HOME | DD
Vitor-Silva β The many ways to restore a dinosaur
Published: 2012-12-06 04:53:43 +0000 UTC; Views: 8160; Favourites: 179; Downloads: 51
Redirect to original
Description
Suchomimus restored in some different ways: The first is the classic, where the head have exactly the shape of the skull; on the second, skin and fat changes considerably the head format; the third and fourth are the two previous restorations, but feathered.More of my work in my blog: [link]
Related content
Comments: 55
i am a fan of number three, I am not convinced that there was much fat present on the snout, or I at least think soft tissue would follow the indentation in the upper jaw.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
I also prefer the "normal", showing the jaws curves (and the scaled over the feathered). But the other ones are worth to speculate.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
well I don't mind the feathered reconstructions... but yeah
π: 0 β©: 0
Your favorite? Well, is the one that I prefer
π: 0 β©: 1
Two and four look stupid to me, I like how 1 and 3 show the gripping part.
π: 0 β©: 1
Haha, in these examples I wanted to restore the animal with a lot of flesh and soft tissues, to change considerably the "standard" appearence. Much like as a komodo dragon, for example, wich skull is pretty different of the head's shape when the animal is alive.
I did something similar in this one: [link]
π: 0 β©: 0
I approve of #4, but would the lips really cover that much of the "notch" between the maxilla and pre-maxilla?
π: 0 β©: 1
Isn't exactly known, so that's the objective here: show diferent and speculative appearences of a dinosaur when alive . Principally spinosaurs, as they are always (or almost always) restored like the 1st example.
π: 0 β©: 1
I see. 
π: 0 β©: 0
did Spinosaurs really have feathers now, it would not be a good thing with water all of the time.
π: 0 β©: 1
No spinosaur skin impression was discovered yet, so is unknown if they had feathers.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well megalasaurids apparently had feathers but spinosuars probably wouldn't even need feathers, not much use when your swimming around in a wet, dank, muddy swamp hunting for dinos and fish. other theropods had feathers, with exceptions for example it would be unlikely that a spinosaur, Ceratosaur or Coelophysoid to have feathers, it appears to be that excluding spinos, most dinosaurs in Tetanurae had feathers but spinos would have probably not needed them.
π: 0 β©: 1
penguins, loons, grebes, seabirds, and hesperornis-relatives
nuff said
π: 0 β©: 1
but most of them use their feathers for warmth, plus they have to carefully waterproof them, in a swamp, the only diving birds besides duck and kingfishers are cormorants with non waterproof feathers, anyway we have found no feathered spinosaur yet and a scaly skin would be far more advantageous compared to feathers covered skin.
π: 0 β©: 1
Would it? A penguin is better adapted to the water than many animals, owing in part to the nature of its feathers.
π: 0 β©: 1
spinosaurs are unlikely to of had the preening glands that most aquatic birds use for feather water proofing, plus feathers have almost no evolutionary advantage to an animal that large that lives in the water so much of the time
π: 0 β©: 1
It's not unreasonable to guess that spinosaurs had preening glands, sure it's a little untraditional, but that's often the case in paleoart, just because there is no hard evidence for something doesn't mean it can't be restored. That's kind of the point of the All your Yesterday's trend that has taken over DA recently. There isn't a huge evolutionary disadvantage of feathers on a Spinosaur either. I'm not trying to preach, I'm just saying that with paleoart it is best to keep an open mind rather than conform to a well loved ideal, even if said ideal seems logical. Science marches on, and even if we're wrong sometimes, so should we. As an indirect example of my point, if was only around a decade ago when feathering a large Tyrannosaur was considered silly, but research into paleoclimates say otherwise.
π: 0 β©: 1
I do agree with most therapods having feathers, lots of feathers but how is a spinosaur support To reach the preening gland anyway we know abeliosaurs were featherless ( skin impression of one entire side of a cartotaurus)so may be other groups that are not in the same clade as the tyrannosaurs raptors and relatives are in.
π: 0 β©: 1
It is only speculation. It's up to the individual whether or not they support it.
π: 0 β©: 0
It's painful to wish and pine to see a real dinosaur in the flesh, but the one upside, is letting our imaginations go wild! 
π: 0 β©: 1
Wow awesome!
