|
Post by ningishzida on Dec 25, 2008 12:34:36 GMT
In most toys and artistic reconstructions, we see marine reptiles with smooth hides, undoubtedly inspired by the skin of whales and dolphins.
This may be far from correct. In a rare case of preserved skin impressions, a tylosaurus (see Wiki article) appears to have well-defined, overlapping, keeled scales which probably even served as a kind of armor.
This is not to say all marine reptiles had such prominent scales coveringing their bodies, though this is far better evidence than simply imitating the look of marine mammals because of their similar body shapes to prehistoric sea reptiles.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Dec 25, 2008 13:53:14 GMT
Well, wikki can be written by anybody, and is not trustworthy unless backed up. I did a search on mosasaur skin impressions, and this is what I got from the first page on the list.
Dale Russel, talking at Dinofest said that the "crest" often portrayed on mosasaurs was in fact displaced tracheal cartilege, and that there was no evidence of nuchal fringes. Mosasaurs expert Gordon Bell concurs, and adds that mosasaurs were hydromanically sleek LIKE ORCAS AND SEALS, NOT SCALEY SEA MONSTERS.
Further: F. H. Shaw's " On the Dermal Covering of a Mosasaurid Reptile" in the Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science describes the scales of a Tylosaurus as being very similar to the diamond-shaped scales of a rattlesnake, except smaller. Only 3.3 mm long. and 2.5 mm wide. If true, this would make the skin appear quite smooth to the naked eye in my opinion, and difficult to render to scale ( pardon the punny ), in any sort of medium, except perhaps in a life sized sculpture, and perhaps not even then. This page then concludes by quoting Bob Baker at Dinofest as saying that the skin impressions of icthyosaurs and plesiosaurs that he has studied "WERE COMPLETELY SMOOTH TO THE NAKED EYE".
Now, that to me seems more trustworthy and conclusive than a Wikki article, but it is only one article, the first in a list I called up on a very quick search. If anyone on the forum would know more it ought to be Dr. A. Any thoughts on this oh great admin and marine reptile expert?.....
The class may now discuss.....
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Dec 25, 2008 14:05:49 GMT
A bit from the second page on this list, further states: Larry Martin's and Bruce Rothschild's " Paleopathology and Diving Mosasaurs" suggests that Platecorbus, a stocky short-bodied mosasaur may have been a deep diver. This is supported in part by skin impressions that reveal the skin was smooth scales, probably to reduce drag, as opposed to a tylosaurs diamond shaped KEELED scales. So, here the tylosaurs scales are referred to as being keeled, but still quite small.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Dec 25, 2008 17:02:55 GMT
Well, remember, mosasaurs were just varanid lizards- of course they would be scaley. They wouldn't have HUGE scales but small, fine , overlapping ones. Tylosaurus wasn't really related to pliosaurs, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, etc. They just look similar because they all lived in water.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Dec 25, 2008 17:03:39 GMT
I wasn't referring so much to the article as I was the actual photo in the article of the keeled scales of the Tylosaur. The question is, how large was that specific beast? If there happened to be a 50 foot long rattlesnake, it scales would be the size of army 'dog tags'.
But even a five foot rattlesnake with scales the size of the quoted mosasaurs make the reptile look rather rough and scaly, not smooth like an orca or dolphin, though true, in a six inch long toy, this detail would not be seen.
Mosasaurs are clearly related to varanid lizards and snakes, both of which are covered in scales, ranging from largish, heavily keeled and overlapping to very small and granular in appearance. Ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs are entirely different kinds of creatures to mosasaurs, although convergent evolution has given a similar 'look' to mosasaurs and pliosaurs just as we see with ichthyosaurs and dolphins.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Dec 25, 2008 17:07:00 GMT
.... But, look at large sharks like the whale shark. It is nearly 50 feet long, and it has rather small scales.
