First sculpt - Mononykus

[jhudstone]

At this risk of facing the critics 'round here, I wanted to post pictures of my first dino-sculpt.

I'm not much of a sculptor, but I am driven a bit by the lack of 1/40 scale micro-dinosaurs, those in the two - ten ft. range.

So here she is; with the safari deinonychus (i)? and Schleich-man for comparision:





Let me know what you think.

(Next up I have started on a 1/40th scale rhamphorhynchus)

[Radman]

Aw, it's cuuute! I don't think it'll outrun that raptorpack for long, though.

[camara]

The pose is dinamyc and the animal is veri recognizable! It must be hard to put detail on something so small!! Why don´t you try to sculpt some bigger dinosaur???

[jhudstone]

Thanks camara - detail is a pain - but I like the challenge, and I am trying to enhance my 1/40th scale collection.

[Horridus]

It looks like you've given it 'proto-feathers', which is accurate and commendable given the tiny scale.

[stoneage]

Nov 25, 2009 16:15:16 GMT Horridus said:

It looks like you've given it 'proto-feathers', which is accurate and commendable given the tiny scale.

There was a study done that said there was no such thing as protofeathers. So how do you know that it is accurate? ;D

[Horridus]

Nov 25, 2009 23:39:04 GMT stoneage said:

There was a study done that said there was no such thing as protofeathers. So how do you know that it is accurate? ;D

I was thinking of its close relative Shuvuuia, which most definitely had primitive feathers.

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

Nov 25, 2009 23:39:04 GMT stoneage said:

Nov 25, 2009 16:15:16 GMT Horridus said:

It looks like you've given it 'proto-feathers', which is accurate and commendable given the tiny scale.

There was a study done that said there was no such thing as protofeathers. So how do you know that it is accurate? ;D

Link please.

[stoneage]

Nov 26, 2009 18:05:48 GMT [][][]cordylus[][][] said:

Nov 25, 2009 23:39:04 GMT stoneage said:

There was a study done that said there was no such thing as protofeathers. So how do you know that it is accurate? ;D

Link please.

rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1620/1823.full

Among theropods, the so-called protofeathers of sinosauropteryx were most similiar to those of tianyulong's -they were shorter and more slender, but they also didn't branch. Tianyulong was a heterodontosaur. And let's not forget Psittacosaurus an ornithischian which has been claimed to have feather like structures on it's tail.

Show me a picture of Shuvuuia's feather impressions.

Show me a living animal with protofeathers.

Mary Schweitzer claims to have found Beta-Keratin with the Shuvuuia fossil. But Bera-Keratin is also found in reptile skin and provides rigidity, waterproofing and the prevention of desiccation. Let's not forget that she claims to be able to get DNA links from dinosaur bone that is 68 million years old or older. But we can only get it from a few Neanderthal bones which are less then 50,000 years old.

Fuzzy Dinos: The Rise And Fall Of Paleontology ;D

[sbell]

Nov 27, 2009 2:21:29 GMT stoneage said:

Nov 26, 2009 18:05:48 GMT [][][]cordylus[][][] said:

Link please.

Show me a living animal with protofeathers.

Mary Schweitzer claims to have found Beta-Keratin with the Shuvuuia fossil. But Bera-Keratin is also found in reptile skin and provides rigidity, waterproofing and the prevention of desiccation. Let's not forget that she claims to be able to get DNA links from dinosaur bone that is 68 million years old or older. But we can only get it from a few Neanderthal bones which are less then 50,000 years old.

Fuzzy Dinos: The Rise And Fall Of Paleontology ;D

Be careful who you link to--those three authors on that paper are notorious for confirmation bias when it comes to their anti-feathered dino research (a paper came out about one year ago that was supposed to crush feathers once and for all...notice that nothing has happened because of it). The link is also to an article that is over 2 years old, and again has had no real impact on the current understood consensus.

Really? Can't find proto-feathers now, so they can't have ever existed? Show me a modern reptile with leathery wings that can fly that is alive today. How about a fish with a mobile neck and limb-like fins? Or a mammal-like animal with only a rudimentary whisker that lays eggs and does not yet produce milk.

