HOME | DD
Swirlything β Reconstruction
Published: 2012-06-11 13:56:20 +0000 UTC; Views: 5117; Favourites: 177; Downloads: 31
Redirect to original
Description
While i'm messing about... Old idea, new pic. I love palaeoart and seeing all the different interpretations people come up with for things like dinosaurs, etc. A living animal can look very different to the skeleton so one artist's version can look completely different to another's. Especially when the creature has strange, specialised anatomy.I keep playing with the idea of taking skeletons of modern, familiar animals and treating them in the same way, as if they're long extinct and only known from fossils.
This is a dolphin. They have really bizarre skeletons- I can only imagine the confusion that skull would cause for a start. It might have been an idea to draw it as a reptile though, it wouldn't be the first time that's happened.
Related content
Comments: 47
I like this a lot; a little of reality, a little bit of fiction. Should call it a "deinocetus"!
π: 0 β©: 0
Wow! That is fascinating! Dolphin and whale skeletons really take me aback. Like, I don't think you could actually compare a sperm whale to a sperm whale skeleton just by looking at it. It's so weird and cool!
I really love this picture, to be honest. How'd you come up with the colors and design?
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you!
I looked at old dinosaur reconstructions for the colours and design and took inspiration from there. Seems artists tended to base their designs on whatever modern reptiles were available. I did the same thing for a mammal- if you'd only seen things like mice and squirrels, then you found the bones of an extinct mammal, you'd probably assume it was brown and furry too.
π: 0 β©: 1
True, true. It's a very interesting design. Now that I look back on it, that's a legitimate reconstruction given the skeleton provided and fauna that surround it.
What I would give to just see way back when. Whales looks entirely different from their skeletons. What if there are other sea or land animals that look completely different from their skeletons? That would be awesome!
π: 0 β©: 0
Nice but I was wondering why color it brown? Β Is it from seals?
π: 0 β©: 0
That reminds me. Apparently a T-rex skull was found in really really good condition that has an area similar to that of a turkey's where the gobble is attached.
Of course, it could just be scarring, tissue damage, or the result of some sort of infection.
π: 0 β©: 0
Its strange how we keep as close to the bone structure as possible. For all we know, opthalamasaurus( I probaly misspelled that.) could have had a primitive melon.
π: 0 β©: 1
Except that ichthyosaurs were deaf, so no melon or echolocation...
π: 0 β©: 0
This is ingenious. I've been waiting for an artist to do a series of works on this (modern, familiar animals if we only knew them from skeletal remains like extinct organisms), but was not expecting someone to do it so beautifully. Keep it coming!
π: 0 β©: 0
I like ti when people try to reconstruct animals from bones which they don't know the identity of. Always a good time.
π: 0 β©: 0
This is a fantastic idea, I especially like how you drew it's forelimb so that it's joints and digits are all visible, sort of like a seals' forelimb.
π: 0 β©: 0
I wonder if they'd cyclops the elephant skull.
π: 0 β©: 0
This is a really interesting concept, I particularly like your colouring around the back fin.
π: 0 β©: 0
I've always suspected that the Dilophosaurus had some sort of flesh sac on top and around their v-crest. Especially considering that smaller boney protrusion that sticks out just behind the base of the crest plates. Maybe for sound. Maybe some sort of chemical weapon, possibly like what the bombardier beetles use today. Which would certainly explain the dragon myths.
π: 0 β©: 1
No it wouldn't, since there isn't any chance of a live Dilophosaurus in human times.
π: 0 β©: 1
There's a hell of a lot of circumstantial evidence that says otherwise.
π: 0 β©: 1
Such as faked or misinterpreted dinosaur-human tracks, various hoaxed dinosaur figurines, and generalized world myths (and artifacts thereof) that could, of course, simply be people making stuff up.
There is no evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted, only a bunch of creationists making noise about bunk, disproved archaeology, and trying to find fact in bunches of myths that are most probably not based on anything other than imagination.
Paleontologists do not "cover up" such evidence either, because all supposed evidence has either been disproved as hoaxes, or that the ideas of creationists are hand-waving suppositions about dragon myths.
It's the paradigm of rabbits in the Cambrian, if a single legitimate out of sequence fossil was found, or ANY evidence of living dinosaurs, science would embrace it. I'm pretty sure that if a living dinosaur was discovered, scientists would want to study it and learn as much as they could, and get shit-tons of grant money in the process. The idea that science maintains a huge conspiracy against out-of-sequence fossils or supposed living dinosaurs is rubbish, because any scientist could make lots of money and acclaim out of studying such paradigm-shifting discoveries.