I like the third one the best!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you!
π: 0 β©: 1
Your welcome!
π: 0 β©: 0
Thanks a lot!
π: 0 β©: 1
You're welcome.
π: 0 β©: 0
Belas restauraçáes, pessoalmente gosto mais da primeira, gostei das cores tambΓ©m, mas acho levemente estranha para mim a ideia de espinossaurΓdeos emplumados XD
π: 0 β©: 1
Valeu cara! Concordo com vc nos dois pontos
π: 0 β©: 0
I still don't believe that dinosaurs had feathers. I think they should stay scaly like they were in Jurassic Park
Other than that I did like your dinosaurs
π: 0 β©: 3
Let's go over all the dinosaurs that have confirmed intugement, hm?
Avimimus - 1987
Sinosauropteryx - 1996
Protarchaeopteryx - 1997
Caudipteryx - 1998
Shuvuuia - 1999
Sinornithosaurus - 1999
Beipaiosaurus - 1999
Microraptor - 2000
Yixianosaurus - 2003
Dilong - 2004
Jinfengopteryx - 2005
Juravenator - 2006
Sinocalliopteryx - 2007
Velociraptor - 2007, inferred (quill knobs)
Similicaudipteryx - 2008
Anchiornis - 2009
Tiyanulong - 2009
Xiaotingia - 2011
Yutyrannus - 2012
Sciurumimus - 2012
Ornithomimus - 2012
(And many avians, too!)
First, Jurassic Park is NOT A VALID RESOURCE. The movie was made in the early 90's, long before the massive boom of feathered dinosaurs happened. Secondly, don't even try bringing up the "too big" argument, because Yutyrannus is 30 TIMES LARGER then Beipiaosaurus. Velociraptor was turkey-sized, well under Yutyrannus's size range.
Quill knobs are attachment points for the wing feathers in avians. This means that Velociraptor has more evidence for feathers then for scales. Sorry to burst that bubble.
I also don't wanna hear the "But then they look like chickens! They aren't scary then!" argument. Let's face it, would it really matter if Sue was covered in feathers or scales if it was charging at you? No, because either way it's a god damn TYRANNOSAURUS REX THAT WILL KILL YOU. Intugement =/= Scare value.
Also, Raptor Prey Restraint would be a useless tactic if they lacked feathers. Why would they be poor runners if they were not ambush hunters, and were the active uber beasts they were in Jurassic Park? Why be nocturnal if you can effortlessly bring down animals at least 10X heavier then you are? Who needs feathers if you are the most badass, uber, most incrediawesometacular animal next to the Tyrant Lizard himself?
Raptor Prey Restraint requires a full wing to utilize properly. The activity goes like this:
Say a eagle happens upon a fawn. It takes out the fawn, and holds it down with it's feet while the fawn struggles and tears open it's own wounds. Then the eagle begins to eat the fawn alive. This is what a dromaeosaur (the proper term for "raptors") would do to it's prey. The only social activity dromies seem to have are pairs traveling together, and that's only from a Jurasssic footprint set, and that is inconclusive.
Dromaeosaurs would actually be far MORE efficient at hunting with a full feather coat then with no feathers. (RPR, W-AIR).
And with the fact all of the dinosaurs above are from groups OUTSIDE OF AVES, that means most dinosaurs (aside from the large sauropods) had some form of integument.
Thank you, I'll be having a nice day.
π: 0 β©: 0
But there's many fossils with feather impressions like microraptor, archaeopteryx, anchiornis, sinosauropteryx, guanlong, velociraptor (quill knobs in the arm), ornithomimus...
π: 0 β©: 1
Not necessarily. If one investigates fossilized feather structures, as far as my research has uncovered, we only find quill-like structures more similar to collagen fibers and quills than feathers. The structural differences between protofeathers and actual feathers seem to indicate that some dinosaurs may have had more of a downy layer of fur, but not actual feathers. I'm personally unopposed to the idea that some dinosaur may not have only been covered in scales, but I think research can lead one to reject the notion that dinosaurs had feathers....only birds have feathers.
