Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Biggest - Baddest REVISED by Kronosaurus82 Biggest - Baddest REVISED by Kronosaurus82
:icondonotplz::iconusemyartplz:

Titolo - The Biggest - the Baddest! (REVISED)
Tratto - Matita B
Colore - xxx
Software - Adobe Photoshop CS/CS4
Hardware - Macintosh PowerPC G5/MacPro
Originale - Matita su carta - formati vari
Data - 2008/2009/2010

EDIT - Ho editato il disegno ed il post a causa di insistenti e poco garbati commenti ricevuti per questa deviation. Questa era partita come una iniziativa non del tutto seria, ma pare che qualcuno non sia capace di prenderla come tale. Quindi ora faccio sul serio pure io: difendo il mio lavoro perchè anche se sono umano e faccio errori – come tutti – non sono un deficiente e non sono abituato a lavorare a caso.

Qual'è il dinosauro predatore più grande mai esistito?
Spesso si tratta di stabilire le dimensioni di animali che vengono descritti sulla base di scheletri incompleti, e spesso i calcoli che vengono fatti dai paleontologi danno risultati molto diversi tra loro. Emblematico è il caso di Spinosaurus: di questo animale conosciamo solo parte del cranio ed alcune vertebre, e la lunghezza stimata varia dai 16-18 metri (Dal Sasso 2005) ai 12,5 (Therrien & Henderson 2007). La paleontologia non è una scienza esatta, la Natura non si può rinchiudere in rigidi schemi matematici e – anche se è possibile arrivare ad una stima di massima – sarebbe meglio evitare di fidarsi al centimetro delle stime che si trovano nei libri o negli articoli.
Tempo fa mi sono trovato a voler avere un riscontro mio su questo argomento: ho incollato su una griglia (il quadrato più piccolo misura 25cm di lato) i diversi profili che avevo prodotto di 3 dei candidati "alla corona" più Allosaurus/Saurophaganax, un outsider.
Ci tengo a specificare che non sono uno che lavora "a caso" e tendo sempre a cercare di essere il più accurato possibile nelle ricostruzioni che faccio, osservando e misurando fotografie e disegni scheletrici. Ho controllato e ricontrollato le proporzioni (anche stimolato da commenti qui ricevuti dal tono non molto amichevole) ed in questi disegni ho riscontrato solo due errori oggettivi: la "vela" di Spinosaurus era troppo bassa (in questa versione del disegno è stata corretta) e le gambe di Tyrannosaurus sono di qualche centimetro troppo lunghe (ripeto: qualche centimetro, non abbastanza da invalidare il risultato).
Ho poi regolato le dimensioni dei vari animali secondo questi criteri ottenendo diverse sorprese:
• Tyrannosaurus: secondo il più grande Tyrannosaurus confermato – "Sue" – che misura 12.4 metri. La sorpresa sta nel fatto che disegnando un Tyrannosaurus con le proporzioni di Sue, per fargli raggiungere i 12.4 metri il cranio deve essere lungo 160cm e non 140 come da misure dichiarate. La prova sta nel fatto che dimensionando allo stesso modo il perfetto skeletal di Scott Hartman ( fav.me/d21wpi8 ) con un cranio di 140cm Sue sarebbe lungo "solo" poco più di 11 metri. Siccome Hartman è un grande ed il suo skeletal è sicuramente rigorosissimo... se non vi bastasse, ho fatto la stessa cosa con una fotografia dello scheletro di Sue quasi perfettamente di profilo, e la risultante per un cranio di 140cm è poco più di 10 metri! Anche considerando un margine d'errore dovuto ad una probabile prospettiva, si può dire tranquillamente che anche la fotografia non può raggiungere i 12.4 metri di lunghezza.
L'altezza del mio Tirannosauro (tenendo conto del fatto che sta correndo) risulta di circa 4 metri;
• Spinosaurus: secondo il cranio più grande che possediamo, che secondo le stime sarebbe lungo 175cm. Con una testa di quelle dimensioni – e tenendo conto delle regole generali allometriche secondo cui più è grande un individuo più la sua testa è grande in proporzione – Spinosaurus sarebbe lungo 15,3 metri ed alto 3,25 metri al garrese;
• Giganotosaurus: secondo il cranio più grande che misura 180cm. Ho visto personalmente un calco dello scheletro di Giganotosaurus e conosco bene le sue proporzioni, e la risultante (con la testa ridisegnata di questa versione è lievemente più piccolo di prima) sarebbe 14,25 metri per un'altezza di 3,5 metri;
• Allosaurus: secondo il cranio più grande dell'esemplare che secondo alcuni appartiene al genere Saurophaganax, lungo 120cm. L'animale sarebbe lungo 12,25m ed alto 3,1m.

