|
|
Post by arioch on May 27, 2011 17:52:19 GMT
Doesn´t Mr Paul also considers Torosaurus and trikes to be the same?  (Also some of the theropods in his book have pronated hands, but that´s beyond the point.) Which ones have pronated hands? Give me a Pg number As far as I can recall the Coelophysis and some Therizinosaur (also those should go feathered, I was surprised to see them with scales). I can´t accede to the book right now to see the page number, maybe later on home... On a side note, his Ankylosaurs look hilariously chubby in some front pic. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on May 27, 2011 20:01:16 GMT
Ankylosaurs generally are much chubbier than many people realise -- certainly very wide.  I wonder if the theropods with pronated hands you mention might have come from his earlier paintings? Unless you mean the actual diagrams. It seems unlikely to me that he would have consciously depicted them in his latest works. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on May 27, 2011 20:21:18 GMT
Which ones have pronated hands? Give me a Pg number As far as I can recall the Coelophysis and some Therizinosaur (also those should go feathered, I was surprised to see them with scales). I can´t accede to the book right now to see the page number, maybe later on home... On a side note, his Ankylosaurs look hilariously chubby in some front pic. ;D The ceoplophysis on pg 18 I'm assuming is an older drawing (and strangely enough they have feathers!). All of his actual diagrams of theropods, including ceolophyisis and therizinosaurs, have properly positioned hands. There is nothing wrong with a scaly coelophyisis. Same can be said for any non-coelurosaur theropod. As far as I know Beipiaosaurus is the only therizinosaur with evidence of feathers. Honestly the others probably had them too but hey, we found feathered small relatives of tyrannosaurus and nobody seems to have a problem with scaly depictions of those so take it as you want. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on May 27, 2011 20:46:18 GMT
As far as I can recall the Coelophysis and some Therizinosaur (also those should go feathered, I was surprised to see them with scales). I can´t accede to the book right now to see the page number, maybe later on home... On a side note, his Ankylosaurs look hilariously chubby in some front pic. ;D The ceoplophysis on pg 18 I'm assuming is an older drawing (and strangely enough they have feathers!). All of his actual diagrams of theropods, including ceolophyisis and therizinosaurs, have properly positioned hands. There is nothing wrong with a scaly coelophyisis. Same can be said for any non-coelurosaur theropod. As far as I know Beipiaosaurus is the only therizinosaur with evidence of feathers. Honestly the others probably had them too but hey, we found feathered small relatives of tyrannosaurus and nobody seems to have a problem with scaly depictions of those so take it as you want. Yes most probably those are older drawings, but then I wouldn´t include them in a book which is meant to be super scientifically accurate....if I was the author I wouldn´t want any misunderstandings or annoying people like me right now doing annoying questions. I personally think every modern depiction of Tyrannosaurids should have at least some vestigial proto feathers, though I don´t dislike the smooth skinned ones. We assume - well, we know- that dromaeosaurs were feathered because basal dromaosaurs were feathered too. Basal therizinosaurs and Tyrannosaurids were also feathered , so... why we have this double standard?  I guess dromaeosaurs are too bird like to deny the evidence no matter their size and time they lived, while therizinosaurs and tyrannosaurs aren´t. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on May 27, 2011 21:05:34 GMT
The ceoplophysis on pg 18 I'm assuming is an older drawing (and strangely enough they have feathers!). All of his actual diagrams of theropods, including ceolophyisis and therizinosaurs, have properly positioned hands. There is nothing wrong with a scaly coelophyisis. Same can be said for any non-coelurosaur theropod. As far as I know Beipiaosaurus is the only therizinosaur with evidence of feathers. Honestly the others probably had them too but hey, we found feathered small relatives of tyrannosaurus and nobody seems to have a problem with scaly depictions of those so take it as you want. Yes most probably those are older drawings, but then I wouldn´t include them in a book which is meant to be super scientifically accurate....if I was the author I wouldn´t want any misunderstandings or annoying people like me right now doing annoying questions. I personally think every modern depiction of Tyrannosaurids should have at least some vestigial proto feathers, though I don´t dislike the smooth skinned ones. We assume - well, we know- that dromaeosaurs were feathered because basal dromaosaurs were feathered too. Basal therizinosaurs and Tyrannosaurids were also feathered , so... why we have this double standard? I guess dromaeosaurs are too bird like to deny the evidence no matter their size and time they lived, while therizinosaurs and tyrannosaurs aren´t. Please understand its not easy just pumping out an entire piece of art. The fact that he managed to do as many as he did for just this one book is really impressive. That being said I don't see a problem with a few flaws in an older piece of art that is showcased in the beginning of the book. Those are beautiful pieces and I like how they are included in this book. The book is a field guide that also showcases some of his work. If you want the most accurate depictions look at his diagrams. The others are just aesthetic. |