The fact that Christians are literally trying to argue that dragons exist, ONLY so they don't have to accept evolution, is mortifying and discouraging to me. It's amazing, the sort of convoluted mental acrobatics people are capable of, just to justify their supposedly "special" world-view...
π: 0 β©: 1
1) I didn't accuse paleontologists of covering anything up. IF any evidence were being covered up, it wouldn't be them. I know too many that would be absolutely ecstatic to find anachronistic fossils.
2) "Dinosauria" was coined in 1841. You do realize that there's ~5,000 years of recorded human history before the invention of the word, right?
3) Was it you I brought up the figurines from the Jalisco culture with? The ones that look like Ankylosaurs. If so, you dismissed them as being porcupines (if I recall correctly). Just curious, did you ever google the figurines?
4) Do you honestly believe that people would be willing to admit large swathes of their doctorates are useless? Just look at the field of Egyptology. There's so much evidence* piled up against large chunks of what is still taught today, yet most Egyptologists simply dismiss this evidence as coincidence and happen-stance.
*actual evidence such as tool marks and cross-disciplinary examination of geology, weathering, astronomy, and architecture. Also, mummies and things found with mummies (such as tobacco leaves).
π: 0 β©: 1
1) That's good. Fossils of any specific group found after their supposed extinction is referred to in Paleontology as representing a "lazarus taxon" or "ghost lineage". Such creatures are often found, and are incorporated into paleontology without much trouble. Cambrian rabbits or Holocene dinosaurs have not been found, though.
2) There is recorded history, and there is science. Recorded history can be biased by observation, or written and written over by winners of wars, and by propaganda. Just look at history classes in Japan, that refuse to teach about Japan's horrendous participation in WW2. I would take contemporary science over recorded history any day, because Science is mostly about progress towards better facts, history can be rewritten by winners or leaders. Owen, who coined "Dinosauria" in 1841, was himself a sort of creationist, he acknowledged extinction, but not evolution, and was great at interpreting fossils. Science has progressed further now, and we no longer have any creationist Paleontologists, because the field has progressed.
3) You're really over-generalizing. I was not scoffing like an arrogant skeptic, I did not dismiss an ankylosaur as a porcupine. I simply pointed out that glyptodonts look a good deal like ankylosaurs, and went extinct much more recently. They lived throughout central, southern, and southern north america. I would expect, that if the figure was genuine, it could represent a portrayal of a glyptodont, and not an ankylosaur. Google "glyptodont" or "doedicurus", and see for yourself.
4) Scientists have to flip the table and admit they are wrong on a regular basis. Standard views are often challenged and changed. Just that no such paradigm shift as ridiculous as a young earth, or human-dinosaur coexistence is among them. The reason for this , is that there is no evidence to support these claims. Even if live dinosaurs were found, this would not actually refute evolution, any more than the coelocanth, peripatus, okapi, or any other "living fossil" does. I'm sure that many zoologists and scientists would be eager to study a living dinosaur, and would be blessed with new opportunities for study if one was found. Finding a live dinosaur is a notorious creationist red-herring, it would not change scientist's minda about evolution, because science has accomodated for prehistoric survivors many times (like I said, coelocanth, okapi, peripatus, alligator gar etc).
*Egyptology, and any archaeology is not a good analogy for paleontology, because many archaeologists are biased by their ethnicity or religion. No such bias exists with paleontology, for the most part, because deep time and fossils do not concern religion (other than perceived violation of genesis, which is thought of as allegory anyhow, by many Jewish, Christian, and eastern religions). Paleontology generally requires lack of religious bias, whereas archaeology is rife with researchers whose ethnicity or religion effect their perception of the field. It even occurs with Christians, not many Catholics accept that the tomb of Jesus and his wife Mary Magdelene, may have been found, but there it is.
I apologize for being brash about my views. But sometimes a myth is just a myth, not a lurking dragon.
π: 0 β©: 1
*DISCLAIMER: I'm a titch drunk right now and I've just gotten off of a 12 assist at work (currently 3:08 am) So if any of this is horridly mispelled, doesn't make sense, or is offensive; sorry.
It's a shame no one has tested any of those anatomically modern human remains (fossils?) found during the California/Colorado gold rushes (I know it was one of them, I don't remember which), or the ones from that coal mine (I think it was in Pennsylvania, not sure) for authenticity and age. At the very least, testing will show whether or not they're hoaxes or poorly reported in the way they were found. Dawkin's flunky would have to announce that the theory of evolution via common decent was wrong if that happened (can't remember if it was Dick or his lakey; SIDE NOTE: Root 100 tastes awful with icecream).
agreed (mostly) on the Red Herring bit and adaptation (lol) of science in response to new evidence for #4. It's more willful ignorance on the part of some. Also, at least 1/2 of them can't even really call themselves Christian because they fail epically at some pretty central tenants of their religion (don't judge others, no racism/sexism/classism, treat others like you want to be treated, "do" then "say", humility in general, passive aggression instead of violence (check out the cultural contexts of the stuff Yeshua said about turning the other cheek and carrying the Roman's pack another mile), etc).
