|
|
Post by Flipyap on Jan 23, 2009 3:17:25 GMT
Heres a little drawing I made a few months ago.. Its a juvenile pachycephalosaurus. I lightly referenced to skulls of the Stygimoloch and Dracorex Hogwartsia, dinosaur's now thought to be younger Pachy's. The theory is they are born without the dome head and with lots of spikes, and as they grow the spikes get absorbed into the bone mass turning into a larger dome. For the drawing I only lightly referenced the skulls (at the Carnegie museum) of the animals. (Note: I messed up the teeth, there should only be 3, slightly larger teeth visible on the upper 'beak') Anyways, here it is:  |
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jan 23, 2009 3:21:29 GMT
Welcome! Very original drawing  |
|
|
|
Post by Meso-Cenozoic on Jan 23, 2009 3:46:22 GMT
Welcome, Chris! And great to have yet another talented artist added to our family!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ajax on Jan 23, 2009 4:21:50 GMT
Hi & Great Drawing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jan 23, 2009 13:23:05 GMT
That's a very nice Pachy - welcome to the forum!
|
|
|
|
Post by bolesey on Jan 24, 2009 0:14:47 GMT
Heres a little drawing I made a few months ago.. Its a juvenile pachycephalosaurus. I lightly referenced to skulls of the Stygimoloch and Dracorex Hogwartsia, dinosaur's now thought to be younger Pachy's. The theory is they are born without the dome head and with lots of spikes, and as they grow the spikes get absorbed into the bone mass turning into a larger dome. For the drawing I only lightly referenced the skulls (at the Carnegie museum) of the animals. Not bad, but what are you going to call it if that whole theory collapses(another poster on the forum saw that presentation and the debate that ensued, and thought Horner had it all wrong). Personally I'm not totally sold on all 3 being the one animal, though they are very close. I find the idea of Dracorex = Stygimoloch somewhat plausible, but I'm not yet convinced that Pachycephalosaurus is the same as them. |
|
|
|
Post by Flipyap on Jan 24, 2009 2:14:25 GMT
Thanks for the comments guys. Feel free to give critique, I'm not the best artist but I do enjoy it and hope to get better. I also would like to hear critique on accuracy, or features. Heres a little drawing I made a few months ago.. Its a juvenile pachycephalosaurus. I lightly referenced to skulls of the Stygimoloch and Dracorex Hogwartsia, dinosaur's now thought to be younger Pachy's. The theory is they are born without the dome head and with lots of spikes, and as they grow the spikes get absorbed into the bone mass turning into a larger dome. For the drawing I only lightly referenced the skulls (at the Carnegie museum) of the animals. Not bad, but what are you going to call it if that whole theory collapses(another poster on the forum saw that presentation and the debate that ensued, and thought Horner had it all wrong). Personally I'm not totally sold on all 3 being the one animal, though they are very close. I find the idea of Dracorex = Stygimoloch somewhat plausible, but I'm not yet convinced that Pachycephalosaurus is the same as them. I will agree that the thought of the Dracorex being a Pachy isn't exactly solid, and I too am up in the air about it, though I find it fascinating. One thing with this is that I do believe it to be likely that younger Pachy's sported longer head spikes and smaller domes, so I only borrowed minute features from the other species, and feel it still holds its own as a juvenile. From my view point, to the best of my artistic ability it holds fairly true to modern scientific thoughts and theory's.. but thats what is always so fun.. as we learn more these things could change in an heartbeat and it can be all wrong. Thats one reason I love drawing dinosaurs is that there is always even a little room for artistic interpretation. |
|
|
|
Post by bolesey on Jan 24, 2009 4:17:24 GMT
What I mean is if the theory is invalid, you could probably just go back to calling it one or the other.  Funny enough it depends which fossils you look at. Some very similar, and I'm almost convinced, but then others look totally different. It's hard to judge when you're not sure exactly how much of the skull has been reconstructed based on a related species. This Stygimoloch skull reminds me of Dracorex quite a bit, but then the fossil of Dracorex is so crushed that they probably referred to Stygimoloch when reconstructing it.  It's definitely an interesting theory though. Changes the way I look at things. |
|
|
|
Post by sepp on Jan 24, 2009 8:42:49 GMT
^ I've actually read that some think that dracorex could actually a juvenile stygimoloch :3
I read it on wikipedia, so I can't really trust it, but oh well.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolesey on Jan 24, 2009 23:40:50 GMT
yeah, that's part of the hypothesis recently put forward by Jack Horner.
Lumping Dinosaurs: Stygimoloch a juvenile Pachycephalosaurus?It's a rather curious idea, but the fossil record for these animals seems too patchy to confirm it for the time being. If there are more finds, we may get a better idea. Horner seems to have a particular interest in dinosaur ontogeny, with the wide age range of specimens he has excavated for Maiasaura. A few years back he led an expedition to Mongolia specifically to study growth stages in Psittacosaurus. They dug up about a hundred skeletons. He's also among those who consider Nanotyrannus a juvenile T.rex. |
|
