Re: New Dinosaur Art Web Site!

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> However, I also feel that critique of
> Jordan's work in general on the list as a whole was a perhaps
> inglorious move ...

I agree to a certain degree. I have made it public because it contains a few
questions to the list in general.

> <_Byronosaurus jaffei_: Nice, and beautiful feathers, but why doesn't
> it have feathers on the snout? There is no evidence for a beak,
> AFAIK...>
>
>   Feathers are a subjective feature. No dinosaurs have been described
> beside the dinobirds to be bearing feathers. I would think that until a
> dromaeosaur or troodont are described with feather impressions, or
> traces, then one could put them wherever. *Sinornithosaurus* has a
> "crest" above the head that probably corresponded to long filaments
> that lay on the scalp, but it is important in ntoing the absence of
> anything like them more rostral to the orbits. This is true of birds,
> in spite of the beak. The cere in eagles can be feathered or not.

OK, but _if_ there are already feathers in the drawing... I'll look once
more at the original *Sinornithosaurus* paper and the National Geographic
article.

> <What's so special actually about "an air chamber in the snout passing
> >from the nostrils through to the mouth"?>
>
>   An autapomorphy of *Byronosaurus jaffei.* Big, eh?

Ooops! I plainly forgot that... :-] "special" was meant to mean "birdlike".

> <Theropods, as shown in trackways, used to literally put one foot _in
> front of_ the other, like what they do today.>
>
>   Theropods are not cats: the feet progress anterior to one another,
> but they are still set apart from an inline orientation.

True, "_in front of_ the other" is an exaggeration.

> A line drawn
> anteriorly through the second toe intersects the second of that
> preceeding, depending on gait it splays a little. They do not progress
> so that the third toes are in line with each other.

Just that. In the drawing, however, another one or two feet would fit in
between.

> <...dispute the proportions (thin arms? long trunk?) and the exact size
> of the sickle claws.>
>
>   This is all largely speculation as there are no preserved arm or leg
> elements besides some foot bones,

Oh.

> and the sickle was smaller than other
> dromaeosaurs relative to size of the toe and foot.

Yes, but was it _that_ small?

> <_Erlikosaurus andrewsi_: "Andrews' Erlik's lizard" -- I'd have
> mentioned that Erlik Khan is the king of the dead in ?Lamaism.>
>
>   Erlik was a king in some Sumerian stories, but in Lamaist stories,
> his wife died and he proceeded into the underworld to retrieve her (a
> la Orpheus); while there, he had to let her leave to stay, and was
> subsequently killed, then arose (...from the dead...) to rule the
> underworld. This would explain why the name was chosen (a king risen
> >from the dead is analogous to a "hellish" skull being unearthed and
> risen from the ground).

:-) Thank you, I didn't know these details.

> Also, the teeth in *Ornitholestes*
> are unusual in being longer the more rostral they are, and would
> probably have served a "plucking" function. The vulture analogy goes
> >from there.

Aha... Didn't know that.

> <_Shunosaurus lii_: "Li's Shuo lizard" Shu, not Shuo. The tail club is
> widespread among euhelopodids.>
>
>   There's a tail club from the Dashanpu quarry attributed to
> *Omeisaurus* ithout justification (by Dong). This does not make the
> feature widespread, and until further evidence, its still a
> *Shunosaurus* autapomorphy.

Oh!

>   Jordan Mallon wrote:
>
> <<...the young fledgling in the background is covered in a downy coat.
> This feature is fairly common to the Coelurosauria and would have
> served to insulate the young...>>
>
>   David Marjanovic wrote:
>
> <Why not the adults too?>
>
>   Hypothesis: Smaller theropods had just a low surface-area to mass
> ratio that heat would be lost to a much greater degree than in large
> theropods ... Henderson, in a recent issue of *Paleobiology,* pointed
> this out. One can then apply this to juveniles versus adults, as was
> illustrated in Sloan's 1999 article in Nat. Geo.: Mike Szrepnik's
> illustration of a "fluffy" baby rex with a bare-skinned adult.

Okay, but *Gallimimus* wasn't so big or compact... Of course, that's
speculation. I agree that adult *Tyrannosaurus* were most probably not
feathered.

>   I personally feel that a number of the artists I've seen on the
> Dinosauricon had talent, real talent. It's the degree to which an
> artist will develop that talent, step away from imitating others and
> turn to a unique style (my brother's anime was incredible once he got
> away from copying others, much as it helps an artist to know how
> certain things are drawn to copy other artists, and is now the copied
> one, but that's an irrelevant corrolary). Critique is probably an
> important detail in allowing artists develop, but not publically. Then
> it just becomes tantamount to humiliation. I'm sure this was not
> David's intent, but it can be read that way.

:-(

As I wrote:
> Your potential, anyway, is wonderful. You may [nah, "will", it's only a
matter of time]
> end up next to GSP, Brian Franczak, Jaime A. Headden, Daniel Bensen et
al..
>
> :-)