HOME | DD
Tomozaurus — Velociraptor's Image Part 3 - Theropod parade
by-nd
Published: 2013-01-18 03:46:40 +0000 UTC; Views: 10495; Favourites: 90; Downloads: 81
Redirect to original
Description
Follow up to this: [link] and this: [link]Sorry it's so big! Just don't zoom in all the way.
Yeah, this is the last one in this series, I promise, back to doing art that isn't rushed, stupid, and shit now. In any case, the idea just came to me and I had to do it, much like the other too.
To the people this is aimed at: please listen!
To the feathernazi's who are going to come in and go "but these guys were probably feathered too..." the answer is no. Let them have a few scaly theropods while they can, they might not be around for long.
Skeletals of Scott Hartman used, credit to him: shartman.deviantart.com
Related content
Comments: 175
As a self-professed "feather nazi", I'd say that Herrerasaurus is around equally likely to be feathered or not, Marshosaurus more likely than not, and Australovenator and Allosaurus are both unlikely to have feathers.
Marshosaurus is also noteworthy in being almost exactly the right size for JP raptors, and while none of them have giant foot claws like raptors do, Australovenator is a megaraptor, and had an enormous scythe-like thumb claw.
Herrerasaurus is a bit small, though, being in the 2-3 meter range.
Actually, megaraptors are exactly what the public wants in a dinosaur--range in size from a bit bigger than the JP raptor (e.g. Australovenator) to the size of a tyrannosaur (e.g. Siats), enormous claws, scaly, and have a badass name.
I'd also toss ceratosaurs into the fray--Carnotaurus was fast, covered in armored spikes and horns, and much more likely to hunt people, noasaurs had sickle claws on their hands and nasty-looking teeth, and so on.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
It's a little sad, however, that the public does not really know much about the megaraptorans then, isn't it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would argue that almost all theropods have SOME form of feathers, even if they are vestigial. For example, while allosaurus was most likely almost wholly naked, I still think that there would be, perhaps a feathered tail tip for display, or crest.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Maybe not. Despite mounting evidence that the ancestral condition for dinosaurs was fuzzy, some clades (e.g. Hadrosauridae) have abundant evidence for scales on almost the entire body, but seem to entirely lack feathers. This may also apply to theropods. Concavenator corcovatus, despite popular belief, preserves no clear evidence of feathers, and preserves large amounts of skin showing that most of its tail was definitely covered in scales. So far, there are only two cases of a dinosaur preserving limited feathers on a mostly scaly body--Psittacosaurus sp. and Juravenator starki--and neither of them have the "tufts of display feathers" look often ascribed to scaly dinosaurs.
That all is to say, dinosaurs seem to have usually been either all-scaly, all-feathered, or mostly-feathered with some scales.
Update to my prior post: Australovenator, as a basal tyrannosauroid from near the South Pole, almost certainly had feathers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I would argue that there is evidence(though not definitive proof) that the common ancestors of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, AND modern crocodiles had fuzz. After all, it seems that even the most basal dinosaurs had primitive feathers, and I think assuming that they and pterosaur pycnofibers are both derived from the same ancestors seems reasonable. On top of that, crocodiles have been found to have long dormant genes, similar to those that cause feathers.
In that case, it is safe to assume that the base position to be in would be to say that dinosaurs have feather like structures, and then work out which of them do not. By this logic, quills probably diverged from protofeathers and true feathers sometime in the triassic. Therefor, I would compare dinosaurs without feathers to elephants in a sense, they are more or less naked, but may still have a few left(elephants have stray hairs on their bodies, and little fur balls on the tip of their tails). Of course, this is not proven, but to me, it seems like a pretty good bet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There is currently no reason to believe that pycnofibres/feathers existed outside of the Avemetatarsalia. No reason to think that those genetic pathways produced feathers in croc ancestors without better evidence.