Oh! Fun thing to do. Compare Genesis chapter 1 and 2 to the 7 Tablets of Creation (Sumerian).
And "no", no to the Annunaki-were-aliens thing. It translates to "those who came from Heaven", not "those who came from the heavens". So, more spiritual ET than E.T. phone-home ET.
We need a way to indicated tone and emotional emphasis in text beyond italics and bolds (both are so vague).
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm glad you took my response with good nature.
Yeah, I once fell for all that Annunaki-Nephilim stuff, but then I realized that Zachariah Sitchin and all those guys are really heavily misinterpreting ancient text.
I would agree that Christians should act more agreeable and exemplary in Christ-like compassion. The amount of intolerance by so-called Christians is problematic. Christian Homophobia in particular is puzzling, those that fully understand the bible (so I have been told), will know that the typical view in those times was of gay sex as a way of subjugating Roman prisoners of war. They say in that part that gay sex is wrong, for that reason, but Jesus was observed to bless 2 Roman soldiers who were gay lovers (apparently) in the New Testament. So I suppose, stereotypical gay sex was seen as bad, but gay affection is observed elsewhere in the bible and not condemned. As for the whole gang-rape scenario in Sodom, firstly it seems to condemn rape, and also I really think that fornicating with angels would be seen as a huge sin, especially after the whole nephilim thing.
As for the coal-mine people, it should be noted that oil or tar can thicken and turn into solid congestions within thousands of years. Tar can trap animals and bury them quickly, so perhaps they were ice-aged indians trapped by tar or an oil seep, simply thousands of years ago. Geological congestions that appear old can form fairly quickly, there are certain fossil lobsters that only took a couple of years to form. Not all fossils are like this, but sometimes it can form deposits around OOParts such as coal hammers, etc.
π: 0 β©: 1
Where's that passage? (gossip and rumors fall under "false testimony")
Also, hitting the nail on the head with Sodom.
That's why I suggested testing for age as well as authenticity. There's still the matter of the anatomically modern human remains that were dug out near gold veins during the gold rush. I want to say Berkley has them, but I don't remember and tying to go through the Coast to Coast AM backlog to try to find the episode(s) that's mentioned in is a monster.
π: 0 β©: 1
I do not profess to know a great deal about the bible. At the very least, Jesus had precious little negative to say about homosexuals. I have heard some stuff about mis-interpretation of the word "eunuch" supposedly referring to gays also. I'm not a scholar of the bible, and I'd frankly be the last to use it as a source. The prisoners of war thing is supposedly what Leviticus meant when he referred to homosexuality as an abomination (that is, soldiers anally dominating prisoners of war).
Yeah, I was just offering my perspective. I'm sure there are anti-homophobe resources that specify about the bible stuff I was mentioning, there are of course, actual gay christians too.
π: 0 β©: 1
So many people have twisted the words of religion (especially the Bible) over the centuries for their own purposes, it's hard to keep track of things.
Besides "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you."
π: 0 β©: 1
Great idea. Definitely looks dinosaur-ish...and kinda otter- or seal-ish.
π: 0 β©: 0
i thought it was a mermaid/crocodile hybrid at first
π: 0 β©: 0
I actually love the concept! (Funny enough I'm doodling modern animals as dinosaurs in my spare time 
π: 0 β©: 0
That's a dolphin? I thought it was one of those creatures that existed during prehistoric times.
Other than that, this is a really interesting concept.
π: 0 β©: 2
Oh wait, did you mean the link in the description? Oops, sorry. That's a prehistoric whale, yes. I mentioned it though because it was mistaken for something else- a reptile- when it was first discovered, hence 'basilosaurus' meaning king lizard.
π: 0 β©: 1
Nah, I was talking about the picture.
π: 0 β©: 0
Well, that's the look I was going for! If you look at a dolphin's skeleton, it does look really prehistoric or alien.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, that is true.
Another animal that has a weird-looking skull is the elephant.
π: 0 β©: 1
I have a design for an elephant that I need to redraw. :3
π: 0 β©: 1
And now I would like to see that.
π: 0 β©: 0
If you really want to interpret weird looking anatomy, check out a platypus skull. It looks like a set of nasty pincers.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, I've seen those. Really strange looking things.
π: 0 β©: 0
Pretty interesting idea here. These sort of things always interest me. Are you planning on doing any other animals the same way?
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks 
π: 0 β©: 0