas they're clear on the other one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 30, 2009 16:25:30 GMT
Are there photos of these mummified ceratopsian remains? I'd be interested to see them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 30, 2009 16:29:31 GMT
I can only find tiny photos of skin impressions. For example here ebeltz.net/pix/wypix/wyoming.htmlHave they not published this find yet? The Wikipedia bods thought that it would be published in 2008 (their discussion taking place in 2007). |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 30, 2009 16:54:53 GMT
I can only find tiny photos of skin impressions. For example here ebeltz.net/pix/wypix/wyoming.htmlHave they not published this find yet? The Wikipedia bods thought that it would be published in 2008 (their discussion taking place in 2007).  I think this is the best we can do. |
|
|
|
Post by fleshanthos on Sept 30, 2009 17:27:47 GMT
mmmmm I'm gonna hold off on that one until we get some more corroboration...
for the drawing with quills off his back, that is...
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 30, 2009 17:52:22 GMT
mmmmm I'm gonna hold off on that one until we get some more corroboration... for the drawing with quills off his back, that is... Yeah, i agree. I don't think an animal so big had such long quills... Remember that Psittacosaurus had 'em but he was SMALL, and in his case quills could have served as a difensive device. Trike, instead, already had, to defend himself, his size, his frill and, most of all, his horns, something that his smaller relative didn't have. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 30, 2009 18:00:45 GMT
Who's to say that the quils weren't just ornamentation? Does anyone know if they actually served any other purpose on Psittacosaurus?
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 30, 2009 18:52:17 GMT
Who's to say that the quils weren't just ornamentation? Does anyone know if they actually served any other purpose on Psittacosaurus? Well, they could have been just an ornament, as you say... I just expressed my opinion; to me they look like porcuspine quills, so i imagined a similar function in the Psittacosaurus  |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Sept 30, 2009 19:42:25 GMT
Shane told me his 1:15 Trike was based on a recent discovery, but his quills are a bit more conservative in their length. Personally, I think it looks awesome.  |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 30, 2009 19:55:49 GMT
Shane told me his 1:15 Trike was based on a recent discovery, but his quills are a bit more conservative in their length. Personally, I think it looks awesome. Yeah, that does look a lot more...appropriate for such a huge animal. Really nice model too. |
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Sept 30, 2009 19:56:55 GMT
Hmm. That is the pic I was referring to, yes. It can't be TOO recent a discovery if he has had time to incorporate them into his piece.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 30, 2009 20:01:00 GMT
Hmm. That is the pic I was referring to, yes. It can't be TOO recent a discovery if he has had time to incorporate them into his piece..... Well, as I said, that Wikipedia discussion mentioning the well-preserved Triceratops was dated 2007. Seems like it's been known about for a couple of years but not published. I think it would attract the attention of the mainstream media - as long as you included "Tyrannosaurus rex" in the press release somewhere... |
|
