Comments: 47
Tyranno63 [2018-03-21 21:03:23 +0000 UTC]
youtu.be/ajsNJtnUb7c I’m sorry, I just couldn’t resist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
TheDubstepAddict [2016-05-29 15:33:02 +0000 UTC]
Anger management, dude.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Godzillafan1987 [2016-02-25 16:37:38 +0000 UTC]
I, sir, can see that you have seen Star Trek.... KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAEAEAAAAAN!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
RRedolfi [2013-04-25 14:45:54 +0000 UTC]
Thank you! Ahhhh! Thank you so much! I'm going through an oviraptorid phase in my art and this will be endlessly helpful!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Drakonial [2013-04-23 22:23:43 +0000 UTC]
I'm not sure, but I may be just favoriting this for the title.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Qilong [2013-04-23 18:12:35 +0000 UTC]
It still looks like you've got the palate all flat and squishy, not as in all other oviraptorids. I would suggest fixing that, compare to ZPAL MgD-I/95 and GIN 100/20, both Conchoraptor gracilis.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DrScottHartman In reply to Qilong [2013-04-23 18:41:07 +0000 UTC]
It seems that Conchoraptor may be the most extreme example of the ventrally located palate, but I think you are still correct.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Qilong In reply to DrScottHartman [2013-04-23 19:47:10 +0000 UTC]
Well, the massively ventrally-displaced pelate, with a vertical ectopteryogid having a C-shape in lateral view occurs at least in AMNH FR 6517, holotype of Oviraptor mongoliensis (it is monly the dorsal half of the ectopterygoid that is preserved in that specimen, but it's enough to show the whole bone was vertical as in other oviraptorids). This suggests that all oviraptorids probably have this structure, though it may be diagnostic to a larger clade -- but given the distribution and definition, this would probably still be called Oviraptoridae. It doesn't look like caengnathids have such a distended palate, and neither does Caudipteryx, contra Longrich.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DrScottHartman In reply to Qilong [2013-04-23 19:58:15 +0000 UTC]
Well thus concludes one of my more stupid episodes - I uploaded last year's version (it freaking said "2012", and didn't even have the scale bar and rigorous version I'd just finished).
The palate still may not be deep enough for your tastes, but it _was_ improved from last year.
Sheesh.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Qilong In reply to DrScottHartman [2013-04-24 16:51:04 +0000 UTC]
Well, I see that NOW. And yes, it does look different, but I'm not sure it resembles anything more than an hypothetical caenagnathid.
(I should add that, given the brevity of the tail, I doubt the typical S-curve that might be present in larger theropods' tails was present; the distal end seems to easily incorporate a "stiffened rod" of sorts, and a pygostyle seems to develop in oviraptorosaurians fairly easily where the distal tail tip is known ("Ingenia," Conchoraptor both seem to have one).)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Qilong In reply to DrScottHartman [2013-04-25 18:39:44 +0000 UTC]
I merely make the asusmption that Khaan mckennai will be closer to, say Conchoraptor gracilis than is Oviraptor philoceratops, and if the latter has a strongly descended palate a la Conchoraptor gracilis, then so too should Khaan mckennai; otherwise, you're interpolating a flatter, more basal palate WITHIN oviraptorids, convergently. We should infer the palate be oviraptorid in morphology.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Qilong In reply to Qilong [2013-04-25 18:45:35 +0000 UTC]
Err, I should have added that when it comes to tail feathers, birds walk with their pygostyles held vertically, tails flexed upward or at least the style and last caudals. If the tails are short, we can suggest that they had alack of general flexibility; and if they weren't as flexible as longer tails, they wouldn't form the same S curves. That's why MY Khaan looks like this: [link] Much of the distal tail doesn't seem particularly mobile. I do agree with the caveat that appearances are descieving; no one's actually attempted mobility analyses on tails, even recent oviraptorid tail muscle morphology papers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
pilsator [2013-04-23 16:33:07 +0000 UTC]
Weird fucking thing, especially considering the APP article on oviraptorid tails.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dino-Mario [2012-10-29 19:55:03 +0000 UTC]
Khaan is a great lord among oviraptorids
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Kazuma27 [2012-08-30 09:42:09 +0000 UTC]
Great!
