HOME | DD

DinoHunter2 — Monsters of Myth

Published: 2010-10-09 23:19:07 +0000 UTC; Views: 15859; Favourites: 238; Downloads: 105
Redirect to original
Description Back in 2006 I ran a Tripod site called Lair of the Beast, which was a field guide to the wildlife of a fictitious world named Hibradel, where mankind is still in the medieval ages and mythological monsters are real. The key point was that there was no magic involved, so the monsters were all treated as normal, naturally occurring beasts. They had predators and prey, habitats, a spot on an evolutionary tree, etc.

It was sort of a neat idea... I just didn't do a very good job with it.

The problem was that when I started the site, it wasn't meant to be about mythological creatures in general. It was meant to be about dragons. So when the staff and I made the switch it wound up being really dragon heavy. And since the dragons were what I was most interested in I concentrated on them. And since I also happened to be the owner of the site, it lead to a LOT of bias. Looking back on it, I really don't care for the way I portrayed a lot of the monsters, especially the non-dragons.
I remembered this after seeing some of that SyFy show "Beast Legends", and then immediately started wondering what I'd do differently if I remade LOTB today...


[Not that I'm proposing that. This was just for fun!]


So here are some various mythological monsters drawn in a more naturalistic style.

*Dragon. Though warmblooded, Dragons are true reptiles. Their ancestors were small, tree-climbing crocodiles that ambushed their prey by dropping down on them. Over time they developed large, webbed feet to allow for gliding- this gave rise to the formation of primitive wings, and eventually, powered flight. Since then many dragon species have emerged and they can be found all over the world. Some grow to gargantuan lengths, though the largest of these have only vestigial wings and are too heavy to fly. Dragons in general are very dangerous creatures, and their bony, armored hide makes them incredibly hard to kill.

*Sea Serpent. A little-known but very infamous breed of sea monster, Sea Serpents are massive, long-bodied carnivorous fish. Encounters with them are rare and violent, and very few men have had the opportunity to study them. Candidates for Sea Serpent ancestors include ropefish, lizardfish, and eels, but in truth no one knows their origins. Serpents come in many shapes and sizes, but all are elongate and live in deep waters far from shore. Some can be aggressive.

*Cockatrice. Cockatrice are small, primitive birds known for their foul temper and ungainly appearance. Closer to small theropod dinosaurs than modern day birds, they have tails, clawed forelimbs, and beak teeth. They are clumsy fliers but can move with surprisingly agility on the ground. Unlike the chickens they superficially resemble, Cockatrices are not viewed as particularly good eating. Weasels, on the other hand, are very fond of them.

*Wyvern. Though often mistaken for them, Wyverns are not related to Dragons. Though it is true that both are Archosaurs, the Wyverns belong to a separate clade and are actually the descendants of meat-eating dinosaurs. They are poorly researched and little is understood about how they survived the Mesozoic extinction or developed flight. Wyverns are swift, bipedal predators and can grow to large sizes while still being flight-capable thanks to their lightweight build and hollow bones. Many have defensive quills on their backs or tails, which are venomous in some species.

*Kappa. Kappa are large, freshwater turtles that inhabit rivers and streams. They prey on large fish and waterfowl, and attacks on swimmers (especially small children) are not uncommon. They may be omnivorous, as it is rumored they enjoy cucumbers. Because Kappa spend so much time laying still on the riverbed they typically gather algae on their shells; often they can become entangled in weeds, creating the illusion of a mane of hair. Kappas have a blue, hardened plate on the top of their head, called a bowl. It does not appear until adulthood and is used by males as part of a mating display.

*Gryphon. Known for their brave demeanor and ferocity in defending their young, Gryphons are a well-respected bird that appear on many Coat of Arms. They are capable of flight, but not exceptionally good at it, and do most of their hunting by gliding. While roosting they stand like any other bird, but thanks to the clawed, fully-functioning hands on their wings, they can also crawl, stalk, and climb on all fours. Gryphons are strong, adaptable, and very territorial.