Mammals reduce their filamentous integument by reducing the number of hair follicles and/or limiting their growth to wisps. Dinosaurs reduce their filamentous integument by arresting development and causing their feathers to develop as scales. Since their mechanisms are so different, using mammals like elephants as models for feather reduction in dinosaurs is speculative at best.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, first off, you are wrong in saying that there is NO reason to speculate about crocodyliformes having had fuzz. Sure, it is not proven, far from it, but within the context of speculation, I think it is reasonable to at least contemplate it
Even if we ignore crocodiles, I still think saying that pycnofibres and feathers have a common ancestor seems quite logical, within the boundaries of what we know, even if it is not proven. And yes, using an elephant as an example may perhaps seem slightly odd, but let us not forget that there have been birds lacking feathers on some parts of their bodies, so I do not see it as wholly unreasonable to assume that some could perhaps have lost the structures. We know that some triassic dinosaurs seem to have been fuzzy, so it, to me at least, seems reasonable to assume that feathers where the default, and all that lack them lost them over the course of evolution.
But again, that is just speculation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phylogenetic bracketing and developmental/genetic evidence give no reason to believe it, though they don't strictly rule it out. Feathers on stem-crocodilians or stem-archosaurs is like fur on stem-amniotes or stem-reptiles.
I agree that pycnofibres are homologous filamentous integument to feathers, as Kulindodromeus and Tianyulong suggest that ornithischians (except thyreophorans and cerapods) had feathers. Since we don't know much about basal sauropodomorph integument, but the other three major ornithodire clades have feathers, homology is likely in absence of contradictory data about basal dinosauromorph integument.
There's pretty good evidence that most cases of featherlessness involved replacement by scales--so far as I know there are no known primarily naked dinosaurs (depending on taphonomy of Pelecanimimus and Santanaraptor)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, that depends a bit. We have found quills on certain ornithischians, and if we are to assume that they are derived from the same fuzz as feathers and pycnofibres, then I guess that would make them "primarily scaly". But as for feathered individuals, we have not found that, no, though I do think that there is a reason for that. The odds of finding an animal with feathers preserved is very low, but the odds of finding an animal with only a couple individual feathers on the tip of the tail... well the odds of that are almost microscopic. Not only would that require us finding the right species, preserved in the right conditions, lying in the right posture, with the exact part of the body that has feathers preserved. Statistically, even if such an animal does exist, and I believe quite a lot do, the odds of finding the feathers seem very low.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We do have at least one fossil of a primarily scaly dinosaur with some feathers--Juravenator starki's holotype preserves scaly leg and tail integument with near-microscopic filaments projecting between them, but that's not a tail tuft kind of thing. Psittacosaurus's quillhawk thing is also different enough from a tail tuft that it doesn't necessarily suggest the appropriate evolutionary pathways are likely. I can't totally discount it, but I'd like to see positive evidence before I accept the "display tuft" idea.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am not accepting it as fact, but I do find it to be plausible speculation
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Then why does no one give a shit about them?!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm glad you brought this up. You've made a good point for those people who want a big, scaly monstrosity in their story
Btw, Allosaurus is awesome!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Allosaurus is indeed awesome.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think the reason why Allosaurus is not considered a Velociraptor substitute is because it's far too large. It's actually used as a Tyrannosaurus substitute(as it's largest specimens can reach up to ~12 meters and probably around ~5 tonnes). Even Big Al(Allosaurus sp.) has been estimated at around ~1.5 tonnes in mass.
Erectopus would do as a good "raptor" substitute.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...It's not supposed to be a substitute.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh. I got the impression that this image shows the possible substitutes for Velociraptor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Put a (explainable) sicle claw on Herrerasaurus and you're done.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Abeliosaurs are also a good choice.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually if they don't mind the feathers they could use Achillobator
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
probably going to get flamed for saying thus . . . but whats the harm in letting someone draw what they want?
sure if your drawing something for the scientific community I can see why it would be important, but when someone just wants to draw a dinosaur for the fun of it, then why dictate how they draw it. It would be like criticizing someone for drawing a bat with bird wings.
maybe this is coming from my fantasy point of view where anything can happen, hell I confess that when I draw a raptor they look more the the raptors from dinosaur planet (pod, whitetip, ect), regardless of whether its scientifically accurate or not, because I like drawing them
and with regards to the other dinos, I ain't picky, I'll draw em all because I am a dino fanatic and have been all of my life (personally quite fond of Parasaurolophus 
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Uh... I don't have a problem with people drawing anything they want. But I don't see the harm in showing the real life alternatives.