Just because a morphology isn't seen today is a pretty weak argument for why it never existed. Some might call it spurious.

Also, just because a researcher makes a claim that may be shaky or even untrue doesn't rule out a possibility. I don't know if she is mistaken in her claim, but the claims of a feather-like integument were made without her claims anyway.

Self-important Ignorance: the rise and fall of critical reasoning.

Side note--if I sound like I`m being harsh, I apologize. I mean nothing personal, but instead wish to address the 'argument' and way of thinking. Trying to make a claim to the veracity of an entire science based on a single area of research that a person does not agree with (regardless of the experience of that person's experience or education) is a pinnacle of hubris.

[jhudstone]

Dudes, I really didn't intend to incite a feather war. In fact I made the artistic decision to leave my Mono. vague to allow the viewer to choose whether to see feathers or not - so don't get so worked up, I was just looking for a few impressions.

[stoneage]

Nov 27, 2009 3:41:48 GMT sbell said:

Nov 27, 2009 2:21:29 GMT stoneage said:

Show me a living animal with protofeathers.

Mary Schweitzer claims to have found Beta-Keratin with the Shuvuuia fossil. But Bera-Keratin is also found in reptile skin and provides rigidity, waterproofing and the prevention of desiccation. Let's not forget that she claims to be able to get DNA links from dinosaur bone that is 68 million years old or older. But we can only get it from a few Neanderthal bones which are less then 50,000 years old.

Fuzzy Dinos: The Rise And Fall Of Paleontology ;D

Be careful who you link to--those three authors on that paper are notorious for confirmation bias when it comes to their anti-feathered dino research (a paper came out about one year ago that was supposed to crush feathers once and for all...notice that nothing has happened because of it). The link is also to an article that is over 2 years old, and again has had no real impact on the current understood consensus.

Really? Can't find proto-feathers now, so they can't have ever existed? Show me a modern reptile with leathery wings that can fly that is alive today. How about a fish with a mobile neck and limb-like fins? Or a mammal-like animal with only a rudimentary whisker that lays eggs and does not yet produce milk.

Just because a morphology isn't seen today is a pretty weak argument for why it never existed. Some might call it spurious.

Also, just because a researcher makes a claim that may be shaky or even untrue doesn't rule out a possibility. I don't know if she is mistaken in her claim, but the claims of a feather-like integument were made without her claims anyway.

Self-important Ignorance: the rise and fall of critical reasoning.

Side note--if I sound like I`m being harsh, I apologize. I mean nothing personal, but instead wish to address the 'argument' and way of thinking. Trying to make a claim to the veracity of an entire science based on a single area of research that a person does not agree with (regardless of the experience of that person's experience or education) is a pinnacle of hubris.

Here is something more recent.

www.springerlink.com/content/1r636l4l59kk1874/

I agree that just because we don't see protofeathers today doesn't mean they never existed. But Archaeoptyeryx had flight feathers 150 MYA. Why would Sinosauropteryx only have so-called protofeathers in the Early Cretaceous. Shouldn't protofeathers, if they existed, have come first?
I don't think one has to be called arrogant and ignorant just because they point out that there are other points of view. Concensus isn't an argument for right.

Storrs Olson, the curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, has been a vocal critic of the theory that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs.

"The whole notion of feathered dinosaurs is a myth that has been created by ideologues bent on perpetuating the birds-are-dinosaurs theory in the face of all contrary evidence," he said.

National Geographic magazine and other media have heavily publicized stories about feathered dinosaurs. But contrarian views struggle to get heard, Feduccia said.

"One of the primary arguments used to deflect our view is that we are a fringe group," he said. "But if science operates by a majority view, we're in serious trouble.

"We are dealing here basically with a faith-based science where the contrarian view is silenced to a large extent by the popular press," he added.