Il perchè di queste discrepanze – a volte molto importanti – non me lo spiego... posso ipotizzare che forse nei calcoli allometrici non si tiene conto della curvatura della colonna vertebrale, ma davvero non saprei dare una risposta.
Una cosa è certa: io ho disegnato questi profili come "character design" senza avere misure o calcoli in testa o senza righello e calcolatrice in mano (disegno animali, non ponti), ma solo cercando di essere il più accurato possibile nelle proporzioni, e solo quando ho deciso di regolare le dimensioni dei dinosauri su una scala mi sono reso conto dei risultati. Sospetto che in giro ci siano molti disegni e skeletal (molto belli e precisi, senza dubbio) che però vengono realizzati in modo da combaciare con le misure dichiarate negli articoli.

Il mio lavoro può non piacervi e siete liberissimi di non essere d'accordo con le mie umili conclusioni, ma concedetemi due cose: rispettate la mia dignità professionale e – soprattutto – non prendete quello che esce dalla bocca dei paleontologi come fosse oro colato. Traete voi le vostre conclusioni e pensate con la vostra testa senza essere influenzati da nessuno e senza che qualcuno vi dica cosa dovete pensare.

EDIT (17/10/2010) - C'è un troll dai nickname poco fantasiosi che si iscrive a DA appositamente per lasciare lunghi commenti puntigliosamente deliranti a questa deviation. Mi scuso per la enorme quantità di commenti che ho dovuto nascondere.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------



:icondonotplz::iconusemyartplz:

Title - The Biggest - the Baddest! (REVISED)
Ink - B pencil
Color - xxx
Software - Adobe Photoshop CS/CS4
Hardware - Macintosh PowerPC G5/MacPro
Original - Pencil on Paper - various formats
Date - 2008/2009/2010


EDIT - I edited the drawing and the post because of some insistent – and a little unpolite – comments I had for this Dev. This Dev wasn't a totally serious initiative, but I guess someone is not able to take it this way. So I'm serious too: I defend my work because even if I do made mistakes – as we all do – I'm not dumb and I don't work randomly.