I realize it's unclear, which is mostly because I kind of fucked up when writing it, but this is more aimed at video game dev's and movie producers, who I do feel should embrace the animals seen here or similar instead of returning too the same tired concept of a plagiarised Jurassic Park Raptor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
didn't mean to come off as sounding hostile, just putting a different point of view out there. again sorry if i came across as hostile.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's fine, don't worry about it, I get what you mean.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
allow me to also say I like you work as well
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Came back to this, and I had to un-
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, I was wrong. I retract my claim and will withhold from sharing a Sagan quote to avoid appearing pretentious and/or arrogant.
I still wish it had a background, though
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I know that feathered raptors are more scientifically accurate, but Rule of Cool comes into play here, I think.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Feathered raptor ARE cool.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The thing about feathered raptors being awesome is so true, it's scary.
Also, the Rule of Cute comes to play with Velociraptor when I draw it, along with every other deinonychosaur. Deinonychosaurs are so cute... They make me just want to do this to them: !
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Plus, Coelophysis still exists for all your JP-"raptor" needs, until we find even the thecodonts had feathers
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah, but raptor have more markething value
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
How dare you not mention Ceratosaurus?
Depending whether you use the sub-adult specimen or the Ceratosaurus dentisulcatus specimen you either can have a beefed up "Velociraptor" substitute or a massive monster. And it has freaking horns on its head and its back is covered in scutes! It´s more dragonic and terrifying looking than the majority of scaly "Velociraptors" you see on the internet!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ceratosaurus is indeed a truly awesome animal. I was going for those which resemble the public vision of Velociraptor most closely though, of which Ceratosaurus doesn't fit, though it is arguably more interesting and certainly more unique looking.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ahm, I see.
In that case Australovenator would be the best "Velociraptor" substitute: It´s a "Velociraptor" from the deadliest of all continents, Australia, and it´s got the sickle claws on its hands!
But I also like you bothered to mention Marshosaurus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
We tend to overlook the fact that theropods are not as tall as we imagined them. Blame kangaroo reconstructions and Greg Paul's vertical legs, but Tyrannosaurus wouldn't be looking at the eye of a giraffe, Deinonychus itself wouldn't go over one's hip, and most large theropods would be the height of the JP 80's Deinonychus monsters.
(And giant, more modern Allosaurus is best Allosaurus 
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Giant 12+m Allosaurus are Saurophaganax.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, let's take a look at the definition at the Theropod Database: "Atlas lacks prezygapophysis for proatlas, does not roof over neural canal; horizontal lamina along base of each side of anterior dorsal neural spines arising from spine base anteriorly, free posteriorly; chevrons anteroposteriorly expanded distally (Chure, 1995)".
All vertebral characters, no size-related ones.
As for Epanterias, well, from the same page: " The taxon is based on an axis, mid cervical centrum, first dorsal neural arch, coracoid and distal metatarsal IV. The axial intercentrum is not dorsally rotated, without a flared rim, and an anteriorly semicircular odontoid process. These are like A. fragilis, not A. "jimmadseni". Compared to Saurophaganax, it has differently oriented cervical parapophyses, and no dorsal paraspinal lamina. Thus, Chure (2000) refers Epanterias to Allosaurus fragilis, though he says Epanterias has a less laterally compressed axial centrum, less rectangular distal outline of metatarsal IV and better developed lateral condyle in that element. I provisionally agree, but Chure never adresses the differences he finds, which is confusing."
Bottom line, Morrison strats are a bit of a mess so we don't quite know if we had a chronospecies or different taxa living together, and, all in all, a genus is just a name, and Saurophaganax+Allosaurus is monophyletic anyway and there is nothing stopping me from considering Saurophaganax a species of Allosaurus if they were different taxa.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They are found in slightly different timelines though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The stratigraphy of the Morrison being unclear means that we don't quite know which things are older or younger than others.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not to mention Spinosaurus only looks gigantic because of the sail or hump, but it's still too short to meet a giraffe eye-to-eye.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Meaning the Raptors in the kitchen scene would either be a cute, feathery animal with nasty teeth and claws, or an Australovenator knocking everything over withe it's tail which.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They'd be adorable-looking, just like cougars
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's not really like the JP fans are sitting on Scaly Island and it's rapidly being flooded by the Feathers Sea. They're just following the movies. If the movies had brilliantly plumed brachiosaurs, all the JP fans would be angry at the "scale nazis" for ruining non-coelurosaurs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>