dinosaur rendering

[bmknj17]

Hey.

I posed this question with regard to an allosaurus figure in the walkaround thread in the first room, but it did not get a response. It's perhaps more appropriately placed here.

Knowing as I do nothing about dino physiology, is science sure that dinos of this or any species have such bodies that peak along their lengths? I can't think of any modern animal that has a body structure like this (Okay, not that I'm really giving it much thought and not that it matters.).

I love the (repaint of the) first Kaiyodo Dinotales stegosaurus, but the company resculpted the species without that peaked lateral view and it made more sense to me.

Is this just an affectation that somehow developed early in the minds of paleontologists and/or artists and has never given way to better science or renderings?

Anyone?

And as I later clarified, what I mean is that, viewed head on, many dinosaur toys' cross sections would look at the top like an upward pointing angle, rather than and upward pointing arc.

Thanks.
Brett

[bolesey]

I don't have the answer, but it is a good question.

I think it probably varied from animal to animal. Some reptiles have pointy backs and some have rounded. If you look at how wide the ribcage was and how tall the neural spines were, I imagine this is how you'd know. I haven't seen Ankylosaurs depicted with pointed backs, their rib cages were very fat.

[bmknj17]

Thanks for the response, Bolesey. I've been waiting for one, not sure why the question wasn't getting attention, wondering if people don't have an answer.

I've been guessing it is an affectation. I see it in toys but not so much in models or 2D representations. If I'm right, it's a rather huge mistake that occurs with a kind of inexplicable frequency.

Brett

[kuni]

I'm still having a really hard time visualizing what you're talking about, exactly. Maybe some pictures?

[bmknj17]

This was the photo that made me ask.

I'm speaking of how the animal is sort of divided down the middle, with the two halves coming together down the length of the back, but at a peak, like the angles drawn, rather than smoothly, like the arcs drawn.

[arioch]

Looks like the artist thought that the musculature over the shoulders and legs displaced the bone of the back upward...and it create that first and second "peaks". Where is the third placed, in the middle of the tail? i can´t see it well.

No, i dont think this is correct, though i´m not an expert in anathomy. Don´t look very healthy for the vertabrae... But it depends mostly in the amount flesh that covered the back bones when the animal lived. And sadly whe dont have enough evidences about this.

[bmknj17]

A...

I don't think you're following (So clearly I'm not expressing myself well since virtually no one is...).

I didn't draw three angles to represent three peaks. I just meant that the entire length of the back of this and many dino figures is/are uniformly peaked this way.

So imagine that I drew those angles continuously down the entire length, with each side of the angle supposedly representing each side of the dino and the point at which they meet representing the dino's back's cross section's uppermost point.

Basically, why are the cross sections of the backs so often depicted as triangular rather than domed?? Does that help??

Also, if you have the first and second Kaiyodo Dinotales stegosaurus figures, that will illustrate the difference in shape (and, as is often the case as a result of the rendering, body thickness) as well.

Oh boy...wishing myself luck...

Brett

[arioch]

My fault, i readed the thread too fast and don´t paying enough attention. You expressed youself well (unlike me ;P).

I guess it could be correct. We don´t have evidences on what amount of flesh covered the back bones of theropods. But the theropod torsos usually are proportionally slender, compared to those of modern reptiles, and the mass on the skeleton required for that "flat backs" perhaps should have increased too much their weight.

Also, i think if you pluck any chicken or bird, you will notice this pointy back on them. But don´t do it, im not sure! ;D

[dinonikes]

I know that a lot of african elephants have a very prominant backbone ridge that sticks up past the bulk of the body- and there is a definate sloping up to the top of the backbone-a cross section in this case would definately not be an arc like you drew. I think that is the sort of thing that this pointed ridge look derived from, sort of a second or third generational stylization from this sort of backbone thing, artists tend to work off of others work so it can lead to this sort of thing after many generations of copying off others- i really don't know- just guessing here. There may be other animals that have this sort of look, would have to do some research, but i agree that it wouldn't come to a point like a triangle.

[wheezy]

I think what you are asking is why dinosaurs are depicted with the back going to a point as opposed to be rounded like most land animals today correct? My guess is that if you look at the skeleton of some dinos like the allosaurus you will that the back vertebra are slightly extended, the same can be seen on most duckbilled dinosaurs, causing artist to depict them with the back ending in a more triangular shape as appose to a rounded back. some lizards today also have backs in the same fashion like iguanas and chameleons. I am not saying that dinosaurs and moderen day lizards are at all similar but the high vertebra of some dinosaurs are also found on some modern day lizards giving them more of a pointed back a apposed to a round.

[bmknj17]

Okay, starting to make more sense now--although I feel like, especially with therapods, I see this type of rendering far more in toys than in models, which I assume are generally more accurate.