But i don't think their "wings" stopped at the elbow... The fact that Caudipteryx had arm feathers only close to the hands is probably a taphonomy artifact.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
pilsator [2012-08-23 04:34:09 +0000 UTC]
Wonderful skeletal, wonderful step cycle!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ZEGH8578 [2012-08-22 16:38:44 +0000 UTC]
The moved centre of gravity, due to the short tail, was something that was kindov new to me in dino-restoration - but became very obvious to me when making my recent oviraptorid-collection.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DrScottHartman In reply to ZEGH8578 [2012-08-22 17:02:44 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, oviraptorids are really odd ducks. I think I know why, but it's a W4TP sort of thing (alas, I have like 8 of those).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
thediremoose [2012-08-22 05:54:20 +0000 UTC]
I was wondering whent somebody was going to think of a title like yours, especially considering the spelling of "Khaan" with multiple As.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Qilong In reply to thediremoose [2012-08-22 08:24:24 +0000 UTC]
Well, "Khan" as in Khan Noonien Singh and "Khaan" as in "Ghenghizkhaan" are pronounced the same way. "aa" is a single short syllable, as much as to say we were to write it "á" (stressed syllable in Spanish or Greek) or "ä" (in Finnish).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yapok96 [2012-08-22 02:51:05 +0000 UTC]
Just a quick question: Did ALL aviremigians have remiges extending down the middle finger? I know there are fossils showing this, and I assumed all of them did for a long time. But I had an interesting conversation with a curator of the dinosaur collection at my local museum, and he claimed that some dromaeosaurs would have lost said remiges on their hands as they probably used their hands to handle prey, and the remiges would get in the way of this task. He went on further to say that, like the feet of many modern birds, they would have lost feathers completely on their hands, and their hands would instead be protected by a layer of scales. I realize loss of flight feathers on the hand would be perfectly reasonable, as it has happened on some modern ratites, but the problem I see here is were their aviremigians that really used their hands enough that they would lose the remiges, or even all feathers, on their hand and fingers? Thanks in advanced for reading this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
DrScottHartman In reply to Yapok96 [2012-08-22 03:29:06 +0000 UTC]
I see this speculation a lot, but there's absolutely no evidence of it. Gishlick found that the feathers would not get in the way of the hands at all, since the fingers can only flex inwards. Also, of the many, many fossils of feathered non-avian theropods AND living and extinct flightless birds we don't see this either. Given this pattern there may well be a developmental reason why they aren't reduced (remember that the feet are primitively unfeathered for maniraptorans, but the hands aren't).
Finally, it's worth noting that the idea that dromaeosaurs used their hands to grasp during predation is itself a speculation. Sure, I think it's reasonable (and as I said, the wing feathers wouldn't get in the way given how they can move), but we don't actually know that they were used to manipulated prey. Perhaps they are larger simply to increase the size of the wings - indeed, Achillobator seems to have had proportionately smaller arms than its more diminutive cousins, so if anything you could conclude that it's little wings were simply less useful, not that the arms were being used to grasp prey.
In short, until even a single fossil is found with this "sleeved" look I think it's contrary to the evidence we have, and that can't be overturned by special pleading about how the hands might have been used in larger dromaeosaurs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DrScottHartman In reply to Yapok96 [2012-08-22 14:04:26 +0000 UTC]
Paleontologists are people too, and some of the ones that resisted the idea of feathered dinosaurs have been slow to come around to believing just how extensive the phylogenetic bracketing is now (although some became fast converts). In my opinion it behooves paleoartists to look for consensus views rather than a particular pet hypothesis - unless of course you are working for that paleontologist, or are purposely trying to show what the idea looks like.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yapok96 In reply to Yapok96 [2012-08-22 02:53:45 +0000 UTC]
My reasoning is that, if they didn't use their hands, they would have probably found some advantages to using their flight feathers to stabilize themselves while running or prey-riding, not to mention they would be good display structures, of course.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Qilong In reply to Yapok96 [2012-08-22 04:08:03 +0000 UTC]
Like Scott, I agree that "prey-handling" doesn't seem to be an issue. Living raptors (hawks and eagles at least) will sometimes use their wings to "herd" prey, some strike or lay their wings on the ground, when mantling or rendering carcasses, etc. It is often used this way when stabilizing the body. This is the point of Denver Fowler's research, as noted here and in the references: [link]
There's a technical paper there, which you can read directly (for free) here: [link]
Manual prey engagement of "raptors" as in the "Fighting Dinosaurs" specimens (here: [link] -- third image down shows the "advertent" use of the manus. There is plenty room for the feathers as in "typical" wings) is perfectly reasonable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DinoHunter000 [2012-08-22 02:43:42 +0000 UTC]
*points to skeletal* "Highly Illogical"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thediremoose In reply to DinoHunter000 [2012-08-22 05:55:26 +0000 UTC]
That's not fair. It's not the dinosaur's fault that it can't do the Vulcan salute.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Qilong [2012-08-22 01:51:54 +0000 UTC]
Just one note:
In all oviraptorids for which the palate is exposed, the ectopterygoid and palatine should be deeply exposed and C-shaped in lateral view. There is no reason to expect the palate looked any different than other oviraptorids, despite obfuscation of the mandible in both type, paratype, and the "referred" squished skull. I do not know if there is any specification here for information I don't know (likely).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ChrisBryer [2012-08-22 01:27:25 +0000 UTC]
awesome and informative as always
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Tyranno1 [2012-08-22 01:22:13 +0000 UTC]
KHAAAN!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
EWilloughby [2012-08-22 01:15:49 +0000 UTC]
Man, these guys do look crazy front-heavy in most reconstructions because of the reduced tail. Is there any likelihood that their femurs could have been carried in the near-horizontal position, as in most modern birds?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DrScottHartman In reply to EWilloughby [2012-08-22 01:21:21 +0000 UTC]
I don't think it would be necessary - remember that most all theropods had the femur held forward when they were standing still and not walking or running around (at rest the feet probably ended up near the midway on the torso were the CoG was, so there was no balance issue at rest...and bipedal walking is inherently not stable without motion...i.e. it's dynamically stable). The horizontal femur of birds is only partially related to balance, and more related to tail reduction and the shifting of locomotion duties to other muscles.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
TheMorlock [2012-08-22 01:06:42 +0000 UTC]
I love the title. I always here William Shatner's voice when I read about this dinosaur.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1