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: |
| Favorite Dinosaur Reconstructions | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 28 2013, 09:05 PM (305,693 Views) | |
| Bigwhale | Sep 17 2014, 11:59 AM Post #976 |
![]() ![]()
|
![]() Finally a good Deltadromeus !!!!!(Yeah, it lack feathers, but still, it's good and is the only good Deltadromeus that I could find) |
![]() |
|
| Yi Qi | Sep 17 2014, 12:50 PM Post #977 |
![]() ![]()
|
^ You guys realize that deltadromeus is a ceratosaur right? as in the theropod group where we found scales covering up almost everything, so a scaly deltadromeus is only logical. also, while nice, its been noted that deltadromeus is more similar to noasaurs than to things like Limusaurus and elaphrosaurus, for one, its arms were HUGE and had hooked middle claws like those of noasaurus and masiakasaurus, so maybe a giant noasaur rather than a giant limusaur would've been better. ontopic: and one of the best austroraptors as of yet: ![]() |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Sep 17 2014, 12:53 PM Post #978 |
![]() ![]()
|
I could totally see this as being concept art for the JW petting zoo. |
![]() |
|
| Mathius Tyra | Sep 17 2014, 12:56 PM Post #979 |
![]()
Rat snake is love... Rat snake is life
![]()
|
Doesn't the only set of Deltadromeus bone we have lack hands and claws? |
![]() |
|
| Yi Qi | Sep 17 2014, 12:57 PM Post #980 |
![]() ![]()
|
IIRC we have bahariasaurus which IIRC is tought to be the same animal. Still, you see the proportions on this skeletal and the reconstruction don't match, deltadromeus was something, but it definately wasn't a limusaur. Edited by Yi Qi, Sep 17 2014, 12:58 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Iben | Sep 17 2014, 02:19 PM Post #981 |
![]()
There'll be no foot-walking! Just air-flying!
![]()
|
Imagine this scenario. All elephants we find have naked skin, with little to no hair. We then find a mammoth skeleton, but not a mummy, so we have no indication for the big furry coats they actually are known to have. "Logically", we would have to give them naked skin and not the woolly furry coats. I'm not saying that Deltadromeus was/wasn't feathered or scaled, I'm just saying that it's not a flawless way of thinking
|
![]() |
|
| Jon Sam | Sep 17 2014, 02:27 PM Post #982 |
![]() ![]()
|
Trex, Livyatan & Edmontosaurus![]() ![]()
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Sep 17 2014, 05:26 PM Post #983 |
![]() ![]()
|
Which type of mammoth? If you're suggesting that of a woolly mammoth, I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. We know what the climate and geography of the land was at the time period that the woollies were alive, it only makes sense for them to have a thick coat of wool. There is no other possible way they would have survived without their coats, and the amount of other evidence that we would have even if we truly didn't know whether or not mammoths had furry coats, is to great to ignore. Therefore, that type of thinking isn't "logical" at all. |
![]() |
|
| Yi Qi | Sep 17 2014, 06:51 PM Post #984 |
![]() ![]()
|
Thats actually true, but when we have little to no evidence of an animal, its safer to assume it was like its relatives than otherwise, because then you'd be arguing for a specific specialization which you have no proof off, therefore guessing it was like its relatives is a safe assumption while saying it was different is just wild speculation. Yes, its not flawless and it is awesome that it isn't, but its the safest and best bet. Edited by Yi Qi, Sep 17 2014, 07:21 PM.
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Sep 17 2014, 09:05 PM Post #985 |
![]()
|
What about pachyrhinosaurs. We don't have mummys or skin impressions and they live in sub-arctic climates, *cough*Prince Creek Formation*cough*. We could easily argue that they didn't have any form of insulation and just had scales and quills, no protofeathers as we didn't find any in ceratopsians. Your thinking isn't so logical after all. Edited by Guat, Sep 17 2014, 09:36 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| BossAggron | Sep 17 2014, 09:18 PM Post #986 |
|
Formerly Dilophoraptor
![]()
|
i always illustrated them with Shaggy Quills. Anyways, Spinosaurus in the old days or Not 2014 was inferenced from its closest relatives, that was a safe assumption until we found more decisive evidence. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Sep 17 2014, 09:30 PM Post #987 |
![]()
|
I meant like the WWD one. Anyways lets forget about that and look at neat reconstructions.![]() ![]() Lesson 1: Love John Conway's paleo-art along with Mark Witton's |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Sep 17 2014, 09:30 PM Post #988 |
![]() ![]()
|
It's worth noting that the Pachy's range did extend further south into more sub-tropical or at least temperate climates (such as the Horseshoe Canyon Formation in Alberta).
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Sep 17 2014, 09:31 PM Post #989 |
![]()
|
I was more into the Prince Creek Pachys but point taken. Edited by Guat, Sep 17 2014, 09:34 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Iben | Sep 18 2014, 12:35 AM Post #990 |
![]()
There'll be no foot-walking! Just air-flying!
![]()
|
Not really no. We could have easily assumed it went the Walrus way and went for a thick layer of blubber instead. Those guys are doing fine without a thick coat of wool ![]() Don't forget that life gets creative sometimes. ![]() @Austro : Yes I know, I'm merely pointing out that a restoration with feathers wouldn't be completely illogical either
Edited by Iben, Sep 18 2014, 12:36 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 4 users reading this topic (4 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






