Which one is the largest predatory dinosaur ever lived?
Often we have to estimate the size of animals whose description is based only upon partial skeletons, and quite often such calculations made by different paleontologist gave different results. The Spinosaurus case is pretty emblematic: we just have some skull fragments and some vertebrae, and the estimated length for this theropod varies from 16-18 meters (Dal Sasso 2005) to 12.5 meters (Therrien & Henderson 2007). But paleontology is not an exact science, Nature cannot be locked in hard matematics and – even if it's possible to get an overall length estimation – it's better if we don't get too much trust n the sizes we read in books and papers.
So I wished to verify sizes by myself: I edited together on a scale (the smallest square you see has a 25cm side) the three major "candidates" for the title, plus an outsider: Allosaurus/Saurophaganax.
I'm not a person who works randomly and I always seek for the maximum possible accuracy in my reconstructions, carefully observing and measuring photos and skeletal drawings. I checked and re-checked my reconstructions proportions and I found only two objective mistakes: Spinosaurus "fin" was too short (I amended it) and Tyrannosaurus legs are a bit too long (a matter of a few centimeters, not enough to invalidate results).
Then I scaled the sizes of the figures according to these criteria... and I obtained some surprises:
• Tyrannosaurus: I scaled it according to the biggest described fossil – Sue – which is 12.4 meters long. The big surprise is that if you draw a Tyrannosaurus with Sue's proportions, to get a 12.4 meters overall length the skull must be almost 160cm long, and not 140cm (which is the declared length for Sue's skull). The proof of this is that if you scale the wonderful skeletal by Mr. Scott Hartman ( fav.me/d21wpi8 ) to get a 140cm skull, Sue would be "only" 11 meters long. Since Mr. Hartman is a great artist and his skeletal is rigorous for sure... you do the math. Not enough for you? I made the same scaling with a photo of Sue that is almost perfectly took from the side, and the result – with a 140cm skull – was a little bit more than 10 meters! Even considering an error margin because of a little perspective effect in the pic I used, we can just say that even using a photo of the skeleton mount we cannot reach 12.4 meters in length.
My T. rex (taking into account that it's running) is 4 meters tall;
• Spinosaurus: scaled according to the biggest described partial skull, which lenght is estimated to be 175cm. With a skull that long – and taking into account the allometric rule which says that the bigger an animal is, the bigger its head is in positive proportion – Spinosaurus should actually be 15.3 meters long and 3.25 meters tall at its shank;
• Giganotosaurus: scaled according to the biggest described skull, which is 180cm long. I personally saw a Giganotosaurus cast and I know its proportions pretty well, so I got an animal 14.25 meters long and 3.5 meters tall;
• Allosaurus: scaled according to the biggest known skull (120cm) which belongs to the specimen sometimes described as Saurophaganax. The results were 12.25 meters long and 3.1 meters tall.

I can't explain the reason of these discrepancies between my results and the published lengths... perhaps in allometric calculations they didn't take in account of the spine curvature... but really I don't know.
One thing is for sure: I made this profiles as "character design" for my books, without sizes or calculations in my mind and without a calculator and a ruler in my hand (I draw animals, and not bridges), but always trying to be as accurate as possible with proportions; only when I decided to scale these dinosaurs I got these results. I guess that a lot of drawings and skeletals around the web (very beautiful and accurate, no doubt about it) are purpose-made to match thedeclared sizes.

You may don't like my work and you are free to disagree with my conclusions (of course), but please grant me two things: respect my professional dignity and – above all – don't take as god's words what paleontologists say. Draw your own conclusions without being influenced and don't let anybody to tell you what you must think.

EDIT (17/10/2010) - I have a troll with dull nicknames who joins DA expressly to post long unswerving nonsensical comments to this deviation. I apologize for the huge amount of comments I had to hide.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconevodolka:
Evodolka Featured By Owner Sep 23, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
this is beautiful to look at, i love the style and the detail on their faces, this is amazing :la:
though i can't tell if this is short legged spinosaurus or not
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Sep 23, 2017  Professional Artist
Thanks once again. :)
About Spinosaurus, it is "short legged" indeed, as I always drew it, since more than 10 years ago.
Not as short legged as the most recent theories suggest, anyway, because IMHO that reconstruction doesn't really work. I don't share the conclusions from that paper.
Reply
:iconevodolka:
Evodolka Featured By Owner Sep 24, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
your welcome once again :D
IMHO?
not sure what that means but ok
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2017  Professional Artist
IMHO - In My Humble Opinion. ;)
Reply
:iconevodolka:
Evodolka Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
oh i get it now :D
well a some ideas involve it walking around like a goose with it's body help higher than others, not able to run but why would it really NEED to run if it is hunting fish
another more recant theory is that the spinosaurus grew into it's legs, with them being longer in younger individuals and progressively getting shorter in proportion
just a theory though but it's a neat on :)
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2017  Professional Artist
Truth is that I actually don't share the "mini legs theory" as a whole. That's because of a long list of reasons, but mainly because I think the way that paper was built it's just... well, wrong. Thus, you'll most likely never see a Spinosaurus reconstructed by me with that anatomy.
But again, it's just my opinion, I'm not a paleontologist, just an artist.
Reply
:iconevodolka:
Evodolka Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
i get ya, if that is what you think then that is what you think :)
this will also lead to some pretty unique designs later down the line when most people do short legs and you do longer legs :D
Reply
:icongaro123456:
Garo123456 Featured By Owner Edited Mar 8, 2017  Student General Artist
Personally, I like this drawing. You did great. :thumbsup:
I think this is how all 4 of these dinosaurs looked like IRL(yes, I am including the Spinosaurus too). Of course no one can, nor will ever dethrone the tyrant lizard king. ;) I also agree with you that science and paleonthology shouldn't be taken as god's words, since it also makes mistakes sometimes.
However, something baffles me. Why did you chose Allosaurus, instead of Carcharodontosaurus, which is a contender for the 2nd biggest theropod(after Spinosaurus)? I have noticed that Carcharo isn't as popular and famous in pop culture as these 4 species. I hope you know and can answer me why. :confused:
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2017  Professional Artist
Thank you for your compliments. :)
I think this shows that the three "main dudes" actually had overall the same size (a longer tail here, or longer hindlimbs there, don't make a huge difference)! ;)

