The Paleontology Thread

[Noble Saber]

This is about as accurate as it gets with modern information.

The head shows a serious amount of shrinkwrapping that is very noticable at the posterior end of the skull. The arms lack any real musculature which nearly ruins the whole model as it messes up the proportions quite drastically.

Personally, I think the elephant-esque wrinkly skin they went with looks ugly, and they would have been better off making it more form fitting and pebbly. Considering that the only skin samples we have of tyrannosaurs do show that pebbly texture, I don't know why they decided on a wrinkly texture throughout the body. Not even going to comment on the feathers on the neck.

The direct head on view looks so weird because whoever made the damn thing didn't make sure the eyes actually faced forward. Compare this to that T. rex and the difference is monumental.

[SoggyNoodles2016]

new research from La Brea has revealed Smilodon and other big cats of the Plestiocene coexisted with the various canids by preferring forested regions to the open plains dogs prefered

Added in 1 minute 49 seconds:

This is about as accurate as it gets with modern information.

The head shows a serious amount of shrinkwrapping that is very noticable at the posterior end of the skull. The arms lack any real musculature which nearly ruins the whole model as it messes up the proportions quite drastically.

Personally, I think the elephant-esque wrinkly skin they went with looks ugly, and they would have been better off making it more form fitting and pebbly. Considering that the only skin samples we have of tyrannosaurs do show that pebbly texture, I don't know why they decided on a wrinkly texture throughout the body. Not even going to comment on the feathers on the neck.

The direct head on view looks so weird because whoever made the damn thing didn't make sure the eyes actually faced forward. Compare this to that T. rex and the difference is monumental.

Fascinating write up!

though correct me if I'm wrong, isn't there the possibility of feathers on the head and neck regions of Tyrannosaurus? I haven't read up on this in a year so do tell me if I'm incorrect.

[Dino-Mario]

The direct head on view looks so weird because whoever made the damn thing didn't make sure the eyes actually faced forward. Compare this to that T. rex and the difference is monumental.

Oh, sweet! A tyrannosaur reconstruction with neck jowls, like those of tegus and iguanas!

[Gawdziller1954]

This is about as accurate as it gets with modern information.

The head shows a serious amount of shrinkwrapping that is very noticable at the posterior end of the skull. The arms lack any real musculature which nearly ruins the whole model as it messes up the proportions quite drastically.

Personally, I think the elephant-esque wrinkly skin they went with looks ugly, and they would have been better off making it more form fitting and pebbly. Considering that the only skin samples we have of tyrannosaurs do show that pebbly texture, I don't know why they decided on a wrinkly texture throughout the body. Not even going to comment on the feathers on the neck.

The direct head on view looks so weird because whoever made the damn thing didn't make sure the eyes actually faced forward. Compare this to that T. rex and the difference is monumental.

The idea of a thinly-wrapped posterior skull is not unlikely, given that it appears Tyrannosaurs had similar head adornment to Crocodiles. The front of the skull is perfectly fine.

The "Elephant-esque" skin is an illusionc reated by how small the scales are. They're so small that unless you were extremely close to the animal they'd basically create the illusion of mammalian skin. these are T.rex scales, note the small size:

The picture you sent takes a completely different route to reconstructing T.rex and appears to base its appearance off of birds, which fine, but head impressions of a related Tyrannosaur suggest a tight-fitting facial coating of large scales and plates. It's also been taken at a different angle. One thing I do like is the gular sack, which appears to be based off of the possible Tarbosaurus impressions.

Added in 4 minutes 39 seconds:

The direct head on view looks so weird because whoever made the damn thing didn't make sure the eyes actually faced forward. Compare this to that T. rex and the difference is monumental.

Oh, sweet! A tyrannosaur reconstruction with neck jowls, like those of tegus and iguanas!

It's a gular sac. It's used by birds to amplify noise and to hold prey. It's probably based off of Tarbosaurus, which has possible imprints of a gular sac on one set of remains.

Added in 1 minute 40 seconds:

new research from La Brea has revealed Smilodon and other big cats of the Plestiocene coexisted with the various canids by preferring forested regions to the open plains dogs prefered

Added in 1 minute 49 seconds:

This is about as accurate as it gets with modern information.

The head shows a serious amount of shrinkwrapping that is very noticable at the posterior end of the skull. The arms lack any real musculature which nearly ruins the whole model as it messes up the proportions quite drastically.

Personally, I think the elephant-esque wrinkly skin they went with looks ugly, and they would have been better off making it more form fitting and pebbly. Considering that the only skin samples we have of tyrannosaurs do show that pebbly texture, I don't know why they decided on a wrinkly texture throughout the body. Not even going to comment on the feathers on the neck.

The direct head on view looks so weird because whoever made the damn thing didn't make sure the eyes actually faced forward. Compare this to that T. rex and the difference is monumental.

Fascinating write up!

though correct me if I'm wrong, isn't there the possibility of feathers on the head and neck regions of Tyrannosaurus? I haven't read up on this in a year so do tell me if I'm incorrect.

Yes. T.rex would have been the most advanced of all Tyrannosaurs and its feathers have atrophied to the point where they are almost nonexistent.

[Rhedosaurus]

3 ft tall, 15.5 pound parrot fossil found in New Zealand named and described as Heracles inexpectatus.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/06/worl ... kzvIzlcxN0

[_JNavs_]

Idk if this would be the right thread lol,

But I'm on a vacation in the Hamptons, and i found a huge dead shark on an island after kayaking a bit, i plucked the teeth. Idk if you guys could ID it but i'll send some pics later.

[Godzillian]

Idk if this would be the right thread lol,

But I'm on a vacation in the Hamptons, and i found a huge dead shark on an island after kayaking a bit, i plucked the teeth. Idk if you guys could ID it but i'll send some pics later.