*Minotaur. Minotaurs are fearsome, legendary beasts. Their intelligent, aggressive nature caught the attention of black-market traders many centuries ago and today it is common practice for the cruel and powerful to use them as a means of doing away with their enemies. It is through these circumstances that most people came to know about Minotaurs, and not surprisingly, accounts of them were rare and embellished by fear. They were long believed to be half-man, half-bull creatures, but in actuality they are primates, closely related to the mandrill and baboon. This accounts for their elongated face, carnivorous attitude, and ability to use crude weapons, but the function of their horns remains a mystery.

*Unicorn. Horse-like creatures known for their one horn, Unicorns appears in many myths and legends and (like the Dragon and Gryphon) are a popular image in symbology. They are not true equids, though, having descended from the prehistoric rhinoceros Elasmotherium. Despite having evolved into a smaller, swifter form, they still retain the strength of their rhino ancestors and are nearly impossible to tame. They can be a force to be reckoned with when made angry, which unfortunately is not a hard thing to do. Unicorns prefer the gentler demeanor of women and children and are more likely to tolerate them than men.

*Catoblepas. Catoblepas are large, armored boars typically seen foraging with their heads down. They are opportunistic feeders and hardy animals in general, able to safely digest many plants that other animals find poisonous. Their breath often has a noxious quality as a result, though its strength has been largely exaggerated by some. Catoblepas are covered in a thick, armored hide (not unlike a rhino's) which has a rough, scaly texture. They possess tusks, as well as a great number of bony protuberances, and are an ugly but very rarely preyed upon animal.

*Manticore. Manticores are large, predatory cats known for their great strength and trumpet-like roar. They are known in some parts of the world as simply "Man Eaters". Manticores have shorter faces and more compact jaws than other big cats. They also have a second (and in some species, third) row of teeth on both jaws; together this gives them the most formidable bite of any felid alive today. Also worthy of note are the red, bristly hairs on their mane, front legs, and tail. Though a person could safely run their hand across them from front-to-back, the hairs become stiff and sharp in reverse, and can stab into flesh like quills.

*Werewolf. Werewolves, like Minotaurs, are greatly misunderstood beasts that were once believed to be half-human, half-animal hybrids. In reality Werewolves are simply canines, closely related to wolves. They are by far the largest of the canines, comparable in size and musculature to tigers. Their forelimbs are disproportionally long, even more so than a hyena's*, and have surprisingly dexterous paws- perhaps one of the traits that inspired the human/Werewolf connection. The same may also be said of their intelligence, which is lower than a primate's but still quite impressive for a canid. Werewolves are apt at working in packs, but rarely do.

*Fairy. Fairies are perhaps the most misunderstood of all the legendary creatures. Seen in large numbers at night, typically in the woods, they were thought in olden times to be tiny, winged humans. This belief has persisted even into modern times, despite the fact that science proved long ago that they are a totally different kind of creature: a bug. Fairies are in fact a type of short-bodied insect related to Mayflies and Dragonflies. They are a common sight in the summer, flying low to the ground and trying to impress mates by swaying their long forelegs in the air and producing a bright, bioluminescent glow. Many people see this as waving arms and an aura of mystic light, and mistake the bug's cerci for a pair of dangling legs. The understandable (but comically incorrect) result: tales of tiny, forest-dwelling people flying on insect wings.


-----


* Which are not canines themselves, by the by!
Related content
Comments: 48

OtachiKaiju68 [2015-11-29 07:37:17 +0000 UTC]

wow I like the realistic take on these Mythical Creatures nice work! I really love the Wyvern like Design to the Dragon and the Gryphon

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinoHunter2 In reply to OtachiKaiju68 [2015-11-29 18:52:00 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, I'm happy to hear they went over well.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

WorldBuildersInc [2015-08-16 15:01:19 +0000 UTC]

This makes a lot of sense.

I'm doing something similar with my Eren project; scientifically justifying 'magical' creatures like dragons and thunderbirds and the like.
If you don't mind I'd like to 'borrow' your cockatrice concept; I find that one exceptionally sensible.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinoHunter2 In reply to WorldBuildersInc [2015-08-16 17:04:46 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, go for it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DragonTamer01 [2013-01-21 16:45:40 +0000 UTC]

I watched all six episodes of Beast Legends and I thoroughly LOVED them!