[Dinotoyforum]

"One of the primary arguments used to deflect our view is that we are a fringe group,"

Who says they are wrong because they are a fringe group? Doesn't it make more sense that they're a fringe group because they are wrong?

[stoneage]

Nov 27, 2009 23:59:08 GMT Dinotoyforum said:

"One of the primary arguments used to deflect our view is that we are a fringe group,"

Who says they are wrong because they are a fringe group? Doesn't it make more sense that they're a fringe group because they are wrong?

www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/misconceptions.html

So your saying it makes more sense that atheist are wrong because they are a fringe group? See #4.

[Dinotoyforum]

Nov 28, 2009 0:27:19 GMT stoneage said:

Nov 27, 2009 23:59:08 GMT Dinotoyforum said:

"One of the primary arguments used to deflect our view is that we are a fringe group,"

Who says they are wrong because they are a fringe group? Doesn't it make more sense that they're a fringe group because they are wrong?

www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/misconceptions.html

So your saying it makes more sense that atheist are wrong because they are a fringe group? See #4.

I think I've been misunderstood. I'm just distinguishing between:

1. fringe group therefore wrong and
2. wrong therefore fringe group

There can be many reasons why a fringe group is so, number 2 above being just one possibility. I'm simply highlighting the fact that, despite the accusation, nobody is using the fringe group status of Feduccia et al as an argument for why they are wrong (and if they were using this argument, it wouldn't be a valid argument).

See, we're on the same page

[sbell]

Nov 28, 2009 10:47:15 GMT Dinotoyforum said:

Nov 28, 2009 0:27:19 GMT stoneage said:

www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/misconceptions.html

So your saying it makes more sense that atheist are wrong because they are a fringe group? See #4.

I think I've been misunderstood. I'm just distinguishing between:

1. fringe group therefore wrong and
2. wrong therefore fringe group

There can be many reasons why a fringe group is so, number 2 above being just one possibility. I'm simply highlighting the fact that, despite the accusation, nobody is using the fringe group status of Feduccia et al as an argument for why they are wrong (and if they were using this argument, it wouldn't be a valid argument).

See, we're on the same page

Further to that, I think they are being marginalized because they are 'wrong'; or at least, their argument is poorly supported. As opposed to the vice versa (wrong because of marginalization). The fact is, if there were coherent, reasonable arguments, they would receive more credit--judging by the quote about National Geographic, I am guessing there is really a lot of professional envy going on (i.e. nobody bothers with them anymore, because they don't add to the conversation anymore).

And in actual fact, repetition of tired arguments that have never found support through independent research is as ineffective (or ignorant) as making things up. Protofeathers may have proven a successful-enough adaptation for non-flying dinosaurs that they remained viable as an integument.

The fact is, even without the feathers, the anatomical similarities between theropod dinosaurs and birds are hard to ignore (the wishbone being a pretty obvious one). Thomas Huxley, way back in 1868, saw the similarities, long before the existing body of evidence was present.

[Horridus]

Sinosauropteryx was primitive. It was even primitive as a coelurosaur, whereas Archaeopteryx was a maniraptoran. Other maniraptorans outside Aves have been found with advanced feathers too, or evidence for them (like Velociraptor). Sinosauropteryx had primitive 'proto-feathers' only because it was more basal.

Also, the amount of evidence linking birds to dinosaurs at the skeletal level alone is ridiculous. Even Allosaurus had a wishbone and a semi-lunate carpal, or a version of it (OK, convergent evolution...maybe not such a good example). In fact Coelophysis had a wishbone!

As far as Shuvuuia feathers go, it's more important that they lacked alpha-keratin than that they had beta-keratin.

Also, I'm very sorry that the ol' feather debate has raised its head here! It's a nice sculpture, yes?

[Griffin]

Thats a very nice model for something so tiny. Its nice to see smaller species made into 1/40 scale. Looking forward to the ramph.

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

Tiny little fellow, he won't last long with those deinonychus.

[bokisaurus]

Cute little guy I played with sculpey and made some marine reptiles, still working on the nerves to post them! LOL! ;D Any more?