Skip to main content

Palaeoart: Pachyrhinosaurus

Finally, I have completed my Pachyrhinosaurus! I started it around October of 2008, but with the subsequent job hunt and pushing papers out I hardly had time to make progress with it, and it ended up taking more than two years.

Anyway, here it is.

This is mostly done by referencing some photos given to me by Traumador Tyrannosaur... well, mostly the skull that is; the body is a generic ceratopsian. My fiancée asked me "why do you keep drawing the same dinosaur?" to which I replied "...but they all have different horns". I'm not sure I convinced her but that's essentially centrosaurs in a nutshell; very diverse cranial morphology in an otherwise conservative body plan. I even read somewhere that Greg Paul lumped all centrosaurs into the genus Centrosaurus in his newest book The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs (but I haven't read it yet).

When I draw dinosaurs, I usually just draw rough outlines of the animal with very limited skeletal reconstructions (but I do draw the skull), and I completely draw over the rough sketch to flesh out the creature on the same paper. I just draw on inspiration and mental imagery (while referencing skeletals to get the proportions about right), so I don't draw proper skeletals (as seemingly most palaeoartists do as I found out about two years ago). But this time, I actually drew a skeletal (but very rough) and used a tracing paper to flesh out the creature on a separate layer. I was initially planning on drawing successive layers of muscles and skin and whatnot but I got extremely lazy and ended up drawing just one layer of life restoration. For reference, the following is my rough skeletal:

As you can see, it is really a rough skeletal.

Back to the finished drawing. I thought it would be kind of neat to have some patterns, but my fiancée didn't like it, saying they look like scars. Anyway, I kept the patterns mostly to the face and a big one on the frill since I thought that's probably where ceratopsians would mostly want colours and shocking patterns; to intimidate male competitors and woo the ladies! So the patterns along the body kind of fade out towards the tail.

Thinking back, I've been drawing mostly centrosaurs when it comes to ceratopsians so maybe I should tackle a chasmosaurine for my next ceratopsian. Or I might try out a hadrosaur as a late entry to the Art Evolved thing. Or maybe I'll just get back to my non-avian and avian theropods...


Popular posts from this blog

The difference between Lion and Tiger skulls

A quick divergence from my usual dinosaurs, and I shall talk about big cats today. This is because to my greatest delight, I had discovered today a wonderful book. It is called The Felidæ of Rancho La Brea (Merriam and Stock 1932, Carnegie Institution of Washington publication, no. 422). As the title suggests it goes into details of felids from the Rancho La Brea, in particular Smilodon californicus (probably synonymous with S. fatalis ), but also the American Cave Lion, Panthera atrox . The book is full of detailed descriptions, numerous measurements and beautiful figures. However, what really got me excited was, in their description and comparative anatomy of P. atrox , Merriam and Stock (1932) provide identification criteria for the Lion and Tiger, a translation of the one devised by the French palaeontologist Marcelin Boule in 1906. I have forever been looking for a set of rules for identifying lions and tigers and ultimately had to come up with a set of my own with a lot of help

R for beginners and intermediate users 3: plotting with colours

For my third post on my R tutorials for beginners and intermediate users, I shall finally touch on the subject matter that prompted me to start these tutorials - plotting with group structures in colour. If you are familiar with R, then you may have noticed that assigning group structure is not all that straightforward. You can have a dataset that may have a column specifically for group structure such as this: B0 B1 B2 Family Acrocanthosaurus 0.308 -0.00329 3.28E-05 Allosauroidea Allosaurus 0.302 -0.00285 2.04E-05 Allosauroidea Archaeopteryx 0.142 -0.000871 2.98E-06 Aves Bambiraptor 0.182 -0.00161 1.10E-05 Dromaeosauridae Baryonychid 0.189 -0.00238 2.20E-05 Basal_Tetanurae Carcharodontosaurus 0.369 -0.00502 5.82E-05 Allosauroidea Carnotaurus 0.312 -0.00324 2.94E-05 Neoceratosauria Ceratosaurus 0.377 -0.00522 6.07E-05 Neoceratosauria Citipati 0.278 -0.00119 5.08E-06 Ovir

Hind limb proportions do not support the validity of Nanotyrannus

While it was not the main focus of their paper, Persons and Currie (2016) , in a recent paper in Scientific Reports hinted at the possibility of Nanotyrannus lancensis being a valid taxon distinct from Tyrannosaurus rex , using deviations from a regression model of lower leg length on femur length. Similar to encephalisation quotients , Persons and Currie devised a score (cursorial-limb-proportion; CLP) based on the difference between the observed lower leg length and the predicted lower leg length (from a regression model) expressed as a percentage of the observed value. The idea behind this is pretty simple in that if the observed lower leg length value is higher than that predicted for its size (femur length), then that taxon gets a high CLP score. I don't particularly like this sort of data characterisation (a straightforward regression [albeit with phylogeny, e.g. pGLS] would do the job well), but nonetheless, Persons and Currie found that when applied to Nanotyrannus , it