#shrinkwrapping

[peregrinethegryphon]

Saw a TikTok criticism of this meme that it's not really fair to paleontologists/paleo artists' ability to understand animal anatomy, and I don't think they realize the meme was a criticism of shrinkwrapping, which used to be all the rage.

But can see how that message might be misconstrued so I fixed it for them.

Alternatively:

[a-dinosaur-a-day]

do you think there's a reason so many artists still outline the antorbital fenestrae of dinosaurs in life reconstruction, even when they're otherwise trying to avoid shrinkwrapping? is it just one of those things people keep doing because everyone else was doing it?

There are some living reptiles where fenestrae are visible, but they aren't the rule. That's the only other explanation I can think of. Heck, some of those reptiles are birds -

You can see the slight dip before the eye socket, and of course the nostril

But in no species of living dinosaur do we see the pronounced fenestrae that are depicted in these images

So, honestly, I don't know. Maybe it's just because it looks "cool". It's still inaccurate either way.

[balanceoflightanddark]

Bigger, Scarier, More Teeth

Paleontology is, by its very nature, a very speculative science. For most of its history, we've only had fragmentary remains of ancient animals that sometimes have no easy modern day counterpart to compare with. Of course, the field is also good at self correcting these errors, which means our image of dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures is constantly evolving. While admittedly we may never know with 100% accuracy what these animals were like, we can certainly narrow down and tweak our perception to come up with the closest possible image.

Then...there's instances where dinosaurs were deliberately modified. Not a case of misidentification mind you. Cases where the animal was physically altered in order to seem more impressive or threatening.

Case in point: the Giganotosaurus from Jurassic World Dominion. One of the most recent examples, the Giga was depicted with a row of spines running along its crocodilian esque back. Naturally, we have no evidence of these in actual specimens and was probably added to make the final big carnivore of the series look more threatening.

Admittedly I'm not gonna harp on too hard about this since there is a difference between a fictional portrayal and something that's supposed to be accurate and the Jurassic Park series isn't really known for its accuracy. This is honestly just a bench mark for what we're working with and a notable and recent example.

What's a bit more headscratching when said altering happens in more scientific portrayals of dinosaurs.

The convention of shrink-wrapping: thoughts for artists

Europasaurus holgeri  - twice. These portraits are of the same animal using the same specimen and the same view, but one is restored with

Take shrinkwrapping for example. For decades, shrinkwrapping was the standard fair in portraying dinosaurs. What it involved was basically showing visible bone structures underneath the skin of the animal.

The results were...

...basically skeletons with skin stretched over them.

The idea, as pointed out by Mark P. Witton in the link above, is not just to portray them as fast, agile, bird like animals, but also matching a popular but inaccurate depiction:

Secondly, images of prehistoric animals as heroically-built, powerful beings are preferred by many merchandisers and palaeoart fans, these interpretations most closely matching the erroneous but popular portrayal of prehistory as a savage struggle for survival, where only the most powerful animals survived.

Thing was, these depictions completely ignored the muscle and tissue underneath the skin which gives the animals more bulk in favor of portraying them as more intimidating. Which in retrospect didn't work since if a dinosaur looked shrink-wrapped in real life, it probably was starving, ill, or basically on the verge of death.

In contrast, there are some artists that go the complete opposite direction. As is the case with David Peters and his...unique look at pterosaurs.

Why the World Has to Ignore David Peters and ReptileEvolution.com — Tetrapod Zoology

And so it is that I must once more write about the great eternal menace of our age: David Peters.

David Peters, a once respected independent researcher and artist, once claimed that he was able to identify hidden features and anatomical structures in pterosaur remains that no-one else had been able to identify. These include elongated fleshy crests, spines, and extravagant feathers.

The results speak for themselves. It's almost astonishing that anybody would think that any animal could even fly with that amount of extra weight and protrusions.

Now while we can poke fun at paleoart all day, the thing is that altered dinosaurs or other prehistoric animals aren't just restricted to art alone. There have been cases where specimens themselves have been altered to look more impressive.