|
|
|
Post by Pachyrhinosaurus on May 27, 2011 23:31:57 GMT
;D T-rex didn't hunt in packs! They scavenged dead animals like vultures. A+ reply! This forum keeps getting better and better. What if there was a carcass was there and scavengers started flocking. Then a volcanic eruption? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 28, 2011 15:20:50 GMT
so... why we have this double standard? I guess dromaeosaurs are too bird like to deny the evidence no matter their size and time they lived, while therizinosaurs and tyrannosaurs aren´t. Mmh, i don't think that's the case... The main justification for scales in big tyrannosaurids and therizinosaurids is that the bigger the animal gets, the less integument is needed, as in modern beasts like elephants and rhinos... And if you consider the fact the Cretaceous world was mostly warmer than today, a full coat of (proto)feathers would have probably caused 'em some problems. BUT other people say that big theropods would not have had the aforementioned problems; even if they were big n' bulky, they had air sacs which would have prevented the eventual over-heating... Who's right? Who's wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on May 28, 2011 16:10:41 GMT
so... why we have this double standard? I guess dromaeosaurs are too bird like to deny the evidence no matter their size and time they lived, while therizinosaurs and tyrannosaurs aren´t. Mmh, i don't think that's the case... The main justification for scales in big tyrannosaurids and therizinosaurids is that the bigger the animal gets, the less integument is needed, as in modern beasts like elephants and rhinos... And if you consider the fact the Cretaceous world was mostly warmer than today, a full coat of (proto)feathers would have probably caused 'em some problems. BUT other people say that big theropods would not have had the aforementioned problems; even if they were big n' bulky, they had air sacs which would have prevented the eventual over-heating... Who's right? Who's wrong? I´m aware of such arguments, kind of weak if you ask me... How could a minimum covering of short fur like feathers would overheat a Tyrannosaur? and you don´t even usually see those! Not even the kind of covering elephants have . Why Utahraptor is rightfully depicted with feathers but tyrannosaurs of similar size like Alioramus or Albertosaurus still doesn´t? Maybe the scaly Tyrannosaur image is so sacred and deeply rooted in popular culture that even the most forward thinking paleontologist don´t dare to profanate it? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on May 28, 2011 20:34:10 GMT
so... why we have this double standard? I guess dromaeosaurs are too bird like to deny the evidence no matter their size and time they lived, while therizinosaurs and tyrannosaurs aren´t. Mmh, i don't think that's the case... The main justification for scales in big tyrannosaurids and therizinosaurids is that the bigger the animal gets, the less integument is needed, as in modern beasts like elephants and rhinos... And if you consider the fact the Cretaceous world was mostly warmer than today, a full coat of (proto)feathers would have probably caused 'em some problems. BUT other people say that big theropods would not have had the aforementioned problems; even if they were big n' bulky, they had air sacs which would have prevented the eventual over-heating... Who's right? Who's wrong? I don't think thats it. Even elephants have fur its just sparse. If tyrannosaurus rex's ancestors had feathers it probably had them in some form or another as well. I really think its a combination of the sacred nostalgic idea of a scaly rex combined with the fact that we haven't found an actual specimen that has feathers (despite how many of its close relatives did have them). |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on May 28, 2011 23:38:50 GMT
The evidence for feathers in T-rex is all based on one supposive relative Dilong paradoxus. It's classification is based almost entirely on the skull. It had hair like structures which are nothing like modern feathers and lived 65 million years earlier. In 2007 Turner & his colleagues determined that Dilong was not a Tyrannosaur but a more advanced Coelurosaur. The only direct evidence that has been found, from Canada and Mongolia, is pebbly or mosaic scales. Even Xu et al. which first suggested the possibility of feathers mentioned that large animals don't need insulation to retain heat. And remember it was a lot hotter then , then today. Dilong was only 5 feet long. Until more direct evidence is found all we can say is maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on May 29, 2011 0:07:29 GMT
That is true. When I said close relatives I meant more like other coelurosaurs. Tyrannosaurs are surrounded by feathered relatives on the family tree. It seems only logical that they would have them as well. But for now its still up in the air.
I have no problem with them being depicted either way for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by arioch on May 29, 2011 1:53:24 GMT
But paradoxically, feathers in T.rex might be too short to even fossilize...quite a hard proof to retrieve. The T.rex skin impression show scales where those are expected to be found, in the lower body. That could just mean they were sort of half arsed.
