HOME | DD
RAPHTOR β Spinosaurus concept sketches
by-nc-nd
#conceptart #dinosaur #sketch #speedpaint #spinosaurus
Published: 2017-02-13 15:13:29 +0000 UTC; Views: 31533; Favourites: 795; Downloads: 281
Redirect to original
Description
I'll be doing a Spinosaurus piece in the future.So as the title says, these are just some rough ideas I pulled out of my dome. Let me know your thoughts.Related content
Comments: 58
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
These both look great! Not to nitpick, but isn't it thought that the spinosaurus spine went down to maybe a quarter of its tail? Also really like the penguin esc feathers.
π: 0 β©: 0
....this makes me wonder if Spinosaurus' legs were oriented like a modern water bird's legs are. With the theory that the sail is more fleshy and structured like a camel's hump, it makes me wonder how Spinosaurus would be able to carry all that extra weight with the traditional posture of other theropods without falling on its face. Maybe a more swan-like posture would make it easier to carry all that upper body weight, while giving it a more upright posture?
π: 0 β©: 0
From what i heard the Spinosaurus was actually like a Crocodile. As in aΒ quadruped with scales?
π: 0 β©: 1
Its life style was very similar to a crocodile, as in it was semi-aquatic animal that used pressure sensors to catch and eat fish. We actually have no idea what its skin coverage was as we have no skin impressions but the two most popular ideas are that it either has crocodile like scales or penguin like feathers. And the quadruped thing was a disproven theory from 2014 that sprang from incorrect leg measurements, it more than likely actually had legs like the one in the drawing, only slightly longer than the arms.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you for the explanation. I wish i knew better.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Spinosaurus' short hind legs made me like it even more. Makes it more unique and bizarre (in a good way). If you did a similar image of a Spino with typical theropod legs, it probably wouldn't look as creepy as this one
π: 0 β©: 0
They both are amazing! Although why does the feathered one drag it's tail?
π: 0 β©: 1
It is probably resting
π: 0 β©: 0
Cool! The Spinosaurus are very top predator and huge!
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm torn. Part of me thinks yay, feathers, then at the same time, if feathers where more common than scales, then scaly dinosaurs would be cooler because they'd be the rarity.
π: 0 β©: 0
Feathered version; definetly deserves its own picture
π: 0 β©: 0
I love the second one ! (Even if both look very good)
π: 0 β©: 0
Just got the news Spinosaurus does not have hollow bones but solid. Β I like them both good job !
π: 0 β©: 0
Ooh, these are really well done. I'm not sure why but I really like the second version, it looks a little more balanced.
π: 0 β©: 0
They might be a little bit taller:Β www.pinterest.com/pin/32573698β¦
But overall it's really good!
π: 0 β©: 0
I hate the square sail it may be accurate it may not i just dont like it love the art i love the sail on your art cuz ur art is dank af but the square sail is ugly and dumb (not criticizing your art just sharing my opinion on spino sails in general )i like the half circle or long Cresent
π: 0 β©: 0
Swimmy grabby lizard regent!!! Β Approve! Β I personally like the short legs you've given it, makes it look more amphibious ^^
π: 0 β©: 0
Maybe make the LEGS a little longer like HERE. >
π: 0 β©: 1
Nope, that's an outdated version.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, the point is that the legs HERE are dangerously close to beingΒ a Quadrupedal Spino, or the debunkedΒ Ibrahim reconstruction. I'm just saying the legs should be a BIT longer.
Maybe like THIS. >
Β
π: 0 β©: 1
The Ibrahim reconstruction is not debunked. Available evidence points to it being correct in the proportions of the legs and stuff, even though the animal might not have been quadrapedal.
π: 0 β©: 1
Haven't you heard of Sigilmassasaurus, whom the shorter legs might belong to?
π: 0 β©: 1
What no. You are misinterpreting things. There was a paper on how Sigilmassasaurus is probably a valid genus and not a synonym of Spinosaurus, but the only material currently referred to Sigilmassasaurus are a series of neck vertebrae. The legs are still referred to Spinosaurus, and there has been no paper claiming otherwise. Whether you like it or not, Spinosaurus was a short-legged animal.
π: 0 β©: 1
Even shorter than THIS reconstruction > Β or THIS > ?