About why I didn't include Carcharodontosaurus: I think I wrote this somewhere, but the reason is that I used drawings that weren't intended for this chart. I drew these side figurines for different purposes: I made them mainly as "character designs" for the books, and also to be included into the "cast charts" for the same books (cast charts that you can also see around my gallery). Carcharodontosaurus didn't appear in any of my books, thus I never did an "official" reconstruction of it (though I drew it once in my spare time, as you might see between my older works).
At one point I realized I had these 4 profiles lying around, and for fun I made these two size charts. :P
I might someday draw an updated version including Carcha, but – to be honest – a dinosaur reconstruction is a really time consuming task, and at the moment paleoart isn't on my agenda (not even my spare time agenda... :D ).

Carcharodontosaurus had its fifteen minutes of popularity at the end of the '90s, but then I guess it stopped being boasted around as its two supposedly larger colleagues do nowadays (Spinosaurus and Giganotosaurus)... :P
I think this is funny, because even if I admit that Carcharodontosaurus superficially looks way less dramatic than Spinosaurus, the apex predator of that area of the world at that time was indeed Carcha. :)
Reply
:iconasuma17:
Asuma17 Featured By Owner Edited Jan 14, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
I'm surprised you did 14ft tall Tyrannosaurus, coincidence obviously. Actually I did a scaling of two Tyrannosaurus specimens from Stan to Thomas and it revealed that both Stan and Thomas are relatively up to 14ft and just recently I just did a chart measuring out both the femur, tibia, illium, and foot of they Tyrannosaurus and it all adds up to a height of 14.5

So in truth your T.Rex too far off and T.Rex is once again the biggest. Great job on the detail and scaling for all of them. And I just love the gent running his butt off XD
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2017  Professional Artist
Well, I studied the bones proportions as best as I could before drawing my reconstruction... ;) :)
Reply
:iconasuma17:
Asuma17 Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
That is pretty amazing. I did pretty much the same thing when I measured from foot to femur as of recent studies. Thomas Carr always told me it was good to measure by both the hip and the skull so were both do justice here.

I am BIGGER by Asuma17
(My version) GetAwayTrike was very helpful.

Again great job and keep up the good work. A few Paleo-buff may disagree with your stuff, but I say it is fair enough.
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017  Professional Artist
Thanks for your support. :)
IMHO the most reliable reference measure to draw a dinosaur figure (the living one, I never did skeletals) is the skull to femour ratio. For example, once you know that on your sheet the femour is X long, then you know that the skull is Y long (or vice-versa). Everything else comes as a consequence of this. :)
Reply
:iconasuma17:
Asuma17 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
No problem.

