Uh, would you mind referring me to your sources, I am not accusing you of anything, but I just want to self-educate in this matter... I hope you understand what I mean. I am not trying to insult you or anything, I just don't know. The skull is closer to a Cretacious Allosaur, but the Back and rest of the anatomy is closer to that of a Spinosaur. This, I've heard, is Exactly what Paleontologists get into with eachother, so I'd say "Be honored, we're engaging in exactly what the Professionals do every day of their work!" And we should be happy, therefore.
Nope, that thing was back in pre-Dinosaur Renaissance times, when Spinosaurus' skull hasn't been discovered yet and the rest of the spinosaurs were unknown. They didn't even know that Spinosaurus was actually a megalosauroid back then.
Um, no actually, and this is merely a scientific disagreement, I mean utmost respect to you, but Spinosaurus had a Crocodile-like skull, not a megalosaurid-like skull, as was discovered when they found the head of the animal as a replacement for Eric Hormer's (I think) Spinosaurus skeleton, Dr. Horner was right as to the science advice he gave for Jurassic Park 3, so far as to the anitomical shape of the animal... but biting into metal Would have been painful to Spino, so I doubt he would have done so more than once. Good point, though. Hey, this is Exactly what paleontologists do all the time, what we're doing, so don't feel upset.
I never said that Spinosaurus had a megalosaurid-like skull, I said that Spinosaurus itself was a megalosauroid. Hope that clears thing up.
Btw, Jack Horner was wrong about his advice to JP3: Spinosaurus did not have a Baryonyx head, for one, and a "Tyrannosaurus" biting into the neck of a "Spinosaurus" like it did in the movie would have broken the spinosaur's neck, the bite force is too strong for it to just break free with no damage at all like what it did in the movie...
The bunny hands and the wrong body shape was probably not from Horner, so I'll let those go regarding him.
Yes, if Spinosaurs were one type of Megalosaurids, then by extension- Spinosaurus (which had a crocodile-like skull, we know that now, from complete (or nearly thereof) skelital remains) would have been a type of megalosaurid. Sir or Ma'am (no idea of your gender), you obviously have studied this; and palenotology is a facination of mine, we can get a huge discussion on this. Yes, Tyrannosaurus Rex had a phenominal bite force, so it Would have killed Spino when it bit it on the neck- that was the one major glaring error... but Dr. Horner is a human being, and is to be permitted errors in his record- what's your take? "Bunny Hands"? What are those here?
Bunny hands in dinosaurs refer to the inaccurate practice of posing(more like breaking) biped dinosaurs'(mostly theropods, but basal sauropodomorphs are vulnerable as well) hands in a pronated position, facing back rather than each other.
So, if that's the case- the Baryonix they discovered that revealed what Spinosaurs looked like (in my 35yr. lifetime yet), his hands were broken? It sure looked as if his (or her) hands were with the back of the hand facing up, and the palm facing down (angle of the claw- you know- the BIG claw on a spinosaurs hand- no idea if that was on the index finger or thumb, by the way.)? I just want to be sure- dinosaurs have been a facination of mine since I was about 2, and on and off I have been studying paleontology as a fan.
Actually most of Baryonyx’ hand wasn’t even found, there is only one complete digit, two claws and an additional phalanx found, no carpals or metacarpals (which are the parts of the hands that are relevant to how it articulates. Hence if you give some clueless person the remains, tell them to reconstruct and articulate them, they can do more or less anything they want with them posture-wise without violating the known parts, but that doesn’t mean the end result is anywhere near accurate).
But yes, if that animal was habitually facing its palms down, it would have had to have some sort of deformation, since we know no theropod for which that posture was actually within the normal range of motion.
I love the coloration on this one, and nice depiction of quills on an Acrocanthosaurus. However, if you don't mind the critique, the face has always seemed off to me on this one. To me, the back part of the lower jaw seems to be in a side view, although the rest of the mouth is in a 3/4 view. I also feel like the upper jaw/ face has some of that issue, but it's hard for me to tell which parts seem to be in more of a side view versus 3/4 view. I also think the teeth look too long.
Are you still going to draw the whole Carcharodontosauridae? If so, I would *love* to see it, and I would also like to see you draw more Acros.
not necessarily. As I said, some forms of feathers can actually help an animal keep cool. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that if T.rex did have feathers, they were probably protofeathers. I am not suggesting that it had dense feathering, but for every elephant, there is a giraffe.
Hence I support a light proto-feather coverage like the one in this drawing (equivalent in thickness to the fur of a giraffe as you mention) instead of the outrageously thick and flamboyant feather coats you can see everywhere on DA. Look at the heaviest extant bird, the ostrich. While it has significantly thick feathers in the body, both neck and legs are naked.
Again, feathers are not fur. I do not believe that T.rex had an incredibly thick feather coat, and we know it had some areas that were scaly, but feathers do not need to keep in heat nearly as much as fur, in many ways, they are a more advanced and adaptable structure.