And don´t forget Tyrannosaurs are just quite advanced and very big coelurosaurs. If their basal relatives had feathers, then they should retain at leatst some of them ( an animal just doesn´t completely loose all the feathers or go completely hairless if their ancestry had feathers or hair. It goes against all is known about evolution). Otherwise I demand they start plucking Utahraptor and Deinonychus. Where is the direct evidence of their plumage? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on May 29, 2011 15:15:23 GMT
But paradoxically, feathers in T.rex might be too short to even fossilize...quite a hard proof to retrieve. The T.rex skin impression show scales where those are expected to be found, in the lower body. That could just mean they were sort of half arsed. And don´t forget Tyrannosaurs are just quite advanced and very big coelurosaurs. Actually in the scheme of things, tyrannosaurs can be considered the most basal coelurosaurs. They branched off even before compsognathids. In a sense, early tyrannosaurs like Eotyrannus and Coelurus are the most primitive known coelurosaurs, and no animals more primitive than them are known to have feathers. The only evidence for tyrannosaur feathers is Dilong, but its classification as a tyrannosaur is somewhat controversial. It may not be one at all. If Dilong is slightly above the branching point than tyrannosaurs (i.e. closer to compsognathids) then there is no reason the think tyrannosaurs had feathers. The very next branch down from them are carnosaurs, and even juvenile allosaurs have been preserved covered in scales with no traces of feathers. Basically, tyrannosaurs are directly on the cusp of when feathers started to appear, and in my opinion it's too early to tell if they should be drawn with feathers or not. I wouldn't criticize an artist either way. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on May 29, 2011 16:37:59 GMT
love how yet another thread falls victim to the feather debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by arioch on May 29, 2011 17:14:50 GMT
Actually in the scheme of things, tyrannosaurs can be considered the most basal coelurosaurs. They branched off even before compsognathids. In a sense, early tyrannosaurs like Eotyrannus and Coelurus are the most primitive known coelurosaurs, and no animals more primitive than them are known to have feathers. The only evidence for tyrannosaur feathers is Dilong, but its classification as a tyrannosaur is somewhat controversial. It may not be one at all. If Dilong is slightly above the branching point than tyrannosaurs (i.e. closer to compsognathids) then there is no reason the think tyrannosaurs had feathers. The very next branch down from them are carnosaurs, and even juvenile allosaurs have been preserved covered in scales with no traces of feathers. Basically, tyrannosaurs are directly on the cusp of when feathers started to appear, and in my opinion it's too early to tell if they should be drawn with feathers or not. I wouldn't criticize an artist either way. Er, Eotyrannus and Coelurus the most primitive coelurosaurs? ...OK... Lets just leave the feather debate here (with all respect I find your argument too confusing to argue point by point). I already made my point. Feathered or unfeathered Tyrannosaurus are by now a matter of preference, though as I said it could be quite hard to directly prove otherwise. But even if a fossilized feathered juvenile is found I suspect most people won´t accept it and will keep arguing with the most twisted explanations that they losed the covering within 2 months and adults were for sure completely bald. It is a sacred cow we are dealing with. |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on May 29, 2011 21:51:16 GMT
Er, Eotyrannus and Coelurus the most primitive coelurosaurs? ...OK... Well, most studies do find Tyrannosauroidea as the most basal clade of coelurosaurs, and those 'coelurid' types as the most primitive members of that group. So yes, Coelurus and its ilk are the most primitive coelurosaurs as far as our current understanding. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelurosauria#ClassificationCheck the position of coelurid-grade tyrannosaurs. They're more primitive than even compsognathids. Better finds or better analysis could always change this in the future, but that's our current understanding of coelurosaur evolution. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on May 30, 2011 1:35:51 GMT
hm did not know that was where oritholestes stood on the family tree.
|
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on May 30, 2011 3:03:54 GMT
hm did not know that was where oritholestes stood on the family tree. That is rather odd; is there evidence for Ornitholestes being an omnivore or something? It does however seem to have a longer looking neck than other coelurosaurs. |
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on May 30, 2011 8:56:28 GMT
Ornitholestes seems to be an arboreal animal, as it has hopped around EVERY branch of the Coelurosaur tree. We still don't quite know where it belongs IIRC.
Also, as I'm quite fond to say, giraffes and black rhinos are animals of the same size and living in the same place, but have quite different fur density, which can be justified by their noticeable frame difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on May 30, 2011 12:01:27 GMT
hm did not know that was where oritholestes stood on the family tree. That is rather odd; is there evidence for Ornitholestes being an omnivore or something? It does however seem to have a longer looking neck than other coelurosaurs. Ornitholestes is weird. But, it does have some very dromaeosaurid features of its skeleton (as pointed out by Ostrom all the way back in the 1970s). Including a retractable second toe! So it's either a maniraptoran or a member of a primitive coelurosaur lineage that mimics dromaeosaurs in some features. |
|
I guess dromaeosaurs are too bird like to deny the evidence no matter their size and time they lived, while therizinosaurs and tyrannosaurs aren´t.
