Paleontology thread

File: Gorgonopsid.jpg (760KB, 2500x2000px) Image search: [Google]

760KB, 2500x2000px

I myself have to go with the Permian. There is no beating a world where weird mammal/reptile synapsids fuck shit up on a desert Pangaea. Gorgonopsids were GOAT.
I can't even imagine what life would look like if the great dying didn't fuck over most synapsids.

File: Phytosaur_skull.jpg (364KB, 1474x682px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1474x682px

Phytosaurs are really neat

File: fight.jpg (31KB, 624x351px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 624x351px

CAN YOU EVEN HANDLE?

File: archaeopteryx.jpg (95KB, 640x493px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 640x493px

>>2039271
I'm a fan of the classic Archaeopteryx myself

File: 1449019390180.jpg (286KB, 1174x1500px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1174x1500px

giraffe sized pterosaurs are the shieet

>>2039267

Looks like some kind of demon rat from Hell.

>>2039283
Reminds me of the molerats in the Fallout serious.

Which, for some reason, I find adorable.

File: Quetzalcoatlus.png (113KB, 565x454px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 565x454px

>>2039280
Birds can't even compete with this shit

>>2039259
Do we know for sure if they had sprawling legs?
Because with the amount of straight-legged gorgonopsids I don't know if it's just a bad representation or has some real evidence behind.

>believing in 'prehistoric' creatures based on monstrous bones placed in the earth by satan to deceive man

File: Gorgo Skeleton.jpg (130KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1024x768px

>>2039614
I think it might just be the position of that certain skeleton. As far as I know they had straight legs, especially compared to earlier synapids like Dimetrodons. Maybe their legs splayed out just a little more than true mammals but less than reptiles.

>>2039819
that's the same skeleton. Or a cast of the same skeleton maybe.

File: image.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

>>2039259
Why are artist representations of prehistoric mammals always so weird and wrong looking? It's like they go out of their way to give everything this angry, prehistoric, violent beast look regardless of what it is. Most of the time it looks like they just stretched rubber over a skull with no attention to muscles whatsoever.

>>2039926
shrink wrapping is a problem because artists aren't biologists, they just look at a mounted skeleton and draw it with skin

>>2039937
Most professional paleoartists are biologists.

the main problem is probably that you guys don't actually know what animals look like so you think the interpretation is wrong.

also there's the familiarity thing. Most of the animals we have today are fucking bizarre but you don't notice because you're familiar with them. You don't actually see hell boars running around today so you think they're weird looking no matter how they're drawn.

the final problem is just Dunning Kruger effect.
You guys think you're somehow qualified to judge how anatomists illustrate anatomy. You're not. Unless you've actually studied anatomy for 4 or 5 years you're not really qualified to make any meaningful criticisms, and this is reflected in the shallow and general nature of your discourse on the subject.

no insult intended, you're completely ignorant of the subject and there's nothing wrong with that.

>>2039945
Only artist that has ever given me that satisfaction
In the anatomy of his illustration was carl buell, and hes basically disappeared from the internet in any official sense. :|

>>2039945
Why don't modern animal skulls look similar to the animal, but most interpretations of prehistoric animals look exactly like them?

>>2040196
It's still a guess even if its an highly educated guess.

>>2040196
because you are used to seeing modern animals so when you see their skull you don't recognize how much it looks like their face.

your brain magnifies subtle differences in things you're familiar with. Same reason people of your race all look different while people of other races all look the same.

also fur. Most of the animals you give a fuck about are disguised in fur.

File: 1024px-Hippo_skull_dark.jpg (204KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1024x768px

>>2040266
>when you see their skull you don't recognize how much it looks like their face

File: elephant_skull_3_4_by_apteryxstock-d3d3uwp.jpg (120KB, 900x1344px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 900x1344px

>>2040357
to someone that's studied osteology that just looks like a hippo.

Also I can't look at a person's face without seeing their skull underneath.

it's just a matter of you being completely unfamiliar with bones. Education fixes that problem.

>>2040196
>Why don't modern animal skulls look similar to the animal, but most interpretations of prehistoric animals look exactly like them?
Probably because you're comparing mammals to dinosaurs.

File: the-hairless-bear1.jpg (56KB, 550x371px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 550x371px

>>2039945
this

also, animals without fur, feathers and/or scales always look a bit weird and wrong

File: Anomalocaris.jpg (787KB, 1200x977px) Image search: [Google]

787KB, 1200x977px

Make way for the most OG apex predator of all time
Who /CambrianExplosion/ here?

File: kelenken.jpg (75KB, 945x796px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 945x796px

Best predatory theropod comming through

File: Aegirocassis.jpg (43KB, 580x495px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 580x495px

>>2040753
move over shrimp

>>2039945
Never studied anatomy, but im pretty sure when some paleoart starts showing animals with visible fenestrae they stop being accurate.

File: sinus.jpg (160KB, 767x1007px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 767x1007px

>>2040953
>im pretty sure when some paleoart starts showing animals with visible fenestrae they stop being accurate.
that's because you've never studied anatomy.

what are modern fenestrae full of? what were dinosaur fenestrae full of?

>>2040753
How did that thing kill and eat?

File: Cambrian.jpg (267KB, 640x898px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 640x898px

>>2041078
They used those two appendages on their heads to crush trilobites and ate them with a jawless mouth underneath their heads

>>2040945
> Implying Anomalocaris couldn't absolutely smoke its pussy filter feeding descendants

No but seriously that's fucking crazy I had no idea that was a thing. Cool how early large filter feeders evolved.