As much as I wanted an answer, I'm mostly just annoyed with myself for not thinking of iguanas, chameleons, elephants on my own...

D**n infection...

[wheezy]

the chameleons came to mind because i use to have them as pets. Unfortunately life expectancy is only 3-5 years depending on species. My veiled only lived for three years. They are by far the most colorful of lizards and why i do not mind brightly colored dinosaurs as they have very similar skin texture to chameleons. Here are a few pics i found of panther and veiled chameleons coloring. I could not find an exact match too the color mine was. He was similar to the one in the first pic but had some turquoise coloring as supposed to the kelly green bars.
veiled


panther

[bmknj17]

I love all animals and, though turtles are my favorite reptiles, I love chameleons for their awesome physical appearance including their color schemes.

Not sure if you collect Kaiyodo or Dinotales at all or if it's of interest but do you have the Kaiyodo Animatales Pets chameleon figure? Whatever species it is it has the bat-eared look of the first one pictured.

I have it myself. If I see that its in any of my display pics and you've not seen it, I'll post.

[wheezy]

I think i have seen it before at store. the first chameleon is a veiled chameleon. It is my fave because of the similarity between its head casque and the paras crest. I used too have a male who very territorial i used to have to wear a glove to get him out of his cage. It was the one animal in the house that my dalmatian was absolutely afraid of because it hissed and bit him on the nose. After he was out for a little bit he would calm down even though they have a very painful grip. They are still my favorite reptile and would like to own another one someday.

[bmknj17]

Not saying this to be negative...quite the contrary since you might get another...but you are lucky the Dalmatian didn't bite or kill him.

When I was young we had an Irish setter and a dove (that didn't live in a cage) that we'd had together for about 13 years. One Christmas morning the dove hopped over to the setter while he was chewing on a rawhide bone he'd gotten and the dog, who never showed any aggression in all that time, in a split second, snapped the dove's neck.

Not sure of the circumstances of your story, but I'd never take on the responsibility of trusting one animal on behalf of another.

Didn't want to be a downer--which is why I took a long time to respond (had to think about if I should)--but I figure better someone gets to learn from my family's misfortune.

[bmknj17]

Wow, 11 PM and I just finally noticed that all I had to do was point to the (shallow bodied) elasmosaur toys above the room lists here on the board to illustrate the propensity for makers to sculpt toys with that peaked longitudinal center line.

[wheezy]

Jan 22, 2009 3:47:12 GMT bmknj17 said:

Not saying this to be negative...quite the contrary since you might get another...but you are lucky the Dalmatian didn't bite or kill him.

When I was young we had an Irish setter and a dove (that didn't live in a cage) that we'd had together for about 13 years. One Christmas morning the dove hopped over to the setter while he was chewing on a rawhide bone he'd gotten and the dog, who never showed any aggression in all that time, in a split second, snapped the dove's neck.

Not sure of the circumstances of your story, but I'd never take on the responsibility of trusting one animal on behalf of another.

Didn't want to be a downer--which is why I took a long time to respond (had to think about if I should)--but I figure better someone gets to learn from my family's misfortune.

This was the only time the two ever came into contact with one another. Lucky the dalmatian ended up running and hiding behind the chair and the chameleon rarely came out of his enclosure do to the stress it put on him when i put my hand in the cage. One things for sure i would not count out a chameleon in a fight i have seen them take on poisonous snakes in the wild and kick their butts. They are also known to eat small mice and birds. Anyways the two have sinced passed the chameleon about 5 years ago and lucky was just put to sleep after christmas. He had tumors and other health problems that seem to have gotten worse with the passing of my dad in june. He was 12 years old.

[tetonbabydoll]

I had not responded just because I was not/am not sure what you were asking. Are you referring to the spinal ridge that seems to run down many of the backs? I do not know about accuracy there, but I suppose it is a way of accounting for taller neural spines? I guess you have a choice, nice plump dinos with plenty of meat on 'em and a round back, or the newer,skinny and malnurished dinos that show all of the sleletal details and drawn muscles.....I know skinny dinos seem to be all the rage these days, see my X-Plus styracosaurus or Kinto sauropods. I like it, its cool, but I keep having a nagging suspicion that skinny reconstructions may well be wrong.....

[bmknj17]

Yes, those with the ridge also seem flattened. When you look at the Kaiyodo Dinotales stegosauruses, the second version has twice the body thickness of the first. But since the thicker one came later, I wonder if it was thought to be more likely correct.

[tetonbabydoll]

Beats me. Wow, there is my big contribution to this. I simply don't know. It may just be a matter of artistic interpretation....The invicta Bronto has a ridge, but at the same time, its sides are rounder, and fuller. So maybe the ridge has always been there, but is becoming more pronounced as things slim out some?