And ya know that makes a lot of sense, that is exactly what Carr suggested I do (at least in his own words); and indeed you are right about that.
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2017  Professional Artist
:)
Reply
:iconnightmarews:
nightmarews Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2016  Hobbyist Artist
Isnt spino bigger -_- thats what they said in a documentary
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2016  Professional Artist
Did you read what I wrote in the artist's comment? :)
Reply
:iconwyatt-andrews-art:
Wyatt-Andrews-Art Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
lol this spinosaurus is pretty accurate now
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2016  Professional Artist
"Now"? It always has been, IMHO... ;)
Reply
:iconwyatt-andrews-art:
Wyatt-Andrews-Art Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
lol, it's had quite the journey. I'd have strongly disagreed with you a couple years ago.
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2016  Professional Artist
As I already wrote a number of times around my gallery, when I drew this I "just" studied Spinosauridae body proportions as better as I could, and this was the final result.
Reply
:iconkingofcopper16:
KingOfCopper16 Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2016
question is the Giganotosaurus bigger than the Tyrannosaurus-rex?
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2016  Professional Artist
Did you read the text I posted below my drawing? :)
Reply
:iconkingofcopper16:
KingOfCopper16 Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2016
oh apologies.
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2016  Professional Artist
No problem. ;)
Reply
:iconyu-gi-nos:
Yu-Gi-Nos Featured By Owner May 22, 2016  Student General Artist
Great Job, love the Allosaurus maximus the best!
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner May 23, 2016  Professional Artist
Thanks. :)
Reply
:icongreenanac0nda:
A Tyrannosaur will always be best... for one reason, The Bite. TREX IS SPECIAL... VERY DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER CREATURE, Animal & Dinosaur, ALIKE. The Reason you never want to be Bitten by a Tyrannosaur, its like a Giant, Great White, Bull Dog, On Two Legs. I mean We're talking... WORLDS MOST VICIOUS BITE. To power something like that, takes Physical Strength, of reasonable portions, And Tyrannosaurs Are Huge!!!!! Re-inforced Skulls, with Thick muscular necks, and a Chess so massive, its soppurt a large pair of lungs and airsacks, better suited for endurance, rather speed. All, supporting a mouth full of Banana-Shaped Teeth, that are as Deadly as they are Impressive. This Animal Could turn a Volkswagon, into a chew toy, in just seconds. No Other land animal, Not Even Other Dinosaurs, Could Do that. Basically, when a Tyrannosaur wants to bite, you best get the hell out of dodge... unless you want bite wound that will NEVER Close.
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2016  Professional Artist
Tyrannosaurus had one of the mightiest bites in animal history for sure.
But there's one thing you described wrong: it's body was made for explosive efforts and not for endurance. It was an ambush predator, its leg anatomy is of the "speedy kind" (tibia longer than femour and arctometatarsalia). :)
Reply
:icongreenanac0nda:
greenanac0nda Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2016
I don't know, Man, T-Rex has a hidden Advantage, Air sacs. Air sacs are used for breathing, they assure that oxygen rich air, flows continually, when breathing, in and out, it's very similar to that of birds. It's suggests that T. Rex needed to eat a whole Buffalo, every week to keep going. Plus, Considering the average T. rex clocked in at about .44 kilometers per hour fasterthan the average human, there's still a pretty good chance it could outrun whatever it wants to eat. But then again, 7-9 Tons is a lot of Weight, requiring a Full 2 Seconds, to make a 45 Degree turn, So I guess Ambush Makes more sense, But I'm not dismissing the idea, that T-Rex COuld still give ya a good run...
