HOME | DD

E-Smaniotto β€” Deinonychus 2011

Published: 2011-06-07 15:18:02 +0000 UTC; Views: 3011; Favourites: 62; Downloads: 152
Redirect to original
Description Second part of the Deinonychus's revolution. For the first part read and see Sketch-Featherless Deinonychus.

Part 2
Here there is little to add.
I preferred not to put a bill on the animal because we have no proof, and it's much more likely that the mouth was covered with some callosum-like skin because we have no evidence of animals having both beak and teeth, 'cause that's a wrong popular belief (this was inspired by Martyniuk's post on Hesperornis on his blog DinoGoss). Since Deinonychus derived from tree-dwelling forms and / or almost-flying, mostly gliding little maniraptorans, it can be considered as a secondariary flightless form, so it could have got a plumage simplier than more primitive relatives like Microraptor, like something not very different from today's feathers of ratites. The areas without feathers are mostly hidden, and would be exposed only when the coelurosaur needs to regulate body temperature. These areas are: throat, belly, the armholes-region, hind legs, pelvis and under-tail.

I'm hoping I didn't say a lot of cr*p.

Thanks very much to that genius of Martyniuk, a true esponent of the paleo-art's revolution!
Related content
Comments: 20

M4dW0rk [2011-07-13 14:17:46 +0000 UTC]

Splendido lavoro, complimenti

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

E-Smaniotto In reply to M4dW0rk [2011-07-14 08:24:17 +0000 UTC]

Grazie

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

Tomozaurus [2011-06-27 07:44:05 +0000 UTC]

If only more followed Martyniuk's work, we'd have a lot less inaccurate maniraptors littered about the place.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

E-Smaniotto In reply to Tomozaurus [2011-07-02 12:16:34 +0000 UTC]

I think the exact same thing

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

TheMorlock [2011-06-08 18:08:26 +0000 UTC]

Cool!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

E-Smaniotto In reply to TheMorlock [2011-06-09 12:04:31 +0000 UTC]

Thanks

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

TheMorlock In reply to E-Smaniotto [2011-06-09 17:36:16 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

LittleFoxStudio [2011-06-08 17:22:21 +0000 UTC]

I think people are going a little over board with feathered dinos. I believe in evolution and all, but every time I see a new drawing of one, it looks more like a bird and less like a dino.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 2

Skull-Island-Master In reply to LittleFoxStudio [2011-06-08 19:23:18 +0000 UTC]

There are still many scaly dinosaurs though. currently only coelurosaurs are proven to were fully covered in feathers.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

E-Smaniotto In reply to LittleFoxStudio [2011-06-08 17:37:08 +0000 UTC]

But, how can you say what a dino exactly is?
It doesn' have any sense to say something like that. We have literally no idea of how a real dinosaur looks like(I use the word "dinosaur" referring to the species out of Aves 'cause, you know, birds are in fact a type of dinosaurs), and this is the best part.
Every new finding changes the knowledge of these creatures, and I'm only following the scientific and evoluzionistic evidences to portrait them in the most correct and plausible way.
So this is it.
Obviously I'm not writing this with bad intentions, but only explaining my point of view

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

LittleFoxStudio In reply to E-Smaniotto [2011-06-08 22:40:35 +0000 UTC]

Could be that I just prefer the scalier versions. Or maybe just less prominent feather. Dinos had several million years to turn into birds.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

E-Smaniotto In reply to LittleFoxStudio [2011-06-09 12:02:20 +0000 UTC]

But saying to prefer a different version of an animal it's like saying to prefer another animal at all. I would prefer a lion without a mane, but the real animal has got it anyway.
And without seeing this cat, from the bones we couldn't even say that as fur at all.
Oh well, different points of view . I'm not saying that you're wrong, but...Well, de gustibus.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

LittleFoxStudio In reply to E-Smaniotto [2011-06-09 14:40:11 +0000 UTC]

Yeah I know. When I think of say.... Velociraptor, my mind instantly goes to the ones in Disney's Dinosaur. Accurate skeleton and body shape, but still scaly.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tomozaurus In reply to LittleFoxStudio [2011-06-27 07:47:09 +0000 UTC]

Disney's Velociraptor is pretty inaccurate in skeleton and shape as well. The skull is wrong, the forelimbs are very wrong and the body isn't quite properly proportioned.
Plus is certainly had feathers, fireguards of who likes it or not.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

LittleFoxStudio In reply to Tomozaurus [2011-06-27 16:16:44 +0000 UTC]

More accurate than Jurassic Park's.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Tomozaurus In reply to LittleFoxStudio [2011-06-27 22:01:05 +0000 UTC]

Well, obviously.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

LittleFoxStudio In reply to Tomozaurus [2011-06-27 22:15:25 +0000 UTC]

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

BrooksLeibee [2011-06-07 18:40:19 +0000 UTC]

Makes me miss the naked version!
XD
But I still HAVE to love the feathered even more from their beautiful feathers, and their more hostile look.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

TyrannoSue [2011-06-07 15:26:33 +0000 UTC]

Farei un oltraggio all' umanitΓ  se non aggiungessi questo disegno ai miei favoriti

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

E-Smaniotto In reply to TyrannoSue [2011-06-07 15:43:49 +0000 UTC]

Ahahaha, non esageriamo su XD . Grazie comunque del complimento .

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0