HOME | DD
aspidel β Diatryma-sp-A
Published: 2005-09-16 10:00:40 +0000 UTC; Views: 4665; Favourites: 41; Downloads: 738
Redirect to original
Description
Because this gallery lacked a terror bird.Close relative of Gastornis.
Related content
Comments: 48
wow that is amazing love all the little detailes, my only thing about this is the background, it doesn't really look like it's suposed to be there, a bit too pale, but then who am i to talk i avoid backgrounds like the plague!!
wow my friend on here drew one of these, so i did a search thinking hers would be the only one, but was pleasently surprised!
sorry...shutting up now
π: 0 β©: 0
oh hey, a "chocobo". I nver saw one with a wrikley head before.
π: 0 β©: 2
I guess so, Ive seen skin patches, like a chicken with waddles, but not a totaly bald head. You shold draw that bird with the claes...Mono-somthing....monocloduls. I forget. that one is pretty cool to
π: 0 β©: 0
Well, why not? Yeah, it's inspired by vultures and whatnot.
π: 0 β©: 0
vraiment bon ! j'ai justement une cockatrice Γ l'Γ©tude, Γ§a m'interesse bien de voir Γ§a
π: 0 β©: 0
That`s so awesome i love the detail, i love the feathers !!!
Go to my gallery, hope you like it !
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh my goodness this is really good!!! I love the detail, and the shading. Great job.
π: 0 β©: 1
Do scientologists still think that Big D was carnivorous, or do they now think it was a grazer?
π: 0 β©: 1
With such a powerful head, they still think it was a predator but there are debates.
π: 0 β©: 1
I was only wondering, as I read in, I think "Evolution of Birds," about how scientists were revising their view of Diatryma, on account of closer examinations of its beak.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yea, I read that too, it's mainly on the resemblance to a Takahe, and also probably to the Dromornithids (Though "Magnificent Mihirungs" tends to say that Gastornis was astoundingly generalised, and probably an omnivore).
π: 0 β©: 1
I figure if you're as big as Gastornis, you can eat whatever, or whoever you want.
π: 0 β©: 1
Whenever you want, even.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm more an advocate of it devouring palm hearts and fronds, and other such heavy vegetation.
π: 0 β©: 1
The similarity to Mihirung skulls, albeit that Gastornis was stronger in the skull, is abit of a clincher for me.
Mihirungs had fairly kinetic skuls that weren't as strong as they looked, it looks to me like Diatryma was similar, except that the skull WAS as strong as it looked.
I reckon that the difference in flora (and also fauna, IE small and harmless, with loads of stiff bodied reptiles) is probably why Diatryma had a heavy skull, you've got tree ferns and palms and fruit everywhere. Nonetheless, I reckon Diatryma ate animal matter fairly often too, that beak would be pretty useless for grabbing a lithe mammal (like a primate or paleothere), but ideal for grabbing the less-flexible crocs and snakes, much like the heavy beak of a Kookaburra (plus, a Diatryma beak would be a great turtle-cracker). I could be wrong, maybe diatryma was like a cross between a stork and a swamphen?
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, there's one way to find out: get the horniest drake mallard we can get our grubby mits on, dope him up on Viagra, and sic him on a shoebill stork, and see where Nature goes with this.
π: 0 β©: 1
Easier way, just expose a swamphen to gamma rays, and 'voila!
π: 0 β©: 1
I am not going through "HULK PECK" again.
π: 0 β©: 1
That, and, it's how they made "Green Eggs and Ham"
π: 0 β©: 1
That makes sense XD
π: 0 β©: 0
I love the detail incorporated in the plant life!
π: 0 β©: 1
it's great,
but the background looks flat, coz don't hv different of tonal value.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks.
Aye, I've been a bit fast with that.
Thanks for the watch and the fav anyway.
π: 0 β©: 0
It'a impressive! All those details.. it's amazing.
π: 0 β©: 1
This is exactly like the illustrations you see in the turn of the (20th) century animal books.
Bravo!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks, and thanks for the fav.
π: 0 β©: 0
ohh my..such time and skill has gone into that...nicely done!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks, and thanks for the fav.
π: 0 β©: 0
You're SO great at drawing!!! And I love that piece of work!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks for your kind comment!
π: 0 β©: 0
holy shit that is good. I like the intensity of the objects in the foreground in contrast to the opaque backround. Kudos...
π: 0 β©: 1