File: spriggina.jpg (38KB, 320x276px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 320x276px

>>2040753
Cambrian a shit, ediacaran biota master race.

File: 1280_image1.jpg (181KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1280x1024px

>>2041198
move aside pussies.

File: 0f8BAr1.png (1MB, 1000x668px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x668px

>>2040360
but modern reptiles don't have that shrink wrapped look, either
look at this shit

The problem is, we have no goddamn idea what sort of bells n whistles prehistoric animals had in their soft tissue for the most part, so no matter what we'd add to a reconstruction there would be a baseless assumption.
So we go bare bones with it, bone, muscle, little bit a fat sometimes, and skin. theres a good chance it looked a little bit more elaborate than that, sure, but in what way? who would decide? without some soft tissue imprints or something, we could only assume.

>>2040360
see
>>2039926

that's a mammal.

>>2039945
I'm not a paleoartist so no offense taken

>>2041302
That iguana looks just like it's skull, aside from the cheeks (which most other lizards don't have) and dewlap.
It's pretty much guaranteed some dinosaurs had weirdass display structures like that but we obviously shouldnt assume all of them have huge jowls or something.

File: sicksaltwatercroc.jpg (379KB, 589x800px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 589x800px

>>2041321
But theres tissue in that skull, sure you can tell the general shape of the skull by looking, but the animal doesnt look as if its starving.

Even among crocodiles that dont have so much tissue in the skull compared to mammals, the animal doesnt look as shrink wrapped as some old dinosaur/synapsid paleoarts.

Btw, if shrink wrapping wasnt a issue in paleoart, most paleoartists wouldnt complain about it, today most of them avoid the shrink wrapped look because its just wrong.

>>2041339
>if shrink wrapping wasnt a issue in paleoart, most paleoartists wouldnt complain about it,
assuming it's not a fad to do so.
>today most of them avoid the shrink wrapped look because its just wrong.
or because it's a fad to do so.

File: 51NhtW9exnL._SX355_.jpg (278KB, 1841x1226px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1841x1226px

>>2040357

>>2040359
Is this where the cyclops myth came from?

>>2041572
yeah, probably.

>>2041339
Oh, yeah I wasn't arguing against the retarded trend of people making dinosaurs look like they were mummified, I just meant there probably wasn't the extreme differences like you see with a lot of mammals.

File: Hibbertopterus_scouleri.jpg (129KB, 1280x989px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1280x989px

>>2041301
thickest swamp bug comin through

File: latest-1.jpg (22KB, 331x331px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 331x331px

Eosimias

File: Pterygotus.jpg (1MB, 3146x1523px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3146x1523px

>>2041814
Eurypterids are the truly the most boss arthropods

File: images.jpg (26KB, 639x230px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 639x230px

>>2042305
Look at this cool motherfucker.

File: 1212806409797.jpg (19KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x365px

>>2042707

File: suchomimus_tenerensis_by_unlobogris.jpg (178KB, 1214x423px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1214x423px

Spinosauridae are love
Spinosauridae are life

>>2042998
Dat shrink wrapping

>>2043003
that's not what shrink wrapping means.

this picture has cheeks, a dewflap, an extra horn, kneecap folds and rolls of skin at the shoulder. It's clearly not shrink wrapped.

>>2043007
Despite the fact I can see the thing ribs and ever intricate detail of the skull?
Ok m8

File: baryonyx-pic.jpg (2MB, 4000x2672px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x2672px

>>2043003
>>2043008
It's not a very good picture anyways

>>2043008
yep.
shrink wrapping doesn't refer to how tight the skin looks.

sorry.

>>2043007
Nah, that pictured is shrink wrapped indeed, just compare it with that crocodile pic above.

>>2043042
the crocodile above isn't shrink wrapped either.

I politely suggest you go read what Naish meant by shrink wrapped. He explains it quite thoroughly in his blog and his book.

if you'd like I'm sure I can link the blog page for you.

again.

>>2042707
what a beautiful fossil

>>2040753
Ma nigga

File: Suchomimus.jpg (94KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1000x750px

>>2043055
Sorry for the late reply, im kinda lazy. I have nothing against you providing me links btw, feel free to do that or correct me if im wrong.

But im still sure that suchomimus is shrink wrapped, the fenestrae are way too visible, the tail isnt thick enough and the spines too apparent.

Scott hartman takes minimum soft tissue in reconstructions, as far as im aware of it at least, his suchomimus is sightly beefier than the one in that painting and thats without taking extensive soft tissue in account.

Anyway, when i think of shrink wrapping i mostly think about the love in time of chasmosaurs blog posts about old paleoart books: http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/vintage-dinosaur-art-odyssey-in-time.html

While i dont think that suchomimus is as shrink wrapped as some of the dinosaurs in that post, there are still some similarities and thats why it looks shrink wrapped for me.

File: archaeopteryx-size.jpg (57KB, 390x366px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 390x366px

>>2039279
Archaeopteryx is a badass. Is it a lizard? Is it a bird? Is it a motherfucking BIRD LIZARD? I DON'T KNOW AND I DON'T GIVE A SHIT. It's a flying badass bird thing with motherfucking TEETH, and TALONS. Jesus Christ, I feel sorry for any mother fucker that crosses this badass, it must have been fucking GIGANT- ...oh.

>>2044735
I would have had a happier life without coming across this picture

>>2044735
>>2044768
Just be glad you weren't an insect or small lizard during the Jurassic.