HOME | DD
Droemar β Theropod Tutorial
Published: 2008-02-12 06:15:24 +0000 UTC; Views: 97993; Favourites: 3339; Downloads: 4734
Redirect to original
Description
A sequel of sorts to the Raptor Tutorial. Again, this is as much for me as anyone else; my hope is that other people will be able to benefit from my rather nonsensical scribblings. I should be updating my comic tomorrow.Theropods are pretty hard to nail down; saying you're going to draw them is like saying you're going to draw a canine or feline. There are a LOT of variations, and half the scientists in the world are debating who goes where. I focused on the clade that Acrocanthosaurus belongs to, because those are the ones I'm really studying. (They're the villains in mah book.) I did add T-Rex in, but mostly for the benefit of showing the pinnacle of specialization the guy was. That bulldog neck and battering ram skull more than make up for his dinky forepaws.
Theropods really were the ultimate predator. I don't care what you compare them to: sharks, orcas, tigers, bears, wolves. I have a wall chart that shows how big the various species in my book were in relation to each other, and seeing an Acro go after an Astrodon must've been like watching gods fight, let alone what a Giganotosaurus would have looked like going after an Argentinosaurus.
You just can't beat something that could run you down and eat you in a couple of bites.
Related content
Comments: 131
THANK YOU! Oh my god I've been looking for one of these for weeks
π: 0 β©: 0
Awesome job!
However, why is there at least one person who starts a fight with you in your comments?
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't know, to be honest. Everybody has their own opinions about dinosaurs and how they should be drawn, but instead of doing their own damn tutorial they tell me what's wrong with mine!
π: 1 β©: 1
I guess.
Hell, there's even people who start a war over the most trivial things...
π: 0 β©: 1
I've been called a "feather-Nazi" on my newest raptor tutorial. I still laugh about that.
π: 1 β©: 1
Was it by that "urrdurrburr" guy?
π: 0 β©: 1
Probably. Sounds about right.
π: 0 β©: 1
Tyrant LIZARDS?
Tyrannosaurus rex means dominant tyrant reptile. Not tyrant lizard king or whatever
π: 0 β©: 1
Aw, it's so cute when people so much more ignorant than me try to school me on dinosaurs.
Tyrannosaurus (/ tα΅»ΛrΓ¦nΙΛsΙΛrΙs/ or / taΙͺΛrΓ¦nΙΛsΙΛrΙs/, meaning "tyrant lizard", from the Ancient Greek tyrannos (ΟΟΟΞ±Ξ½Ξ½ΞΏΟ), "tyrant", and sauros (ΟΞ±αΏ¦ΟΞΏΟ), "lizard"[1] ) is a genus of coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur .Β The species Tyrannosaurus rex (rex meaning "king" in Latin ), is one of the most well-represented of the large theropods.
But by all means, explain to me why "tyrannos" translates to "dominant" instead of tyrant, and how reptile and lizard are not synonymous.
(Pssst, if you're thinking of Indominus rex, that's not a real dinosaur!"
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm greek you know. And our language is far more complicated than you think. So, don't challenge me...
π: 0 β©: 1
Take it up with Huxley, man. He's the one who named the species and the clade.
And for someone who speaks Greek, you seem woefully inept at being able to explain to me why "tyrannos" means "dominant" instead of "tyrant."
π: 0 β©: 1
Rex refers to king.. Tyranno refers to tyrant. Saurus refers to lizard and reptile. A mix of these 3 words ends up being dominant tyrant reptile. A mix of these words ends up in different meanings and in nouns becoming adjectives. Get it now?
π: 0 β©: 2
Yeah, see? I didn't think you had a good argument for your BS.
π: 0 β©: 1
Said the guy who used wikipedia for his arguments
π: 0 β©: 1
Bahahahaha! Hey, by all means, prove me wrong! Burden of proof is on you, sucker.
π: 0 β©: 1
grammar and vocabulary is against you though
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, I'm still looking for a source that says that and you can't provide one to save your life, can you?
(Oh, and it's "Grammar and vocabulary ARE against you.")
π: 0 β©: 1
It's because nobody wanted to put the words in a formal row. This is what i meant
π: 0 β©: 1
Uh-huh. And if it's valid, you'll find a source that says what you're trying to prove.
Until then, "king tyrant lizards" they'll remain. Which will be forever, because you can't post anything that calls them by your name, because no one calls them that, and you seem to be taking your anger at reality out on my tutorial instead of posting a source that proves your point.
π: 0 β©: 0
No. Because no other source in the world thinks T . rex translates to dominant tyrant reptile. Rex is Latin, not Greek, for one thing, so you can't claim your expertise in Greek. Rex means "king", not "dominant". If it WERE "dominant", the Latin part of the scientific name would be Tyrannosaurus dominari. It's not. It's rex. Therefore, the literal translation is "tyrant lizard king." Huxley named it to be the "king of the tyrant lizards" because he thought it was badass.