(sorry if there was typos in there, I am jsut getting used to this wireless keyboaard)
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Dec 26, 2008 2:53:57 GMT
.... But, look at large sharks like the whale shark. It is nearly 50 feet long, and it has rather small scales. (sorry if there was typos in there, I am jsut getting used to this wireless keyboaard) ;D The Whale Shark is a fish not a mammal or a Whale. It is really called a Whale because of it's great size (according to the Guiness book of records the biggest Whale Shark was 41' 6"). Naturally a fish would have scales! ;D
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Dec 26, 2008 4:41:20 GMT
Well, I guess I had a couple of points to make. First of all, is that relying on any single source on-line especially wiki, could be problematic. I still remember the two story tall velociraptor, which really put me off it. Second, if these folks are right, a marine reptile of 40 some odd feet having scales only a couple of mm in size is going to appear smooth. It is not, of course. I am not suggesting that. But it may look like it is. And last, many dinos are not depicted as scaly,partly because such detail would overwhelm the overall picture. WE all figure rexes and sauropods as scaly, but most art and restorations minimalize the look, for art's sake, I suspect.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Dec 26, 2008 5:46:13 GMT
It was of course scaly, but judging by its size, I'm sure the scales were quite small.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Dec 26, 2008 20:28:00 GMT
.... But, look at large sharks like the whale shark. It is nearly 50 feet long, and it has rather small scales. (sorry if there was typos in there, I am jsut getting used to this wireless keyboaard) ;D The Whale Shark is a fish not a mammal or a Whale. It is really called a Whale because of it's great size (according to the Guiness book of records the biggest Whale Shark was 41' 6"). Naturally a fish would have scales! ;D When did I ever say it was a mammal stoneage? Sheesh. I said the whale shark had small scales. How did you think that I said it was a mammal?
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Dec 27, 2008 0:34:41 GMT
;D The Whale Shark is a fish not a mammal or a Whale. It is really called a Whale because of it's great size (according to the Guiness book of records the biggest Whale Shark was 41' 6"). Naturally a fish would have scales! ;D When did I ever say it was a mammal stoneage? Sheesh. I said the whale shark had small scales. How did you think that I said it was a mammal? ;D The thing to remember here CT is that the Whale Shark is a fish or Shark! It is not a Marine Reptile, Tylosaurus, Mosasaurus, Pliosaur, Plesiosaur, or Ichthyosaur! Therefore since it is not related to the above it has nothing to do with what we are talking about! ;D
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Dec 27, 2008 0:44:40 GMT
It is not related specifically, but it is a general point. I think what CT is saying is that they are large scaled animals, with relatively small scales, thus giving it a smooth appearance, which I think, would be the same effect you'd get if you could see a real life marine reptile, such as a mosasaur or plesiosaur. It may well be that the tylosaurs were more obviously scaled than an elasmosaurus. I remember having a brief discussion about this in the on-line finds threads. I had posted pics of the mosasaur from Primeval, and suggested Papo would do it well. That mosasaur is **very** scaly and reptilian, which I thought looked cool, regardless of accuracy. It sorta reminded me of the details on the invicta rex, and Papo allo, which is why I think Papo would do it so well. I will try to find the pics and post them here. Edit: Ok, here are a couple of pics from Primeval, and the "mosasaur' they used. I liked it, it was cool looking, and I would buy a toy of it in a heartbeat. But there was some discussion as to the accuracy of the skin, as I recall. We still have not had Dd A weigh in.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Dec 27, 2008 1:13:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Dec 27, 2008 2:23:40 GMT
When did I ever say it was a mammal stoneage? Sheesh. I said the whale shark had small scales. How did you think that I said it was a mammal? ;D The thing to remember here CT is that the Whale Shark is a fish or Shark! It is not a Marine Reptile, Tylosaurus, Mosasaurus, Pliosaur, Plesiosaur, or Ichthyosaur! Therefore since it is not related to the above it has nothing to do with what we are talking about! ;D Well, technically, all life on earth is related in some way. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Dec 27, 2008 5:24:19 GMT
Are you implying a whale shark is a mammal CT? ;D
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Dec 27, 2008 6:38:17 GMT
not to be a pain, but could we perhaps get back to the topic at hand???
Remember, mosasaur skin and the appearance of the reconsructions??? huh??
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Dec 27, 2008 6:40:17 GMT
Maybe the popular belief is that Mosasaurs had small scaled, leading to the fact that toy companies make them with smooth skin due to the small scales!!!
Maybe...
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Dec 28, 2008 19:12:39 GMT
For me, the scaly mosasaurs are a fact. The clades exist for something, thanks to it we know that small maniraptorians were all feathered. And mosasaurs are closely related to varanids and snakes.
I guess for the modelists is a lot easier and cheap sculpt the shark-like skin. Thats all.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Dec 28, 2008 22:23:38 GMT
^ Sharks have scales though..... Do you mean "whale like skin" ?
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Dec 28, 2008 22:41:33 GMT
Kinda. Let me correct myself, maybe the right expression is dolphin-like skin Some whales have a lot of shapes on them, after all.
|
|