I think they could have done a lot better with their Dragon though. What they made was no Dragon! It was literally a fire-breathing lizard that could glide like a flying squirrel. And your info on Dragons is a little incorrect. A TRUE Dragon is a six-limbed vertebrate: two front legs that can also double as hands, two back legs, and two wings that are completely separate from its front legs, usually placed on its back. If you want believable big dragons that can still fly, watch "Dragon's World: A Fantasy Made Real" by Animal Planet. That ficu-mentary (fictional story shot in documentary style) is a true Animal Planet original. I still own the DVD and will never get tired of watching it.

Other than that, great info and great drawings! I also made a custom list of creatures that I would love to see on Beast Legends if they ever made a Season 2, which I am still praying that they do. I thought about putting Sea Serpents on that list, but then I remembered that they started with the Kraken, and I immediately decided to change Sea Serpents to the ultimate marine monster. The only sea monster able to challenge the Kraken. Namely, the Leviathan!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinoHunter2 In reply to DragonTamer01 [2013-01-21 19:54:51 +0000 UTC]

It was a surprisingly fun show! Their dragon was a pretty bizarre creature but to be honest I liked it more than some of their other creations. My main problem with the show was that they often relied on real world animals a little too heavily and it resulted in some boring looking creature designs. Still enjoyable to watch though, it's a shame it didn't last very long.

I'm not wrong for using the term dragon for my winged crocs, though, actually. I get where you're coming from, that layout can also be argued to be a wyvern, but the kind of creature you're describing is only the modern, Western idea of what a dragon looks like. The number of limbs on "true" medieval dragons varies a lot and some of them don't even have limbs; people didn't always distinguish between things like a wingless, two-legged dragon and a lindorm. The idea that all these creatures are different types of dragons identified by their specific type and number of limbs is mostly just our modern interpretation. TyrantisTerror did a pretty neat series on this a little while back that showed that a lot of things we'd identify today as wyverns, drakes, and amphipteres were just called "dragons" in medieval woodcuts. [link] , [link] , [link] , [link]

Anyway, thanks! Glad you liked them. Seeing their take on Leviathan would've been fun. No easy real world equivalent for that one, they'd have to get inventive.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DragonTamer01 In reply to DinoHunter2 [2013-01-24 16:49:25 +0000 UTC]

Actually, there might be one for Leviathan.

I read in a book about Dragons which had a section on Leviathan, that some of the inspiration for his myth may have been brought about by the discovery of fossils that we now know belong to marine reptiles known as Mosasaurs.

So I think a Mosasaur might be a very good starting point, especially one of the 50-plus foot monsters like Tylosaurus.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AndornArakh In reply to DragonTamer01 [2014-04-22 16:59:59 +0000 UTC]

"A TRUE Dragon is a six-limbed vertebrate: two front legs that can also double as hands, two back legs, and two wings that are completely separate from its front legs, usually placed on its back"

Is that view of dragons one that comes from actual medeival mythology and folklore or more recent fantasy sources such as D&D?
Iv'e seen a few people who have strong opinions on how a dragon should look compared to a wyvern but I have seen a medeival beastiry with a four limbed reptile labeled as a dragon.
If you are trying to make a biologicly plausible creature then four limbs is the way to go as a six limbed creature can be a structural nightmare.

on side note I really like the gryphon, i had a design like that in mind this morning of having them walk on their wing arms like a bet or pterodactyl.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DragonTamer01 In reply to AndornArakh [2014-04-22 21:45:52 +0000 UTC]

Now that I think about it, it probably does come from more recent fantasy sources.  But when I said that, I was (and still am, kind of) going by my own personal beliefs, opinions, and definitions of what defines a Dragon.

Here's my personal categorization system for the Dragon family, based on numbers of limbs and wings.
1. Wyrm:  Wings-optional.  Legs-none.
2. Drake:  Wings-none.  Legs-front and back.
3. Wyvern:  Wings-front legs.  Legs-back.
4. Dragon:  Wings-separate pair on back.  Legs-front and back.