π: 0 β©: 1
The evidence points to the Ibrahim leg size being correct, so yes.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, the reconstructions I shared look accurate to ME. Plus, a lot of artist say the Ibrahim reconstruction is disproven thanks to The 2015 re-description of Sigilmassasaurus.
However, it maybe possible the Ibrahim reconstruction was due to a DEFORMITY in the legs, like Achondroplasia. After all, Sue the T. Rex had parasites on her jaw; Judith the Spiclypeus was found with damage to her lag pointing to degenerative osteoarthritis and chronic osteomyelitis; And Big Al the Allosaurus was found with an infected toe. So why couldn't we speculate thatΒ Ibrahim's Spinosaurus had Achondroplasia?
π: 0 β©: 2
You sound like you are just trying to hold on to the old outdated version with long legs.
They might look accurate to you, but then you aren't using the known fossil evidence we have from Spinosaurus. The re-description of Sigilmassasaurus did nothing to disprove the Ibrahim reconstruction.
Why would it be due to a deformity? Short legs make perfect sense considering the ecology and environment in the area Spinosaurus lived in. The earlier close relative Irritator also shows a trend in decreasing leg length. You are free to speculate whatever you want, but that is at the moment baseless speculation. I am sure the scientists behind the Ibrahim reconstruction considered if it was a deformity but decided against it due to the fossils not showing any signs of that. It is like asking why we couldn't speculate that short arms in Tyrannosaurids were deformities.
π: 0 β©: 1
The inability to Speculate the Tyrannosaurs' arm is because we found plenty of Tyrannosaurus skeletons to prove T. Rex and later Tyrannosaurs (as opposed to the EARLIER Tyrannosaurs)Β had short arms, so THAT goes without saying.
π: 0 β©: 1
Exactly. Just like Spinosaurus having short legs goes without saying.
π: 0 β©: 1
Unlike T. Rex, however, we Don't have many Spino fossils at ALL!
π: 0 β©: 1
But you are straight up ignoring the fossils we have and clinging to faulty arguments in a desperate attempt to defend an outdated depiction.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, did I neglect to show you THIS? >
π: 0 β©: 1
That was made 3 years ago by an artist that hasn't examined the bones themselves. Why do you trust artwork over scientific papers?
π: 0 β©: 0
Artists aren't palaeontologists. Ibrahim got criticism from his peers because of the legs, but he replied to them and showed how they got to their measurements:Β markwitton-com.blogspot.be/201β¦
The legs are accurate. Really short, but accurate. Sigilmassasaurus has nothing to do with it because it's only one or two neck vertebrae and a skull bone that got attributed to that genus.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Then why are people saying that the Ibrahim reconstruction is debunked and side with Scott Hartman?
π: 0 β©: 1
Because Scott Hartman was one of the first to put forth criticism about the legs which people of course jumped upon, but they never seem to have followed to debate further because they don't seem to have noticed the authors of the 2014 paper responded (as you could've read in that link I posted) and showed what Hartman did wrong and why there's nothing wrong with the legs their size (as you also can read in the link I posted).
That and the fact that FSAK-11888 (the specimen with the short legs) is a juvenile and so the remains found can't be a mix of several specimens (because otherwise you'd have bones of several ages) show there's nothing chimeric about the new Spinosaurus. Except for those three bones that are now part of Sigilmassasaurus, but don't have anything to do with the leg length. It doesn't change anything.
Also, some might tell you the legs are so small because they are from a juvenile and that they stuck those under an adult Spinosaurus, but that's also wrong: the authors of the paper scaled those up to match adult proportions based on the pelvis and vertebrae. If they did stick juvenile legs under an adult Spino you'd get way smaller legs, because if you compare the two next to each other you get this:Β Spinosaurus aegyptiacus specimens. Β Compare the third one (FSAK-11888) with the adult one on the left. Scaled up legs, you see?
π: 0 β©: 1
Maybe that's why we ended up with two different modern reconstructions of Spinosaurus; the 2014Β Ibrahim reconstruction, and the 2015-2016 reconstructions based on Hartman's as seen HERE. > Β or Here > Β or even HERE >
π: 0 β©: 1
Most likely, some just don't know.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, well, As long as their both up to date.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, only one is up to date so...
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>