Why all the Mermaid hate?

 A mammalian 'mermaid'

 I think someone might have just lost all their cool points;)

Mermaid: A Body Found.

The first thing I did when I saw this on my TV was press info. The FIRST thing it said was science fiction, I thought it might be fun (I could always turn it off and delete the show, I did it with Finding Bigfoot, I can do it with this!)  This was never presented as science fact. It was a fun an interesting thought experiment. If mermaids did exist, or were found, how would you explain them them? And yes the Aquatic Ape Theory is not true… BUT if we did find a mermaid, that was related to us, could parts of AAT actually explain this? (I will admit to almost yelling when they brought up the Aquatic Ape Theory, but I waited to here what they had to say first.)

Dinosaurs were originally thought to be birds by Huxley and other early paleontologists, but that was later changed, the theory was toss to fit the evidence they had at the time (no clavicles in dinosaurs were 'known' at the time.) But it was later brought back when more evidence again supported the dino-bird connection. That's what this show did, it used a tossed idea to explain a 'new species' of human, thus pulling the aquatic ape theory out of the trash, all for a good story. Far more interesting than Jurassic Park if you ask me. They just used cloning and basically ignored the rest.

And no the show was not completely unscientific. I learned about the islanders who can dilate their eyes at will underwater to see better, the bloop (which I only vaguely remembered,) whale evolution, and the link between navel sonar tests and whale strandings. A quick google search shows these to be real facts, things that most people might not know about. So while the mermaids are fake (and honestly when have you ever actually heard these things are real in the modern time? I can think of ONE show that even hinted this might be the case but that too was a ruse to keep the viewers interest,) some of the science was real.

This was a very clever use of science and science fiction to make an interesting and compelling story. The fact that they went so far as to cast DIFFERENT actors for the re-enactments was a stroke of brilliance!

What some fail to grasp, is that most people simply don't care about science. They have no real interest in it. I had to argue with my editor a month ago to get a feathered T. rex in a comic, because they preferred them scaly (unfortunately it was a cross over issue and I didn't see the other issue, which was very nicely drawn with a feathered T. rex… with 3 fingers…!)  I went to a new dinosaur exhibit at a local museum a few weeks ago, and watched as wave after wave of skool children briskly walked past the dinosaurs (DINOSAURS, kids are supposed to love them!!!!!) to go play with the interactive stuff at the museum. People just aren't that into what some of the science writers and scientist are into. This show does both entertain and teach. It's a classic technique that some seen to have forgotten how to use, especially with people who are not as vested in the sciences as they are. Did this show really work? Well a buddy, who also watched it, sent me a link to the islanders who can dilated their pupils because he thought it was cool. So yes, I would say it did. It entertained and taught… something that's very hard to do right.

OK, I got that that off my chest, more dinosaurs soon. I'm doing some for that museum I  mentioned:)

 A more fishy 'mermaid'

Found it Leo! Proto Feathers

It's old an dirty and it's something I drew years ago, a proto feathered Coelophysis. With all the new feathered dinosaurs, all the things we think we know are basically tossed into chaos. We have small patches of skin for T. rex and Allosaurus, they show scales for that part of the body (only small sections of preserved skin, there might be feathers elsewere), we have a mostly scaled Carnotaurus. Feathered tyrannosaur ancestors... We have a hetrodontosaur species that shows feathers, completely unexpected, they are more closely related to the iguanadons and hardrosaurs... we have a psitticasuaurs with tail quills and scales... so what the heck are we supposed to put on these guys now, scales or feathers or proto feathers..? And with another recent find that shows that the feathers changed from one type of feather to another in some species as they matured... I'm at a loss. Do the feathers go all the way down to the beginning of the dinosaur family 'tree'? Questions and more questions. I'm left wondering if the scales on the backs of some hadrosaurs are actually scales or are hardened proto feathers like a rhino's horn (made of hairs actually.) Up is down and down is sideways.... my brain hurts. What we need are some large dinosaur find with skin and feathers or scales, like the little ones in Lioning.

I'm wondering if I'm going to have to start drawing 2 versions of every dinosaur, a scaled version and a feathered one. My hand is cramping just thinking of the extra work;)

Best,

Brett

I'm fairly sure the hadrosaur scales are actually scales, but you never know;)

Carcharadontosaurus

Carcharadontosaurus, a relative of Mapusaurs from Africa.

The last week or so I've been engaged in a discussion about theropods living in groups with a fellow blogger and Paleontologist. Basically it boils down to this. Since birds and crocs are dinosaurs closest relatives we should only use them it infer any behavior and biology. I disagreed and lots of comments and emails were exchanged. I was given a copy of the 2007 Deinonychus paper. A paper which is supposed to explain the feeding habits of Deinonychus. In it, the paper basically uses the ora, or what we in the west called the Komodo Dragon, as a comparison to the kill site were the 'raptors' were discovered. 4 raptors were found along with the carcase of a juvenile Tenontosaurus. The original idea being that the tenontosaurus either fell on or killed the 4 in the attack that cost it it's life. The fell on thing is kind of strange but the site is odd in itself. It appears that one fo the raptors 'killing' claws was imbeded in the tail tendons of another raptor. There were lots of shed teeth so we kow more than the 4 raptors were present. The paper argues that this site is simiar to ora kill sites, as the ora is know to be canibalistic and they explain the site as a single raptor killing the Tenontosaurus and then the others coming in and a sort of feeding frenzy ensued, during which things got out of hand and 4 of the raptors were also killed. We are told from this we can assume that this is how EVERY theropod dinosaur should now be interpreted as acting, single hunter and then a group comes in and they fight over and eat the kill, just like oras. It should be the 'fall back' position. I disagree. While the site is strange an equally plausible postion is a rival group of raptors showed up and a fight ensued. It explains the shed teeth, the claw in the other raptors tail, and the 4 dead animals. Am I sure of this..? No, but it's just as likely. The point is we don't actually know. It's a guess, an educated one but it's still a guess. But to claim that EVERY theropod should be cast as having the same exact behavior is just at odds with ALL other animals. No predators, even closely realted ones, act exactly the same way. Most birds hunt alone, but some hunt in groups. Some live alone, others in groups.

The Ora is a strange animal, it's the heaviest lizard, it lives on a small island (or group of islands) with very limited resources, it's now found to be venomus. It's cold blooded. Not very similar to theropods, who had much greater resources, continents to roam around on. Were most likely warm blooded, and not venomous (that we know of.) To just use the one lizard is just wrong. Other veranids don't behave that way, even ones closely related to the Ora. I fail to see how this should be the fall back position and how this is good science. Good science should say we don't know... We have some evidence for some theropds living together, but it's open to interpretation.

Case in point the Mapusaurs site. 7 individuals of various ages. were found burried together. I was told this shows a predator trap, but in every other predator trap (similar to the Le Brae tar pitts, but no tar) there are more than one speices of predator. In fact we have traps like this in the US, one in Utah with LOTS of Allosaurs, some ceratosaurs, some sauropods, a Torvosaurus... lots of different animals, this is a classic predator trap. But to find 7 individuals with no signs of canibalism.. no other animals... a trap that just caught one specific animal around the same time??? That's the best explination? Not that they were living together and were all killed at the same time via flood or volcanic gas or whatever? I'm even will to say we don't know for sure and will most likely never know, unless the bones were all jumbled together, that would mean they most likely died and decomposed together. But that's all we'll ever know for sure.

I keep being told that we can't use mammals for anything related to dinosaurs. But I just read a very interesting post over on Tetrapod Zoology about the neck posture of sauropods*. It turns out THEY used mammals for their comparison. Wait weren't we not supposed to use them?? And then in another post, Darren mentions another new paper about reptiles and birds playing... and how did they kow they were playing... why they were comapared to mammals of course! So what I'm being told is, it's only ok for SCIENTISTS to compare mammals to dinosaurs, just not some frindge artist who doesn't know any actual science.

I wouldn't have brought this up but the person I was arguing with has felt compelled to mention it on their blogs at least 3 times already, even after the papers comparing mammals to reptiles, birds and dinosaurs. I can't really comment there because it isn't in English and the translators are really bad. So I can't be 100 percent sure of what is being said, so I have to go off what I've gotten in English here.

I am of course, willing to change my mind when and if good evidence is ever found. But for now what's there is less than convincing, even to this frindge artist.

Best,

Brett

* Disclaimer: This paper used turtles, lizards, crocodilians and birds and mammals for neck postures. I focused on the mammals to prove a point.