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2016  Professional Artist
So in your opinion Tyrannosaurus would actually chase its preys for long runs? Something like wolves do? :)
Reply
:icongreenanac0nda:
greenanac0nda Featured By Owner Mar 2, 2016
Well... Ambush would make more sense, Due to its enormous size. Also, because its so heavy, requiring a full 2 seconds to make a 45 degree turn. It can't turn around quickly, if it's prey decides to bolt to the side. So, my opinion, it would've relied on Ambush, but it could also run, if it had to, More like a Grizzly bear. Still, look at ostriches, at how they run, and how they can do it for long periods. Just sum food for thought.
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2016  Professional Artist
Ostriches have way longer legs (in proportion) than Tyrannosaurus and they have also way way stretched arctometatarsalia, while Tyrannosaurus had massive leg muscles and a huge pubic foot. One could say that the difference between a Tyrannosaurus and an ostrich is about the same that there's between a sprinter athlete and a marathon athlete. :)
And a bear is... well, a bear: there are so many differences between the anatomy of a theropod and the anatomy of a plantigrade mammal that you could compare their lifestyles, but not based on how they are "built". :) ;)
Reply
:icongeneralnova:
generalnova Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2015
hes right, stop it damnit, the trex wasnt that big *sigh*
Reply
:iconnightmarews:
nightmarews Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2016  Hobbyist Artist
Ikr
Reply
:icontoarcian:
Toarcian Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Damn the Tyrannosaurus is oversized! When is someone gonna do this what a Giganotosaurus for example? Probably never, the Tyrannosaurus fandom is drowning the others . . .
Reply
:iconaesirthedarkone:
AesirTheDarkOne Featured By Owner Sep 30, 2015  Student
(Saluta con la mano) Ciao! Tranquillo, non vengo a rompere dopo cinque anni sulle dimensioni di Spinosaurus. Volevo solo sapere se ti ricordi qual'è l'esemplare di Allosaurus che citi, perchè mi sembrava che nè l'esemplare "Epanterias" nè Saurophaganax fossero conosciuti da resti cranici.
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Sep 30, 2015  Professional Artist
Onestamente? Non ricordo. Mi spiace. ^_^'
Sono sicuro che molti dati di riferimento che ho usato venivano da The Theropod Database (ho dato un occhiata veloce e non c'è traccia di quella misura) e da The Dinosauria 2nd Ed. (sii buono, non farmi andare a scartabellare... :P ;) ), ma sono passati anni e non ti saprei ricostruire esattamente le ricerche che svolsi. Ti posso assicurare che da qualche parte i numeri li trovai, e non era certo Wikipedia... :D ;)
Di "Saurophaganax" comunque conosciamo effettivamente frammenti cranici (poca roba) ed è possibile che i 120cm di cranio fossero usciti da qualche stima legata a detti frammenti; del resto, ripeto: sono passati anni e può essere che i dati siano stati aggiornati e/o rivisti. Per esempio anche di Giganotosaurus certe misure sono state molto recentemente riconsiderate, e sembra che il cranio non fosse lungo come si pensava all'epoca in cui ho realizzato questo confronto.
Il che in un certo qual modo conferma la tesi che intendevo esporre con questo "lavoretto"... ;) :)
Reply
:iconaesirthedarkone:
AesirTheDarkOne Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2015  Student
Intanto, grazie della risposta. Ho controllato su The Dinosauria e, anche se dicono qualcosa di più approfondito a proposito di resti postcraniali (vertebre e femore, mi sembra), anche se menzionano frammenti del cranio (avevi ragione) a meno che non mi sia sfuggito non c'è nulla di specifico sul cranio di Saurophaganax. Cercherò altrove, grazie mille per l'aiuto.

