Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×
  • Art Print
  • Canvas
  • Photo
  • Art Gifts



Details

Submitted on
December 26, 2013
Image Size
448 KB
Resolution
900×657
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,428 (4 today)
Favourites
60 (who?)
Comments
31

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
×
Edmontosaurus annectens and the Crest That Wasn't by Qilong Edmontosaurus annectens and the Crest That Wasn't by Qilong
I don't think the data confirms a medial "cocks'-comb was present in Edmontosaurus regalis, and parsimony suggests that the restored version I show may be just as likely, given its consistency with the data. The structure is associated with the side of the skull, and we should always be very careful about assuming that a preserved structure is intact when the specimen is mangled or otherwise not available in all dimensions. My alternate take, here of Edmontosaurus annectens, suggests the "crest" was just the front end above the head of a large mass of tissue that lay around and above the neck.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconorange-eyed-serpent:
orange-eyed-serpent Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I agree, just because it appears as though Edmontosaurus had a "comb" from the fossil doesn't mean it necessarily did, since the integument could have easily drifted after decay and/or fossilization. I don't see many depictions of hadrosaurs without cheeks, what's the reasoning behind it? It certainly looks interesting though.
Reply
:iconqilong:
Qilong Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2014
qilong.wordpress.com/2012/09/1… and qilong.wordpress.com/2012/10/1…

There's very little evidence for cheeks. Lips are the default state among sauropsids, so without further evidence to the contrary we should opt for this when testing alternate perspectives. Unfortunately, the main reason people cite for cheeks is "inset jaw margins," which in hadrosaurs at least isn't really the case, and doesn't hold true for most mammals, who have them.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
I love the placement of the nostrils and the depth of the beak. 
Reply
:iconqilong:
Qilong Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2014
Thanks! I do try to put the data to practice.
Reply
:icondino-mario:
Dino-Mario Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
That is a pretty good scaly skin.I also love your cheekless ornithischians.They look more badass.
Reply
:iconqilong:
Qilong Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2014
Well, the cheeks thing MIGHT be false. It's something that has to be investigated in more depth. But I thank you for the kind words! I personally think we should look into more diverse options for integument on a variety of animals; restoring animals based on some basic tenets of integumental reconstruction often suggests we know less (but sometimes more) than we think.
Reply
:iconpr0teusunbound:
Pr0teusUnbound Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
do you use living animals as a reference?
Reply
:iconqilong:
Qilong Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2013
As the only reference! Some fossil animals are incomparable to living creatures in qualities of their skin, textures, proportions, etc., which makes it hard to just plop a dino into the flesh and make it "look real." But sometimes, you get great preservation that shows the original texture, weight, and even volume of an animal, so that you don't make too many guesses.
Reply
:icona2812:
A2812 Featured By Owner Dec 26, 2013
Nice :-)
Regards Jacek
Reply
:icondeinonychusempire:
DeinonychusEmpire Featured By Owner Dec 26, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Props for keeping an open mind about this whole ordeal.
Reply
Add a Comment: