Saturday, June 20, 2009

Labocania anomala



I was going to try and get some actual reference for this one, but I could find none. I know I've seen some skull remains somewhere but my web-fu was not up to the challenge. Andrea Cau of Theropoda has proposed that this guy MIGHT actually be a late surviving carcharodontosaur, so I drew one up and added a quick tone. This is COMPLETELY hypothetical!!

Sorry for the slow posting, I've been busy. New stuff soon:)

Best,

Brett

Monday, June 15, 2009

Tyrannosaurus X

Been a bit busy, so no time for anything major. Here's a hypothetical drawing of the hypothetical/mysterious Tyrannosaurus X. A possible gracile tyrannosaurus, that some believe is a separate species from the traditional Tyrannosaurus rex.

I'll try to get more in depth when I get a chance to color this up. But I'm trying to finish off these pages, start a new project, and draw a skull restoration:)

Best,

Brett

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Shaochilong maortuensis

Sometimes the best stuff has already been dug up. Recently an old specimen (considered a sub species of Chilantaisaurus) has been re-examined and found to actually be a member of the carcharadontosaur family. So it's been renamed Shaochilong maortuensis.

This is the first instance of a carcharadontosaur in Asia. It's know from pretty scrappy remains and might actually turnout to be a juvenile, so this drawing it pretty hypothetical. The cool thing is that these animals might have actually feed on primative ceratopsians and competed with early tyrannosaurs.

Best,

Brett

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Swimming spinosaurs?

Sorry it's not in color, but I just finally got it scanned! A Suchomimus catching a young plesiosaur.

A few years ago I was asked what I thought of the swimming Spinosaurus idea (I was told this was put forth by Robert Bakker but I've only heard it mentioned a few times so I have no idea.) At the time I said I found it unlikely, at least for Spinosaurus, the sail would be a hinderence in the water, waves would topple it, the local crocs would eat it for lunch as they were far more adapted to the water, yadda, yadda, yadda. I didn't really look into it, I knew spinosaurs seemed to found close to water, and that they would eat fish (fish scales found in the stomach area of Baryonyx) but that's all I had read about swimming spinosaurs... until a few months ago.

Other than the scene in JP3 most of the spinosaur pictures show them wadding out into ankle deep water looking for fish, like some giant egret or stork. Since spinosaurs are so poorly known and fragmentary it's very difficult to get an idea about what they might have been doing, why did they get to big? Spinosaurs has been said to be 65 feet long dwarfing every other theropod, that's at least 17 feet longer than the next largest theropod (this is highly unlikely but is found all over the web. They were more likely similarly sized to the other large theropods, perhapse a bit longer but more gracile.) Did they eat fish exclusively? A spinosaur tooth has been found embeded in a pterosaur bone, along with the fish scales in Baryonyx's stomach were the remains of an Iguanadon (so the answer to that would be no.) How did they behave? Questions upon questions that we'll most likely never be able to fully answer.

I stumbled upon this site looking for skeletal reference: spinosauridae.fr.gd
(This is the English translated version, its really easy to read so don't let the translation stop you!)

On the site are papers, drawings and pretty much the best place to go for info on spinosurs on the web. As I read the papers cited, and looked at the images, the site was trying to tell me something. The papers mentioned isotopes from spinosaur bones are more in line with crocodiles and animals that live in an aquatic habitat, foot print traces of swimming theropods... this site was arguing FOR semi aquatic spinosaurs. I spent a few hours looking everything over (I'd go over specifics some, but I can't get it to load properly, my computer has bogged down, but go read it for yourselves!) And while I think more finds need to be located, it's very compelling stuff. Semi aquatic spinosurs... cool!

Best,

Brett

Friday, June 5, 2009

Coelophysis


I'm still torn on whether these animals had protofeathers or not...

Best,

Brett

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Sitting Theropods and their footprints

A few months ago a new paper described a fossil impression of a sitting theropod. I had actually drawn a reconstruction of the beast months before, based on footprints from the area, known to some as the St George theropod. It's entirely speculative, but since there is no actual skeleton associated to the footprints, it's hard to say who the footprints actually belong to. It could actually be one of a number of known species but in this case nothing official has been named. So this is a hypothetical image of the track maker and below is a shot of the position it was in while sitting.

For this image I actually chose a theropod that I had not drawn before, so this is a Liliensternus inthe resting position. Note the strange position of the front legs/arms, Freaky!

For more information head on over to the Open Source Paleontologist:)

More new dinosaurs soon, I'm a bit behind on my actual work so I have't had time for many new drawings. But I am working on some:)

Best,

Brett


Sunday, May 31, 2009

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.