Forse potresti trovare interessante questa notizia (riportata come me la ricordo): alcune analisi (una di Cau e almeno un'altra di un secondo autore che non ricordo) avrebbero riclassificato Saurophaganax come un carcharodontosauridae molto basale. In effetti mi ero stupito anni fa di vederne una ricostruzione dai colori piuttosto accesi ma soprattutto il cranio più simile al morfotipo di Big Al e altre forme a lui affini (che alcuni considerano una specie a parte) che a quello relativamente più alto e meno allungato dell'Allosaurus fragilis "classico". Giusto un pensiero che mi era venuto :)
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2015  Professional Artist

Per l'aiuto: di niente. ;)

Per le info su Saurophaganax: ti ringrazio. :)
Però, in tutta onestà, devo confessare che poche cose mi "annoiano" quanto la classificazione, soprattutto da quando è cladistica... ^_^'

Reply
:iconaesirthedarkone:
AesirTheDarkOne Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2015  Student
Di niente. A me la cladistica piace, soprattutto quando riguarda animali estinti, perchè permette di farsi un'idea del loro aspetto sulla base della loro parentela e non magari dell'idea che è venuta al primo che l'ha classificato o descritto (e magari aveva preso un abbaglio o non era un paleontologo molto competente). Ad esempio, tutte le ricostruzioni di questo animale lo mostrano indistinguibile da un Allosaurus, ma, se venisse confermata, immagino che lo si dovrebbe rappresentare più simile ad un Carcharodontosauridae basale...
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Oct 10, 2015  Professional Artist
Spero mi permetterai di dirti una cosa: forse non dovresti pensare che la cladistica sia infallibile. ;)
L'anatomia comparata è lo strumento principale per conoscere un animale estinto, e la cladistica è – al limite – un aiuto in quel senso. Gli errori si facevano 100 anni fa come oggi (errare è umano) e visto che il PAUP va programmato, ed i parametri su cui agisce vengono comunque inseriti da un essere umano, se ne deduce che anche il PAUP può fallire.
La cladistica non è una intelligenza suprema e, se posso essere del tutto onesto, la "religiosità" che da qualche anno la circonda mi infastidisce molto. :P
Sto già sufficientemente antipatico a diverse persone a causa delle mie opinioni, quindi non mi dilungherò ulteriormente, ma mi auguro di averti dato almeno uno spunto di riflessione. :) :) 
Reply
:iconaesirthedarkone:
AesirTheDarkOne Featured By Owner Oct 10, 2015  Student
Oh, personalmente non credo che sia infallibile, anzi, su diversi argomenti ho qualche dubbio. Ad esempio, il cranio di Megaraptor lo collocherebbe in Tyrannosauroidea, però, da quel che ho letto, è un esemplare giovanile e non sarebbe la prima volta che l'ontogenesi fa brutti scherzi (Nanotyrannus?). Però non abbiamo nulla per dire che quell'animale è più vicino ad Allosaurus che ad un altro Teropode, la gran parte delle ricostruzioni semplicemente lo assume sulla base dell'unico studio effettuato. Non mi stupirei se saltasse fuori che è un animale completamente diverso (se non sbaglio l'Allosaurus trovato in Africa è stato riclassificato come Veterupristisaurus - un Carcharodontosauridae basale - pertanto non sarebbe la prima volta. Potrebbe anche essere una forma affine a Ceratosaurus, ora che ci ripenso, ma non ad Allosaurus). In fondo, l'aspetto di un animale estinto si diffonde - purtroppo - grazie alle ricostruzioni più che agli studi...
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Oct 11, 2015  Professional Artist
Dal mio punto di vista, l'aspetto di un animale estinto si diffonde – per fortuna – grazie alle ricostruzioni più che agli studi... 
Ma forse la mia è deformazione professionale. ;) ;) :D :D
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconkaprosuchusdragon:
KaprosuchusDragon Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
how many pages are there in the books?
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2015  Professional Artist
6 books with 64 pages each. 26 pages of graphic novel plus around 20 (depending by the book) of scientific part, olus other stuff in the remaining pages. ;)
Reply
:iconkaprosuchusdragon:
KaprosuchusDragon Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
thanks going to buy them all ;)
Reply
:iconkronosaurus82:
Kronosaurus82 Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2015  Professional Artist
I'm glad to hear that. :)
Reply
:iconkaprosuchusdragon:
KaprosuchusDragon Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
no problem :)
Reply
:icongrisador:
grisador Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2015
Some people SERİOUSLY need to calm down and accept the facts about the tyrannosaurus
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
October 20, 2009
Image Size
282 KB
Resolution
1500×999
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
25,031 (3 today)
Favourites
280 (who?)
Comments
309