|
|
Post by postsaurischian on Jul 11, 2011 19:29:27 GMT
..... from what I'm told 3 toes on the back feet is correct..if there is a good scientific reference for the two toes I'd love to share it with my source since he hasn't seen one. We're not talking about the hind feet. The discussion was about the hypothesis that only 2 claws of the 5 toes of the forefoot were visible in the fleshed out species of Stegosaurus.  skeleton model is by Favorite Collection |
|
bfler
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by bfler on Jul 11, 2011 21:29:13 GMT
The diorama depicts a scene of LBT 14: Spike has found his real mummy.  |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jul 11, 2011 22:04:56 GMT
..... from what I'm told 3 toes on the back feet is correct..if there is a good scientific reference for the two toes I'd love to share it with my source since he hasn't seen one. We're not talking about the hind feet. The discussion was about the hypothesis that only 2 claws of the 5 toes of the forefoot were visible in the fleshed out species of Stegosaurus. skeleton model is by Favorite CollectionYeah, the hands. Only two fingers had claws. |
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Jul 11, 2011 23:01:38 GMT
Is it more fact than theory though or just a possibility ? My friend says 5 toes are correct on the front as of now. :?
If it can be restored either way then the SS piece isn't wrong in that regard..at least not yet.
Are there any Stegosaurus tracks that can be used for proof ?
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jul 11, 2011 23:18:43 GMT
Is it more fact than theory though or just a possibility ? My friend says 5 toes are correct on the front as of now. :? If it can be restored either way then the SS piece isn't wrong in that regard..at least not yet. Are there any Stegosaurus tracks that can be used for proof ? I read that Bakker found some baby Stegosaurus tracks with two claws. It was very small about 1/11 adult size. He said the mother might have given the baby a milk like substance from its crop. |
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Jul 12, 2011 0:14:25 GMT
Works for pigeons.
|
|
|
|
Post by tanystropheus on Jul 12, 2011 7:34:32 GMT
Well, how can you prove that you are not "subconsciously" attracted to Papo products? Indeed, it is a possibility, no? Most euoplos are static in posture, and there are only a few available that are aesthetically pleasing (e.g Favorite Soft Model). If you're going to have some euoplos, you might as well get the best of the lot. The Carnegie Ankylosaurus is a nice representation for all practical purposes. Schleich Saichania version 2 (with its turtle-like eyes) is a good model, but very static in movement (there is a bit of a swing to its posture but not much, though) Because I generally am unsupportive of them as a company and don't care for their disregard of scientific accuracy. You say boring, I say realistic... These things were big biological tanks, I don't expect them to be curling their tails like scorpions and doing the cha-cha in the Mesozoic forests! I'm sure if the Papo Ankylosaurus had feathers you would be the very first person to pre-order it  |
|
bfler
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by bfler on Jul 12, 2011 14:01:47 GMT
The Kentrosaurus I recently saw in the museum, seems to have more than 2 visible claws. Shouldn't it be the same for Stegosaurus, because both belong to the Stegosaurinae?
|
|
|
|
Post by DinoLord on Jul 12, 2011 14:53:45 GMT
Museum mounts aren't always accurate. In fact, quite a few of them are out-dated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jul 12, 2011 14:58:17 GMT
Is it more fact than theory though or just a possibility ? My friend says 5 toes are correct on the front as of now. :? It did have 5 toes (or 'fingers', to make it clear which limbs we're talking about), in a columnar arrangement quite similar to sauropods, but only two of them had claws. |
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Jul 12, 2011 18:17:13 GMT
Is it more fact than theory though or just a possibility ? My friend says 5 toes are correct on the front as of now. :? It did have 5 toes (or 'fingers', to make it clear which limbs we're talking about), in a columnar arrangement quite similar to sauropods, but only two of them had claws. Ah. The sculpture has two obvious big claws it looks like and the rest just look like little stubs with just a hint of nail on them..doesn't seem too off really from what your talking about. I did a lot of looking and couldn't really find many examples to show the 2 claws - concept ..maybe it's not yet widely viewed as accurate ? |
|
|
|
Post by paleoferroequine on Jul 12, 2011 18:50:03 GMT
It did have 5 toes (or 'fingers', to make it clear which limbs we're talking about), in a columnar arrangement quite similar to sauropods, but only two of them had claws. Ah. The sculpture has two obvious big claws it looks like and the rest just look like little stubs with just a hint of nail on them..doesn't seem too off really from what your talking about. I did a lot of looking and couldn't really find many examples to show the 2 claws - concept ..maybe it's not yet widely viewed as accurate ? The metacarpals are arraigned vertically in a semi circle similar to a sauropod. Each metacarpal has only one phalanx with digit I a large claw and digits II to V no claws(not positive about digit II) . And digit V may not even have a phalanx. There is a pretty good discussion of this at: www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app55/app20091105.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jul 12, 2011 18:56:19 GMT
It's just something that's very, very commonly got wrong. Same goes with sauropod feet. Manufacturers have only just started to get those right.