Kind of a rigid classification system, but it's the one I tend to go by.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jakegothicsnake [2012-10-18 07:55:34 +0000 UTC]

Very interesting! I've recently been thinking about doing a series of drawings of how I think the ancient hebrews would have classified the animal kingdom according to the Genesis narrative. From what I have read, there are six classes of animals: great sea monsters, swimming things, fowl/winged creatures, livestock/cattle, beasts of the field, and creeping things. I'm gong to put whales and sharks along with aquatic dinosaurs for great sea monsters, swimming things will just have regular fish along with dolphins and pinnipeds, birds and bats with pterodactyls and archaeopteryxes for fowl, regular farm animals for live stock, wild animals like wildcats/lions/tigers, elephants, wolves/wild dogs, bears, giraffes, and zebras with large land dinosaurs for beasts of the field, and bugs/insects/ with small reptiles and rodents. What do you think?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinoHunter2 In reply to Jakegothicsnake [2012-10-18 18:23:58 +0000 UTC]

Thanks! That's an interesting idea, though I'm not totally sure I understand your goal. Is this a logistical thing where you're just trying to figure out which animals would go where under their system, or are you changing the animals themselves so that they fit into it? Like, say, designing a type of alternate bat that actually is related to birds?

PS, minor nitpick, but don't forget there's no such thing as an aquatic dinosaur!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Jakegothicsnake In reply to DinoHunter2 [2012-10-18 20:10:25 +0000 UTC]

Er...no, it's just a logistic thing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinoHunter2 In reply to Jakegothicsnake [2012-10-18 23:03:29 +0000 UTC]

Ah. Then I'm definitely not grasping what you're going for, sorry. If the only difference is how you're classifying the animals, what's the difference between this idea and doing a series of normal wildlife illustrations? Is there a certain aesthetic you're going to use too, or bestiary-style descriptions that justify their placement?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Jakegothicsnake In reply to DinoHunter2 [2012-10-19 00:14:45 +0000 UTC]

A certain aesthetic? I suppose that could be it. Plus it'd be a good chance for me to practice on drawing more animals and take a break from always drawing human or human-like characters. lol

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinoHunter2 In reply to Jakegothicsnake [2012-10-19 00:18:32 +0000 UTC]

Sounds good, then! Artistic growth is always a plus.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Jakegothicsnake In reply to DinoHunter2 [2012-10-19 01:17:24 +0000 UTC]

Thank you. ^_^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BeastofKelloggCreek [2012-01-09 08:46:56 +0000 UTC]

Hahaha, I like the Rajang reference in the minotaur. It's really cool though, all of these things could be real animals. Kind of makes one wonder.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinoHunter2 In reply to BeastofKelloggCreek [2012-01-09 15:46:51 +0000 UTC]

Thanks! That was the intent.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kairu-Hakubi [2011-03-03 01:29:19 +0000 UTC]

looks pretty great. I love a naturalistic take on monsters

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dyga19 [2010-11-20 09:09:12 +0000 UTC]

ahh lotb, the good old days...that was a fun project. these are some cool creatures by the way!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

OperaGhost21 [2010-11-13 22:54:15 +0000 UTC]

This is such, SUCH an awesome concept...great stuff, DH

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinoHunter2 In reply to OperaGhost21 [2010-11-13 23:13:52 +0000 UTC]

Thank you! I'm glad you like it so much.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Gilarah93 [2010-10-16 02:08:43 +0000 UTC]

A very neat concept.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Spuderific [2010-10-11 14:55:04 +0000 UTC]

Wierd, Recently I had an idea to a scientific viewpoint on Dragons....

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinoHunter2 In reply to Spuderific [2010-10-11 15:32:44 +0000 UTC]

Yeah? What were your ideas about it?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Spuderific In reply to DinoHunter2 [2010-10-11 21:12:08 +0000 UTC]

something similiar to that Animal Planet Special, except giving each Dragon it's own scientific name and species

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JacobSpencerKaiju79 [2010-10-11 00:43:46 +0000 UTC]

Very cool, dude.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TyrantisTerror [2010-10-10 18:54:41 +0000 UTC]

An interesting thought experiment. There are some fascinating ideas for a more scientific approach to mythological creatures, which is a topic that's always interested me. Plus the monsters were pretty well drawn and colored.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SuperSaiyan4Godzilla [2010-10-10 16:36:54 +0000 UTC]

Ah, you know what's funny Chris?

I was at my Scifi Writer's club meeting a week or so back and we were discussing Fantasy-Turned-Scifi and all...And everyone started to try to explain fantasy creatures in a scientific ways..

Everyone was like, "Fairy's are genetic modifications!"

I was like, "Bah. No, no, they're hyper evolved fireflies or something similar"...