Pretty sure that is illegal IIRC

[Maritonic]

https://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/110764.html

Doesn't specify, but it's likely not a great idea.

[_JNavs_]

Idk if this would be the right thread lol,

But I'm on a vacation in the Hamptons, and i found a huge dead shark on an island after kayaking a bit, i plucked the teeth. Idk if you guys could ID it but i'll send some pics later.

Pretty sure that is illegal IIRC

It's illegal to cap n kill a shark, it's also illegal to sell Shark products in some countries. However as far as i know, discovering a dead shark and taking it's teeth for personal use is fine.

Unless you mean Florida state laws but even then, "it is illegal to collect vertebrate fossils (excluding shark teeth) without a permit from lands owned by the state."

[Noble Saber]

If it's dead it's not really a big deal. Considering you only plucked the teeth, which are one of the last things that will decompose, you should be fine.

I would actually be interested if you have any photos of the shark carcass.

[Maritonic]

Idk if this would be the right thread lol,

But I'm on a vacation in the Hamptons, and i found a huge dead shark on an island after kayaking a bit, i plucked the teeth. Idk if you guys could ID it but i'll send some pics later.

Pretty sure that is illegal IIRC

It's illegal to cap n kill a shark, it's also illegal to sell Shark products in some countries. However as far as i know, discovering a dead shark and taking it's teeth for personal use is fine.

Unless you mean Florida state laws but even then, "it is illegal to collect vertebrate fossils (excluding shark teeth) without a permit from lands owned by the state."

In Cali it's illegal because it's considered vandalization. Again, granted, that's Cali not NY. It might depend on why exactly the shark was dead (not saying you had anything to do with that) and which species it was, if it was one of the more protected species.

[gottatalktothefake]

This is about as accurate as it gets with modern information.

No, both the Chicago field museum and the Smithsonian have FAR more accurate reconstructions

Field Museum:



The Smithsonian only put their reconstruction on merch so here is a pic of my hoodie

[SoggyNoodles2016]

This is about as accurate as it gets with modern information.

No, both the Chicago field museum and the Smithsonian have FAR more accurate reconstructions

Field Museum:



The Smithsonian only put their reconstruction on merch so here is a pic of my hoodie

Much better, IMO. Though as I said, I'm still a hold out for the "feather cloak" as Mark Witton called it

[_JNavs_]

If it's dead it's not really a big deal. Considering you only plucked the teeth, which are one of the last things that will decompose, you should be fine.

I would actually be interested if you have any photos of the shark carcass.

Yeah that's what i was thinking, it seemed pretty long decayed in the face, which you'll see in the photos below. I don't know what the policy around here is when it pertains to graphic(?) images, but I think it'd be fine to figure out what kinda shark it is, so it's not like it's random NSFW content.

I'm almost positive it's a Sand Shark, which are some of the coolest sharks imo.





To those wondering why i'd stick my hand in that mess, it was because we had just kayak'd our way to a nearby land mass and i wanted to find a way to bring back evidence, which, at the time, i didn't have my phone, so i went ahead and looked for teeth.

[Gawdziller1954]

This is about as accurate as it gets with modern information.

No, both the Chicago field museum and the Smithsonian have FAR more accurate reconstructions

Field Museum:



The Smithsonian only put their reconstruction on merch so here is a pic of my hoodie

That Field Museum rex has lizard eyes and lips, both of which are extremely unlikely, and both have no form of filamentous covering. Rex probably had filamentous ornamentation on the dorsum.

[Rhedosaurus]

Added in 5 minutes 8 seconds:

2 questions.

1. I remember reading that tianosaurs had the eating habits of their brachiosaur relatives, the sheer bite method and the leaf raking way of the diplodicids. Does the teeth of Alamosaurus show that it could do both equally/roughtly equally, or was it more geared toward one way of eating?

2. Why was Shantungosaurus so much larger then the hardosaurs in North America? Was it because of T. rex was too successful in allowing the NA hadrosaurs to get such a size or something?

Alamosaurus appears to have teeth much more like those of Brachiosaurs then diplodocoids. Seeing that Titanosaurs filled the role of Brachiosaurs after the Jurassic and Rebacchisaurs like Limaysaurus did the same for diplodocoids (save Maraapunisaurus, which may show that Rebacchisaurs started off giant and became smaller) i'd say Titanosaurs were geared more toward a brachiosaur type lifestye.

Shantungosaurus only outsizes the late cretaceous NA hadrosaurs by around 1-2 meters, Edmontosaurus and Anatosaurus both got to 12-13 meters, and Maganapaulia got to around 14-15. Shantungosaurus also had a large Tyrannosaur in its ecosystem so it's probably just because its ancestors became larger over time.

Thank you.

[Dino-Mario]

3 ft tall, 15.5 pound parrot fossil found in New Zealand named and described as Heracles inexpectatus.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/06/worl ... kzvIzlcxN0

Squawkzilla! Just imagive having one as a pet.

[MoarCrossovers]

Another giant bird has emerged from the rocks of New Zealand, this time a 1.6 meter tall penguin called Crossvailla waiparensis.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12258353

[LegendZilla]

This is about as accurate as it gets with modern information.

No, both the Chicago field museum and the Smithsonian have FAR more accurate reconstructions

Field Museum:

I like how they handled the neck.

[_JNavs_]

So I have no clue where this would go thread-wise, mods if you know a better spot let me know. But I just found this slab in an antique type shop, and I thought it looked pretty cool, would any of you guys happen to know what it is? I can't tell if it's like a replica made from clay or what, I highly doubt it's the real deal but who knows. All I know is I'll be putting it in my Tegu enclosure to give it that "Ancient God" vibe