post rare Knights
Thank you for these OP. I'll post some rare Franczaks.
Wish this artist was still around. I wonder what he's up to these days.
Could that game be Dinosaur 3-D Adventure? That's what I had when I was a kid. That game is full with Brian Franczak's art, it's probably part of the reason why it captivates me to this day. Nostalgia aside, I do think that Franczak brought forth that rare quality in his paintings of depicting the animals as but a small part of a greater context. His art for me is not as much pictures of dinosaurs than it is snapshots of different Mesozoic landscapes and what they contained. His dinosaurs were beautiful too. Just look at this Dryosaurus!
It's a shame that most of his art on the internet doesn't exist in any good quality. I was lucky enough to find his website shortly before it got taken down, it's where those pictures are from. I have not uploaded most of these paintings before now so be sure to save them.
Keep in mind that real animals aren't static homogeneous objects and that different factors than proportions plays part in their balance such as tendons, bone density, organ placement, hollow cavities such as lungs and air-sacks, and however the animal is locomoting or not. Some of those tails do look a bit meagre by modern standards, but I think they're fine purely mechanically-wise.
Based Burian coming through.
I find Franczak more appealing than Paul. More subtle and naturalistic artwork. Paul tends to show his dinosaurs in very dramatic circumstances, which is kind of obvious because him and his mentor Bakker have dedicated their lives to convincing the public that dinosaurs were hot-blooded animals.
>I have foreseen this confrontation coming and have mastered Brazilian Jiu Jitsu
>Crawl atop me and meet your doom!
Has science gone too far?
I know it's bullshit, but snake-necked plesiosaurs will forever have a place in my heart.
Actually, the artist posted his reasoning for it. Female lions and leopards, usually after losing cubs, have been shown to take offspring of usual prey species and "adopt" them. Unfortunately, the calves are going to die either from starvation or "mom"'s gonna get hungry.
For dinosaurs, it's all speculatory, of course.
dinosaurs were probably not capable of that kind of behavior. unless there was something instinctual about it, it seems unlikely that a tyrannosaur would let a juvenile ceratopsian hang around like that. dinosaur behavior would have been very stereotyped and sophisticated "thought" rare
>m-m-muh skull size studies
>m-muh brain to body mass when comparing non-mammals
Quit regurgitating journals you won't even comprehend properly anon. Life is not a game of parroting Google Scholar.
behavioral sophistication on the levels of ratites and waterfowl is probably the most dinosaurs could muster. lots of stereotyped behaviors - like goose egg-rolling. Not that it's inferior - genes can 'program' pretty complex behaviors.
FWIW, dromaeosaurids probably didn't exhibit wolf-level forms of social behavior or pack hunting. they may have been gregarious, but Jurassic Park is (duh) pushing it - they would have been mostly solitary or cooperative only temporarily. nearly all modern birds and reptiles are not pack hunters (see modern raptors)
adding on to my post: it's compelling to compare dromaeosaurids to felines and envision them as cat-like ambush predators, especially the smaller ones. They don't seem to have been as fast as once thought.
it's no more speculative than the notion that they lived in tight-knit wolf packs, which is a *possibility* - we have evidence of probable gregariousness for these theropods, but many birds are gregarious yet do not cooperatively hunt
You can't generalize all 30+ known genera of Dromaeosaur. That's like saying all canids are solitary just because coyotes tend to hunt alone. It also wouldn't surprise me if the smartest dinosaurs were on the same level as the smartest birds.
>Inb4 muh brain case analysis
Those brain studies don't even really work on modern birds, much less animals removed 65 million years.
>Hey! Lets guestimate and extrapolate what animals that died 120 mya would be like based on animals that share almost nothing in common with except for relation!
These weren't ducks or crocodiles. Niche has far more to do with traits an animal exhibits than relation does. I guess lions must not actually be pack animals because all other felids are solitary hunters.
okay, but there's not a lot of *positive* evidence for leonine or canine style pack-hunting. extant phylogenetic bracketing is one of the few ways of tackling the question, and unfortunately it seems like current evidence squares up to that. Obviously, there was likely a spectrum of social behavior in a family of dinosaurs that lived for almost 100 million years, but it doesn't seem likely to me that the hyper-predatory varieties ever reached the kind of cooperation that extant mammalian apex predators did. Birds can be extremely gregarious and social animals, but usually the act of gathering food is a solitary performance. Leopards and tigers handle beefy prey on their own; perhaps _Utahraptor_, a large and robust dromaeosaurid, was more like this. The lion analogy is probably less applicable.
But thats the thing, we shouldn't be tackling questions like this when there is no possible way of knowing. Extrapolating from living relatives is a straight up glorified guess. Until we have definitive evidence (looking at modern animals isn't "evidence") The question should remain unanswered, especially since we're painting in such broad strokes with an entire clade of animals.
It's evidence, albeit very shitty evidence. For the purposes of, say, artwork, or if one had to make an *educated* guess, however, it's clearly wiser to portray theropod behavior as within the range of it exhibited by living diapsids, excepting contrary evidence.
Its seriously like trying to definitively say that T. rex was brown because some birds are brown, its fucking useless. Calling that evidence is like saying that you found the killer just because both the suspect and the perpetrator are both males.
>from this shitty half destroyed set of bones I can extrapolate that pterosaurs were in fact marsupials
Yes it is, specifically its depicting Megalosaurus and Iguanodon in the background. This was made during the earliest days of dinosaur paleontology when nobody really had a clue on how a complete dinosaur looked like, that's why they look odd by today's standards.
There was this series of books from "Life Nature Library", I think. Some of their foldouts had gorgeous paintings of paleo animals. Not sure if any were posted here, but if/when I get a proper phone again, I'll be sure to let you guys have them.
Watch what examples you use. There's been a lot of progress made on discovering the color of extinct vertebrates. In any case, it's probably more reasonable (at least when producing art) to look at extant diapsids first and mammals only second - i.e. birds and reptiles are probably more informative regarding dinosaur behavior than mammals. Remember that diapsids and synapsids are separated by about 320my; from my understanding of recent work, therapsids and pelycosaurs are a little more mammal-like than historically thought.
You think dinosaurs interbred and created hybrid species, like how modern mammals interbreed and produce shit like ligers and mules? Could a Triceratops fuck a Styracosaurus and produce a Styracotops?