I is for Irritator

The name of the long-snouted dinosaur Irritator hints at the troubled history surrounding the spinosaur's classification

Such is the case with Irritator challengeri, a spinosaurid first discovered in Brazil, South America in 1996. While the original specimen is noted for having one of the most complete skulls of any spinosaurid anywhere, its name is referring to a much more...interesting background.

Irritator wasn't actually discovered by scientists. It was purchased from a fossil dealer which made its way to Germany’s Stuttgart State Museum of the Natural Sciences. In this case, material from the back of the skull had been removed, and placed on the tip of the snout, making the skull appear longer. Presumably this was to make the specimen more marketable. Paleontologist David Martill and his team had to painstakingly remove the altered bit of the snout and restore them to their original location. It was such a pain, they eventually named the species Irritator due to the difficulty of removing and reattaching the material without damaging the specimen.

But even the case of Irritator is nowhere near the levels of altering than the case of Archaeoraptor. AKA: the dinosaur that was completely made up.

Archaeoraptor and the Great Dinosaur Hoax

In 1999, a small bird fossil is hailed by National Geographic as the link between dinosaurs and birds. If this was the case, then why is it

Like with Irritator, the Archaeoraptor specimen was an altered fossil (also known as a chimera) sold on the fossil market. Though instead of a single specimen, it was several individuals put together to create a complete product that would sell for a much higher price. Smuggled out of China and sold in the US for $80,000 USD during 1999, it ended up in the hands of amateur dinosaur enthusiast Stephen Czerkas who wanted it to be the centerpiece of his museum in Blanding, Utah. Working with noted paleontologist Phil Currie and Chris Sloane of the National Geographic magazine, they determined that the specimen was the long sought-after missing link between dinosaurs and birds. A groundbreaking discovery like this would've revolutionized the field. So much so the magazine did a story on it and christened it Archaeoraptor even before a more formal study could be conducted.

The result: a complete disaster and embarrassment to both paleontology and National Geographic when it was revealed to be a hoax. Creationists had a field day, practically tearing the reveal apart and used it as evidence against paleontologists and their work. The zeal for the missing link resulted in an absolute blunder for science.

Ironically though, it's now believed that the two species used in the specimen belong to Yanornis (an early bird) and the famous Microraptor, both of which are stronger contenders for the title of "missing-link".

Here's a link to an excellent video by Dino Diego that goes into detail if you're interested: The Bizarre Archaeoraptor Hoax - YouTube

Needless to say, the field of paleontology is full of fabrications and falsehoods. And more often than not it's difficult to truly pick out what's real and what isn't. Which is a problem since it draws into question the validity of both research done by paleontologists, the work of paleoartists, and the very specimens themselves. Naturally it should come to no surprise that researchers need to be diligent in how dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals are portrayed and studied. Especially when sensation overcomes the truth many work so hard to find.

[pencilbrony]

The dangers of shrinkwrapping

[allosaurus-fragilis]

Shrinkwrapped extant animal: Going all "all todays" on this last day of my drawing challenge. The fearsome Orycteropus afer (or stalking slasher) must have been a formidable hunter with those impressive claws. Though it's teeth are not what you’ d expect from a predatory animal thus it is theorized to slashing open prey and eating the soft entrails. Some experts think it might be a scavenger. happy guessing on what this animal is. I used a picture of the skeleton of this animal from its wikipedia page as reference. Well this was my self imposed 30 day drawing challenge. It was fun and I learned quite a bit from it. Thank you very much for sticking with me and liking my art. I hope you enjoyed my pictures. Feel free to do this challenge for yourself if you want.

[palaeofail]

There’s so much going on here.

[cheetahtrout]

@heroicamargasaurus TFW you are unsure if its really a giant sloth or not. 

TFW your brain fails to remember how actual sloths look like.

Also @bioloby asked me to shrinkwrap a Gibbon.

I call it a GibbOHNO! On a sidenote I got a fair lot of requests for this by now. So I am closing requests until I worked them off X,D thank you all!

[josephjatczakillustrator]

I added the retro rex because apparently some people still think dinosaurs dragged their tails.