HOME | DD
Paleop — Rustling the jimmadsenis
#allo #allosaurus #dinosaur #allosaur #theropod
Published: 2017-01-01 06:11:47 +0000 UTC; Views: 12248; Favourites: 231; Downloads: 39
Redirect to original
Description
A combination of both big Als and DINO 11541, A. jimmadsenis is a species up for debate. (see link to Brick's Allosaurus skeletals for more information) According to the SVP 2016 meeting Allosaurus may have had blood vessels going to the crest suggesting the presence of a fleshy extension.I based the colors on 3 different dessert varanids and a male lion.
Allosaurus is one of my old favorite theropods. After making this, I have a regained a lot of respect for Allosaurus.
(still more of a Cretaceous fan,
)=======
Disclaimer and credit:
I do not take credit for the skeletal references used in the making of this artwork, be they bases or just visual guides; nor do I claim their creator's work as my own. Please give the authors a look, you may like what you see. links below.
Allosaurus jimmadsenis is based on a skeletal made by
Brick's Deviantart
Brick's Big als
Related content
Comments: 54
assuming the split is correct then yes
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cool. Can use this as a reference for a character in my crossover story idea?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. do not use the same color scheme. Make it at least somewhat different.
2. more info on how it would be used as ref would be useful
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. Okay. I do need some ideas for that.
2. Different colored for different individual.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If I were you I would just make a similar pattern, similar colors but different arrangement of spotts etc.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
didn't add them at the time
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow! Why do you rarely do detailed work? You're doing great!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
this is not a detailed art. it's still stylized
try this for detailed art:
paleop.deviantart.com/gallery/…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know. You chose a beautiful color scheme. But with details it would be even cooler. However, the artist chooses personally like him to draw.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
no. The tongue is like a hawk tongue, it has 2 barbs near the front.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I can't see the teeth, but I guess they are hidden behind those lips & gums.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I guess you are telling me there was going to be teeth showing up, but you forgot 'em.
I really recommend you have to show the teeth on all of your animals whenever their mouth is open, there are some few exceptions on some animals, tho.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the teeth aren't blocked by the lips completely when the mouth is open
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, right... Thanks for telling me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I got excited because I thought it was finally a valid species lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The overall execution of this piece, as are the rest of the dinosaurs in this series, are absolutely fantastic!
My jimmadensis have surely been rustled.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very nice.
A. jimmadseni is indeed valid. It's also the ugliest Allosaurus species IMO, but you made it look pretty nice here
The species that are valid so far appear to be:
A. fragilis (USNM specimen as neotype)
A. atrox (most extant specimens including the blunt-horned skull used in the AMNH rotunda cast)
A. jimmadseni ("big Al" 1 and 2 and a few others)
Whether Epanterias and Saurophagnax are Allosaurus species is still murky since they are so incomplete.
Also "Allosaurus" europaeus and "Allosaurus" tendaguriensis are not Allosaurus. They need to be split, just like Lusotitan and Giraffatitan were separated from Brachiosaurus. They are too far geographically (even in Jurassic times) and there is no convincing argument to be made that they were any closer morphologically to Allosaurus than to any other allosauroids. Some of the material referred to them isn't all that diagnostic either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I knew A.tendagurensis was nothing more than a carcharodontosaur, but A.europaeus is invalid now?
Interesting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A. atrox on the other hand, is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oddly enough,I love that the teeth aren't visible, makes it look less like a monster and more like a real animal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
As far as I know, I don't think A. jimmadseni is valid. So far, evidence points to only three species being valid; A. lucasi, A. fragilis, and A. europaeus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm going off of what had in his chart.
I will ask him for his reasoning for the split.
I did say it was up for debate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So if not it's own species, would it fall under A. fragilis?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>