By the way, the paper linked to above also implies 'tubular' hands for ankylosaurs...
|
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Jul 12, 2011 18:59:10 GMT
So it would have toes..just no nails like the fingers of Carnotaurus ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jul 12, 2011 19:01:17 GMT
So it would have toes..just no nails like the fingers of Carnotaurus ? Right, or like the hands of sauropods, which only ever had the one claw (the most advanced titanosaurs didn't even have fingers) |
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Jul 12, 2011 19:13:28 GMT
So it would have toes..just no nails like the fingers of Carnotaurus ? Right, or like the hands of sauropods, which only ever had the one claw (the most advanced titanosaurs didn't even have fingers) Gotcha. Well..Jorge is really close..just a matter of nail or not to nail I guess. They are so tiny..maybe they are just hardened skin on the tips instead of true nails ? heh |
|
|
|
Post by Meso-Cenozoic on Jul 13, 2011 6:54:06 GMT
Stegosaurus if definitely one of my faves, and I was looking forward to this piece. BUT, some things rub me a little wrong too. Besides being not so crazy about the plates' design (they remind me of tree bark), it also looks to me like the last four plates on the tail are only a single row instead of a double. And, I swear it looks like there are only two spikes on the end of the tail. (Both cases I'm referring to the mother.) Maybe it could be just this pic. I'll wait for their usual group of pics from different angles before claiming this to be the absolute truth. But, it really does look this way to. The baby, on the other hand, just looks a bit malformed. |
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Jul 13, 2011 7:04:21 GMT
I think there are 17 plates which is right. Plate design is up in the air but these don't bother me.
The baby has four spikes so mom should as well prob just not shown.
What's wrong with the baby ? It might be a little thin and underfed..but otherwise fine by me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meso-Cenozoic on Jul 13, 2011 7:14:33 GMT
Yeah, you're right about the plates. I guess we're all just used to them in doubles rows all the way down. I was also going to ask if the number was correct. I always forget how many.
In regards to the baby, I don't know, he/she just looks a little... well... lumpy! LOL! And a bit more cartoony in a way than its mother. But, babies of any animal kingdom, can look a bit odd during their growth stages, with different parts growing at different speeds.
I didn't add before, but overall, it's still a stunning piece, as expected from SS! Looking forward to seeing the other pics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Jul 13, 2011 7:38:57 GMT
Yeah, you're right about the plates. I guess we're all just used to them in doubles rows all the way down. I was also going to ask if the number was correct. I always forget how many. In regards to the baby, I don't know, he/she just looks a little... well... lumpy! LOL! And a bit more cartoony in a way than its mother. But, babies of any animal kingdom, can look a bit odd during their growth stages, with different parts growing at different speeds. I didn't add before, but overall, it's still a stunning piece, as expected from SS! Looking forward to seeing the other pics. Don't feel too bad..if it hadn't been brought up about this piece on another forum I wouldn't have know for certain either...heh ;D I always have a hard time judging infants and juveniles..the larger eyes and other parts can make them look cartoon-ish..it's what we think of generally as being cute I guess. |
|
![[][][]cordylus[][][] Avatar](http://files.sharenator.com/Troll_Face_U_MAD_RE_wrestling_1-s407x405-126802.jpg)
