HOME | DD
Qilong — Cistecephalus' March of Triumph
by-nc-nd
Published: 2012-08-09 01:35:11 +0000 UTC; Views: 2351; Favourites: 56; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
The emydopoid dicynodont Cistecephalis microrhinus, here shown with two little beaky "tusks" (not based on the bone, and no real teeth, but an artistic interpretation only), marches out from his den, triumphant ... for whatever reason.Dicynodonts may not be furred, for any reason. However, these little burrowing animals are stem-mammals (that is, they are ancestral to mammals directly), and as fur must evolve at some point, it may as well be here.
Related content
Comments: 17
Great!
I also envision dicynodonts and all the other stem-mammals (or reptile-mammals, as they were called in the days of old) to be more or less covered in fur...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would be surprised if they had fur a full coat of fur like this, though that might be me being conservative. We do know that at least the dinocephalians had naked, glandular skin (meaning they could probably sweat or something similar). It's probably that dicynodonts had glandular skin, and it's also likely they did have sensory bristles, as has been speculated as to the origin of hair. See Naish's response: [link] )
But I have to be honest, there's just something about a thick-coated dicynodont that just doesn't sit right with me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Does glandular skin preclude the presence of hair? Why necessarily naked? I don't understand
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
No. Glandular skin does not preclude anything except an absence of scales. What I was trying to say is that the only evidence we have for the structure of the dermis of early synapsids comes from dinocephalians, which branched off from the family tree before the dicynodonts. Dinocephalians had naked, glandular skin, free of scales and hair. While when hair appeared is not well know, it sort of seems like it may have appeared somewhere within the Therodontia line. I might be wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Or at least that seems to be the traditional view. I think Qilong described it more efficiently than I, though.
Still, I'm not saying this is a bad recreation. Just slightly unorthodox.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was not done with the idea that I was drawing the "orthodox" approach. I'll like guess at "woolly" lystrosaurs next, but will also try a more "orthodox" anomodont.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Supposedly, scaly skin (basal condition, as in fish) -> scaleless but cornified skin -> smooth, glandular skin (as in "amphibians") -> bristled skin -> fur should be the chain. Right now, we have glandular skin patches on a specimen of large dinocephalian, Estemmenosuchus. It is, however, unclear whether this precludes "fur" in earlier lineages (dicynodonts split from the stem-mammal lineage before dinocephalians do).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Interesting. I guess that the little dicynodonts could have fur, meanwhile the largest species must be naked, like the modern great mammals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Excewpt perhaps in antarctica and Australia, where it was cold during the permian and triassic...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
You mean woolly lystrosaurs, for example?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow that's a wonderful idea!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It certainly is. This design was meant to just be an art project while I work on technical stuff. I may get into more detail and work on some other anomodonts. They are pretty cool.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1