π: 0 β©: 5
Current scientific convention would beg to differ. Hate to the the bearer of bad news but your arguments are at least 10 years out of date. For instance, Ornithologist Dr. Richard Prum of Yale University Has done extensive research on the evolutionary/developmental origin of feathers and research into theΒ Jehol Biota fossils feathers and feathered dinosaurs of China, such as Microraptor Gui, as well as the numerous specimens of Archaeopteryx Lithographica, many of which unmistakably sport both symmetrical and asymmetricalΒ Pennaceous feathers. Not only that, Melanosomes of the variety found in modern feathers have been isolated within these fossil feathers and have even provided clues as to what colors the dino plumage may have been. Your concerns of collagen fibres as being mistaken for protofeathers with the publication of Sinornithosaurus in 2001 have long since been rendered invalid after extensive computer analysis and aforementioned melanosome analysis. Dr. Prum also made the prediction that T-Rex had feathers over 20 years ago, more than 10 years before the discovery of the feathered Yutyrannus and other feathered Tyrannosaurids. His predictions have since been validated.Β
Being a contrarian is perfectly fine. But a contrarian who doesn't do his homework is just a jackass. Here's some free advice: Take some of your own advice and do some actual research Β before you regurgitate 10+ year old pseudoscience like verbal diarrhea.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think the main issue I find with the above comment is that you seem to be working under a definition of feather that only encompasses the vaned kind. A rather problematic stance as there are structures in living birds considered to be feathers by that do not conform to this morphology (note the rictal bristles here and the filoplumes here not to mention down feathers themselves ). As such given that "protofeathers" do exist in extant birds the term has fallen out of favor as meaningless and misleading.
You might want to look into the current research on feather coloration on dinosaurs (here are the links for Sinosauropteryx, Microraptor and Anchiornis) before saying such research shows they didn't have feathers. I'm honestly left wondering what you've been reading to come to the notions expounded above.
Regardless of soft tissue fossils found, the skeletal remains all consistently point toward birds being deeply nested within theropods. As the process of evolution tends to result a rather bushy phylogenetic tree with much incremental experimenting evident, I'd be rather surprised to find that in the sole case of birds a hopeful monster was their precursor. Evolution doesn't work in this way, nor could we expect to find much evidence for evolution if it did.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey, thank you, I will check that out!
π: 0 β©: 2
No problem. I'm always glad to help people in their quest for knowledge
I can only forward you to Richard O. Prum's excellent take-down of Feduccia's contention that the archosaur group within which birds nest in is not Dinosauria. Feduccia, even nearly 10 years hence, has kept whinging, shifting goalposts and not coming up with any fossils of his own.
If I may butt in and have my say on your reply to ~triggamafia ...
I think you're missing Occam's razor in your set of reasoning tools. While it's true that there is more than one interpretation for the evidence, what matters in Science is which of those explanations is more likely. Young Earth Creationism hasn't been considered likely for at least 100 years if the lack of publishing about it in academic venues in that period has anything to say about that; which is itself due to the many arguments put forth for special creation being disproved in the 19th century.
Theories in science are explanations that connect facts together and allow one to predict where and how to make new findings. These have withstood the test of time being modified as new robust evidence comes to light. If they end up being altogether discarded the newer explanation will have to explain the existing pile of facts all the same (see Isaac Asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong" ).
I honestly am interested to know which scientific principles evolution ignores though. None come to mind all of a sudden...
Regarding your request below to continue this discussion privately, I would respectfully decline. Commenting publicly you're going to have to accept that people will invariably disagree with you on some point. While it's true that arguments can get overly heated, I'm not sensing such acrimony here to any significant extent.
π: 0 β©: 1
Alrigt, I just didn't know if a random deviant wanted us discussing this on his page...haha
But anyways, I'd have to disagree! There is tons of evidence that supports young earth creationism! Thousands of scientists across the world profess their faith in God, and their belief in a God-upheld science! Answers in Genesis, the poster boy of Creationism, has many links and sources and also the personal testomonies of many of the Creationists who on a modern day basis bring new discoveries to science! However, you have to evaluate the scientific evidence, and decide for yourself. I've found that one of the greatest books that helped me decide was "The Genesis Flood, by John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris, which shows a very logical series of evidence within the fossil record and natural world. I believe it was published in the seventies, but the authors have continued to update and include more evidence that supports my view. However, as with most scientific theories, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of anything I believe, but most studies I've read, books I've researched, and even fossil evidence I've observed convinces me.
