HOME | DD
bensen-daniel β Sharovipteryx mirabilis
Published: 2006-09-10 15:08:27 +0000 UTC; Views: 3878; Favourites: 82; Downloads: 142
Redirect to original
Description
A Sharovipteryx I did about five years ago, based upon a skeletal reconstruction by Dave Peters. There has recently been some new work done on this facinating glider, and this painting is out of date, but I still like the bark on the tree.Related content
Comments: 26
Β Cool. Did you take influence from birds of any kind to make your own paleoart of sharovipteryx?Β
π: 0 β©: 1
In this case, I think it was monarch butterflies
π: 0 β©: 1
Β Really? That's cool.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Whoa, I really like this! At first I thought it was something from Darwin IV...
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks! I can't take credit for the creature design, though. That's a real (extinct) animal.
π: 0 β©: 1
I know it is! One of my favourites. All I'm saying is that your reconstruction is awesome, albeit slightly outdated.
π: 0 β©: 1
yeah. I'd love to be able to make an updated one.
π: 0 β©: 0
David Peters *hisses* the herseryΒ blogs.scientificamerican.com/tβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes. I drew this before he went crazy, but yeah, I'm sure it's full of inaccuracies.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Probably my favorite Sharowhatever pic
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you!
π: 0 β©: 0
YouΒ΄re welcome! Now I know how mistaken I was thinking of the Sharovipteryx as a dull-coloured, lizard-looking reptile...
π: 0 β©: 1
well one caveat is that I made that picture based on a David Peter's skeleton, before his insanity became well known. So who knows if the thing is accurate. Problem is I don't know if anyone else has done reconstructions on Sharovipterix.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, I find his reconstruction of Sharovipteryx (this one: [link] ) fairly "plausible" anyway (except for the "tail fringe", the forelimbs and several features of the head) but, yeah, he has gone nuts in other respects 
π: 0 β©: 1
Just looking at this again, oh for the time when peter's recons actually had some semblance of science, as opposed to OMG MOAR FLUFFY LIIZAWDZ.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think you should always take Peters' reconstructions with a grain of salt.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, yes I should. I should point out that this was before he went entirely nuts and I still do agree with his analysis of prolacertiformes as basal pterosaurs. But you won't see any dorsal ridges or baby pterosaurs popping out anywhere in my paintings.
π: 0 β©: 1
On which grounds do you think pterosaurs are prolacertiformes? The only "evidence" I'd seen was Peters' own drawings of longisquama, etc. twisted very hard to look like basal pteros. But then again, there may be things that I've overlooked.
π: 0 β©: 1
Remember that I haven't thought about dinosaurs in four years. I seem to remember that the skulls and hip joints were similar, especially between prolacertiformes like Sharovipteryx and Cosesaurus.
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually, I have seen photos of the skull of Sharovipteryx and after taking the time to interpret it, it looks extremely different from the "pterosaurian shape", in fact, it appears more similar to the skull of some sort of lepidosaur, being rather broad and round compared to the generic pterosaur or dinosaur. Cosesaurus appears to have a superficially bird-like skull like those of the megalancosaurs. Also, recent studies have demonstrated that no prolacertiform had an antorbital fenestra, which makes this feature, contrary to Peters's claim, only present on dinosaurs and pterosaurs. The hips of prolacertiformes also bear no greater resemblance to those of pteroaurs than any other basal archosauromorph and in most instances of Peters's reconstructions, they have been distorted somewhat to go with the prolacertiform-pterisaur hypothesis. Basically, the guy has always been crazy (the history of his Anurognathus reconstructions demonstrates that quite well), his degree of crazieness just increased exponentially at one point. The ornithodiran classification is much more widely accepted and new discoveries from Texas seem to support this classification quite well.
π: 0 β©: 1
Allrighty then. I'll make sure to look elsewhere for my future prolacertiform reconstructions.
π: 0 β©: 0
Woah, the background color is not so great, though. Bleah. Didn't notice that in the thumbnail.
π: 0 β©: 0