And every other source in existence says that's the translation, so at this point you're being willfully ignorant about your own stupidity. You even translated every word as "king, tyrant lizard/reptile" and then just magically change it to dominant because you think your ignorance is equal to my facts. Most languages don't change nouns to adjectives between translations, so I'm also calling bullshit on your ability to speak or comprehend Greek, let alone Latin. You're either lying or too stupid to explain properly, neither of which changes the translation. Ask any paleontologist in the world, and they'll tell you you're wrong. Yutyrannus doesn't mean "yu dominant". Eotyrannus doesn't mean "new dominant." Zhuchengtyrannus doesn't mean "Zhucheng dominant."
So unless you can show me a credible source that names T. rex's translated name as your version, you're full of it.
π: 0 β©: 0
this is pretty cool
thanks for the written advice
π: 0 β©: 0
So, I've had a newfound interest in dinosaur art. This is extremely useful...
...but spinosaurids (the quadrupedal rendition in specific) are a toughΒ nut to crack, mainly because they are so different than other theropods (mainly because of quadrupedal stuff). I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong but when I draw spinosaurids it always looks... wrong.
π: 2 β©: 1
Even the scientists are confused. The "new" rendition is very controversial; many aren't sure if it was quadrupedal.
I think because it's up for debate (and because the only intact skeleton was destroyed by WW2 bombings), you should just have fun with it. I personally prefer bipedal; I think Spinosaurus is entirely too close in physiology to Baryonx, which is the same type of predator: croc-faced fish catcher.
CollectA and Schliech make figures that would be worth studying. They at least attempt scientific accuracy, and I know for a fact they've released a quadruped version of Spino. Also, Shapeways.com has some great dinosaur models molded by 3D paleo enthusiasts; maybe there's a Spinosaurus there worth getting to practice drawing?
(I do this all the time. My dino collection is shameless.)
π: 0 β©: 1
This Tutorial on theropod dinosaurs will be useful.
π: 0 β©: 0
You should totally do one for birds! Like eagles, ravens, etc 
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not sure how well I know bird anatomy, but I can keep it in mind.
π: 0 β©: 0
This is incorrect. The fifth "digit" is just a metatarsal that wouldn't be externally visible. It *certainly* did not have an ungual (claw)!
π: 0 β©: 0
5 toes? Odd. All conventional representations I know of depict 4. 3 main toes and a small one at the side.
π: 0 β©: 1
Depends on the theropod in terms of what was vestigial and what wasn't.
[link]
[link]
"The first toe is separated from the rest of the foot and did not touch the ground. Three elongated toes (digits 2-4) bear the bodyβs weight. In most theropods, the number of phalanges (toe bones) on the five toes had the following formula: 2-3-4-5-0 (Weishampel, p. 212)"
π: 0 β©: 1
Hm. Interesting. Will have to keep more of an eye out next time I'm at a museum...
π: 0 β©: 0
You need to do a bit more research.
1.-Carcharodontosaurid "primitive" status has nothing to do with some kind of inferior-superior thing when compared to Tyrannosaurus as you seem to imply(or at least that's what I get from your text), just that the later is more derived, interesting thing to note that the clade from which Carcharodontosauridae evolved from (Allosauroidea) has been producing giant sized theropods since the Jurassic, and all Carcharodontosaurs fall in the "giant" size range. On the other hand, Coelurosaurian theropods (like tyrannosaurs) didn't attain such sizes until the late Cretaceous.
2.- Allosaurus is not a Carcharodontosaurid.
Anyway, good work (:
π: 0 β©: 0
Interesting. Tyrannosaurids' femur and Tibia were about the same length. Also, T-rex had about 20% of its weight devoted to leg muscle. In order for an animal like T-rex to run, with its legs straight or in columnar position, it would have to have 26% of its body weight allotted to leg muscle. It would be even more difficult to run in a crouched position-86% of its body weight would need to be leg muscle. That would be impossible! T-rex could not have run at speeds of even 25 mph! It could have walked at a fast pace but that's about it!
π: 0 β©: 0
Hey, this is cool! Good job, and thanks for the reference!
π: 0 β©: 0
Dude thank you.
NOW I CAN FINALLY SEND STUFF TO SMOSH
once I find their p.o. box
and a nearby post office
π: 0 β©: 0
I'd just like to point out that advanced theropods did not have an external fifth toe. It was vestigial to the point where it was imbeded in the flesh of the foot and therefore would not have visible in the living animal. In more primitive forms that did have an external fifth toe, like herrerasaurids and "prosauropods", it still would have lacked a claw, for this was a basal trait found troughout Archosauria.
π: 0 β©: 1
I know, right? I was like, 5 toes, whut???
π: 0 β©: 0
Is that Giganotosaurus right above the Form Concept?
π: 0 β©: 1
I have no idea. I chose some random fossil from a Google search.
π: 0 β©: 0
I love dinosaurs β₯ Thanks a lot for the tutorial, it's great ^^
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>