As for scientific principles, you could go back to the origin of the universe and say that evolution defies the law of relativity....something happens from nothing, which has proven false throughout our lifetimes. Also, the laws of Thermodynamics...the second law of entropy, hotly debated; but essentially summarized as "as an organized unit ages, it breaks down, and wears out." Things do not get better over time, things decay and die. This idea's under constant controversy. And even just the classic biogenesis argument...Non-living matter doesn't create life.
I think there is a lot of evidence that seems to indicate our earth is neither as old as we claim it too be, nor is the notion of life on earth supportable by modern evolutionary theory...however, that is my view, and you have your own...I hope this has maybe given you some curiosity to investigate some modern creationist research...it's very fascinating, regardless of your belief.
π: 0 β©: 1
Your definition of the second law of termodynamics is incorrect. The correct law definition says that an ISOLATED system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards that equilibrium. Since the Earth is an OPEN system (it received energy from the sun: light and heat), the evolution of life does not violate any physical law. The energy from the Sun allows the Earth to remain far from the equilibrium, and this condition allows life to evolve and grow. The biogenesis argument is more rethorical than concrete. The boundary between "life" and "non-life" is merely arbitrary. All agree that bacteria are living being. What about mycoplasms? They are simpler than bacteria. Are they living beings? Are viruses living forms? When inactive, a virus is just a giant molecule of proteins and nucleic acids. Do they "live"? Are DNA molecules living forms? They are able to reproduce themselves, thus are they "living"? Are prions living forms? They reproduce themselves, but are more simpler than DNA. A prion is just a protein. Are proteins living beings? All agree they are not. So, between bacteria and proteins there is a series of "things" that may be both living and not living. Thus, the boundary is arbitrary. All these things are along the boudary between chemistry and biology, and show that there is no real distinction between "living beings" and non-living beings. "Life" is a combination of chemical functions, but it does not mean it is "something" different from the rest of the chemical universe.
π: 0 β©: 0
Dinosaurs are archosaurs. There is a crackpot that is trying to push his idea of birds evolving from Pterosaurs (also archosaurs), but it holds no waters. All evidence points evolution, and evolution of birds from maniraptors. I assume you believe in creationism, which contradicts many scientific theories, not just evolution.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, I hadn't heard the pterosaurs argument...bahaha that's even more challenging to defend. Yes, I'd say I am a creationist, but as I've mentioned in a couple other posts, I really respect what knowledge many evolutionists are bringing to the surface about life in general. There's more than one interpretation of the evidence, and I think everyone is entitled to decide for themselves.
π: 0 β©: 0
You obviously haven't researched shit then. Not only have we found evidence of feathers in dinosaurs, but we even know the colors of some feathered dinosaurs as well. For example, Microraptor was basically all black. Anchiornis was a combination of black, red, and white. For fucks sake, even one simple google search could supply you with a boat loads of information. Did you think dinosaurs just decided to become completely feathered like an Archeopteryx like *snaps*. Obviously there was a long process from simple feather coat to what birds possess. Or are you stupid enough to believe that birds aren't dinosaurs either? There is a nice evidence of the transition of fossils. From protofeathers, to more advanced vaned feathers, like the pennaceous feathers on the arms of many maniraptors (including birds), for which we have evidence from quill knobs, to actual feather impressions. Hell, what do you think Yutyrannus was covered in? I can't think of any ridiculous answer, so I'll let you supply me with one, unless you are smart enough to answer feathers.
Not to make it too easy for you (and partly because my internet connection is very shitty right now), just google search Sinosauropteryx (whose color we also know), Anchiornis, Xiaotingia, Microraptor, Sciurumimus, Yutyrannus, Dilong, Beipiaosaurus, and there are many more examples. I hope you aren't suggesting lumping anything with feather impressions into birds?
Oh, and did I mention Ornithischians!?
π: 0 β©: 1
I respect your view, I really am not trying to be offensive. I'm curious to hear what people think.
π: 0 β©: 0
Hm, i respect your point of view ^^
π: 0 β©: 0
Hm, i respect your point of view ^^
π: 0 β©: 1
thank you! And I definitely respect yours as well!
π: 0 β©: 0
Valeu Estevam!
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>