And no one thought it was a good idea...But you, you evidently do!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinoHunter2 In reply to SuperSaiyan4Godzilla [2010-10-10 16:40:54 +0000 UTC]

Haha. Well I guess it depends on what sort of fairies you're talking about. A lot of the ones in literature are human sized and wear clothing, so they'd be a little harder to explain as insects, lol. I just went with the more popular "tiny naked person with insect wings" version since it was easier to explain.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SuperSaiyan4Godzilla In reply to DinoHunter2 [2010-10-10 16:50:45 +0000 UTC]

Oh Puck! I forgot about those human sized fairies..


[insert gay joke?]

Is that uncalled for?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BullDan [2010-10-10 15:23:39 +0000 UTC]

i can't remember the last time i even heard the word manticore, thanks for reminding me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinoHunter2 In reply to BullDan [2010-10-10 16:41:11 +0000 UTC]

No problem. They're pretty neat creatures.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BullDan In reply to DinoHunter2 [2010-10-10 20:20:58 +0000 UTC]

have you considered drawing a will o' wisp?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinoHunter2 In reply to BullDan [2010-10-10 22:36:06 +0000 UTC]

Hmmm, nope. Hadn't thought of them. I guess they might be something similar to the fairies, though.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BullDan In reply to DinoHunter2 [2010-10-11 20:24:07 +0000 UTC]

good point.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

monkfishlover [2010-10-10 04:56:59 +0000 UTC]

Ooh what kind of mythology is Catoblepas from? I've only seen them in Final Fantasy 3...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinoHunter2 In reply to monkfishlover [2010-10-10 16:44:14 +0000 UTC]

It's an Ethiopian critter. The description kinda varies from boar-like to buffalo-like but it's always a medium-sized plant eater with scaly skin and a head that's so heavy it has to always look down. Depending on the version of the story it might also have poisonous breath or the ability to kill with its stare.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RenDragonClaw [2010-10-10 03:42:34 +0000 UTC]

This is awesome, its like Monster Hunter for the dark ages but replacing the hunters with knights and screaming peasents. I like the Manticore in particular, sounds like it would be a fun challenge to fully illustrate. The idea of tree climbing crocodiles evolving into dragons is just badass. Maybe they regurgitate if threatened and their vomit is not only powerfully acidic but actually combustable?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinoHunter2 In reply to RenDragonClaw [2010-10-10 16:47:27 +0000 UTC]

Could be. I hadn't thought about it too much to be honest, I wanted to leave the fire breath to the imagination.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RenDragonClaw In reply to DinoHunter2 [2010-10-10 21:13:17 +0000 UTC]

Combustable vomit sounds AWESOME though I'd be wondering the mechanics of it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dinodude0091 [2010-10-10 02:50:24 +0000 UTC]

This is probably six different levels of awesome! The designs are a bit radical (like the archaeopterix-gryphon and monkey-minotaur), but the way you wrote the background information makes them work. I love how you've incorporated the details of these many mythological creatures in a way that stays true to the old legends and at the same time makes them seem scientifically believable (Rhino-unicorn and snapper-kappa are especially awesome).

By the way, do the dragons or wyverns breathe fire?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinoHunter2 In reply to dinodude0091 [2010-10-10 16:37:44 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!

As for the dragons and wyverns, I dunno. I couldn't decide whether they should breath fire or not, so I tried not to mention it in the description. I'm leaving it up to your imagination.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Dragonsmana [2010-10-10 00:33:10 +0000 UTC]

Awesome! I love all of these! And thier description, an easy +2! lol.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Ravensaurs-Rex [2010-10-09 23:59:21 +0000 UTC]

A rather different art style, but I feel it works well with the mythic elements of the monsters. All and all this is a damned good poke at trying to explain them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinoHunter2 In reply to Ravensaurs-Rex [2010-10-10 16:38:56 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, it's not exactly the most polished of artwork, lol. But it gets the point across well enough, and I'm fine with that. Glad you liked it, though.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ravensaurs-Rex In reply to DinoHunter2 [2010-10-10 18:03:21 +0000 UTC]

Polished be damned, this is still some pretty cool work. I just like the over all feeling.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BrooksLeibee [2010-10-09 23:49:11 +0000 UTC]

very nice, also nice to see that your still messing with your tablet.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0