Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!Make a forum zoo! |
| Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What annoys you about paleontology?; Rant on about moronic theories, complaints, or just animals that annoy you. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 28 2013, 05:04 PM (256,141 Views) | |
| TheNotFakeDK | Jul 24 2016, 02:01 PM Post #5386 |
|
200% Authentic
![]()
|
Well, if you look at other ceratopsids in the news, there's usually two things they all have in common: an artistic reconstruction and photos of an at least mostly complete skull (e.g. Regaliceratops, Spiclypeus). And if they don't have a mostly complete skull, what they have is of merit because of spectacular/bizarre horns and/or frill (e.g. Coahuilaceratops, Machairoceratops). Sinoceratops didn't have an artistic reconstruction made for its publication, and the material consisted only of the roof of the skull and braincase. Furthermore, its horns and frill weren't all that spectacular either, it was a fairly standard looking centrosaurine, with the most unusual feature being that the epoccipitals (which weren't that big) curved forwards a bit. There also wasn't a mount being but up in an American or Canadian museum to be publicised (e.g. Wendiceratops, "Ava"). In terms of what would make an interesting news article, Sinoceratops didn't really bring anything to the table. That said, it did get a bit more coverage locally on Chinese news sites, probably by virtue of being from China itself, but here in the west, there just wasn't much of a fanfare. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Jul 24 2016, 02:39 PM Post #5387 |
![]()
|
Do you really have to say this again? There are various underrepresented extinct animals and not all are dinosaurs. Before you start complaining that one dinosaur is underrated and forgotten maybe consider that there are many other extinct creatures that are even more underrated and forgotten, for example Volaticotheriids. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Jul 24 2016, 05:09 PM Post #5388 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
I never understood where they managed to get this look for Deltadromeus from:![]() Especially those elaborate hornlets over the eyes. |
![]() |
|
| heliosphoros | Jul 24 2016, 05:12 PM Post #5389 |
![]() ![]()
|
It probably had a beak like Limusaurus. |
![]() |
|
| Acinonyx Jubatus | Jul 24 2016, 05:13 PM Post #5390 |
![]()
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!
![]()
|
The lack of high-quality orthographic Eryops skeletals, despite it being a fairly well-known animal. Top view would be especially nice. |
![]() |
|
| Incinerox | Jul 24 2016, 05:46 PM Post #5391 |
![]()
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti
![]()
|
Not sure if sarcasm or not. If in the case it isn't: Two papers that came out this month disagree. Keep up! @Acinonyx: There are a surprising amount of well known animals that lack a skeletal. It bothers me too. |
![]() |
|
| TheNotFakeDK | Jul 24 2016, 06:11 PM Post #5392 |
|
200% Authentic
![]()
|
I think what gets me more is that they went and put very prominent hornlets on Gualicho: ![]() There's no basis for that other than that totally speculative Deltadromeus skull reconstruction. |
![]() |
|
| Jules | Jul 24 2016, 06:29 PM Post #5393 |
![]()
Mihi est imperare orbi universo
![]()
|
Or the fact that the only skeletals are made by David Peters. |
![]() |
|
| Acinonyx Jubatus | Jul 24 2016, 06:35 PM Post #5394 |
![]()
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!
![]()
|
Even Peters has somehow missed Eryops. And, shocking to think as it is, Peters' skeletals are not always horrible- Take his Edaphosaurus, for instance. |
![]() |
|
| TheNotFakeDK | Jul 24 2016, 06:49 PM Post #5395 |
|
200% Authentic
![]()
|
It's also pretty much identical to this one apart from the spines. |
![]() |
|
| Acinonyx Jubatus | Jul 24 2016, 08:44 PM Post #5396 |
![]()
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!
![]()
|
![]() There are differences. Perhaps they're based off the same specimen. |
![]() |
|
| TheNotFakeDK | Jul 24 2016, 09:01 PM Post #5397 |
|
200% Authentic
![]()
|
I don't doubt he individually drew the skeleton, but the positioning of almost every bone (again, minus the spines) is nearly identical. |
![]() |
|
| Acinonyx Jubatus | Jul 24 2016, 09:21 PM Post #5398 |
![]()
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!
![]()
|
What's your point? |
![]() |
|
| TheNotFakeDK | Jul 24 2016, 09:38 PM Post #5399 |
|
200% Authentic
![]()
|
All I'm getting it is that he must have used it as some sort of reference, which is why his Edaphosaurus is a pretty decent skeletal, whereas his other skeletals produced entirely from his own interpretation of the fossils are of the quality we're used to. |
![]() |
|
| Denomon3144 | Jul 25 2016, 03:59 PM Post #5400 |
![]()
Pick a god and pray!
![]()
|
![]()
|
![]() |
|
| 3 users reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups
















