21 gennaio 2013

Utahraptor, di E. Willoughby

Io sono noto per i miei commenti molto critici verso tutte le ricostruzioni di dinosauri che circolano in rete, sopratutto, ma non solo, sul lato della correttezza scientifica. La rete ormai abbonda di cialtroni, di "artisti" più o meno auto-proclamati tali, di sedicenti illustratori. Per fortuna, esistono anche personalità veramente promettenti, che uniscono alla abilità e sensibilità dell'artista anche una notevole cura nel dettaglio anatomico e nella corretta contestualizzazione scientifica del soggetto.
Emily Willoughby è tra le migliori promesse della paleoarte che abbiamo in questo periodo. Giovanissima, eppure davvero molto brava e sensibile nel ritrarre i theropodi piumati, verso cui ha una particolare inclinazione. Questa opera dedicata a Utahraptor ne è l'esempio.
Ormai "tutti" (più o meno) rappresentano i dromaeosauridi come animali piumati: non farlo significa essere totalmente fuori dal mondo dell'illustrazione paleontologica seria. Tuttavia, moltissimi falliscono nel rendere l'animale corretto sul piano anatomico e comportamentale. I "raptor" di Jurassic Park sono ancora troppo vivi nel cuore di molti, e ciò incide sul pessimo proliferare di "raptor-squamati ricoperti di piume", ibridi immondi senza anima e senza bellezza. Emily invece dimostra un talento unico nel rendere il piumaggio e nel renderlo veramente credibile, non posticcio, non artefatto, non imposto. Il risultato è un animale credibile ed armonico, in una parola: naturale.
Molti artisti "famosi" - o presunti tali - hanno molto da imparare da questa che, ne sono certo, sarà una artista di cui sentiremo ancora molto parlare.

8 commenti:

  1. Io periodicamente passo in rassegna i miei disegni e molti li modifico se non rifaccio dal principio. Cerco di essere il più critico possibile e di allontanarmi il quanto posso da quella fetta di "artisti" che sfigurano queste meravigliose creature. Gran parte del mio "occhio paleoartistico" lo devo a te che coi tuoi aggiornamenti e con le tue gentili risposte in privato mi apri via via nuove prospettive per interpretare la paleoarte.
    Già che ci sono colgo l'occasione per mostrarti il mio ultimo lavoro. Un restyling, a neanche un anno di distanza, dell'ultima tavola che ti ho mandato e che chiude la tua gallery qui sul blog.
    http://delirio88.deviantart.com/art/Deinonychus-antirrhopus-2013-348307546

    Un ringraziamento doveroso dalla Sardegna

    Francesco

    RispondiElimina
  2. coelophysis21/1/13 21:23

    utahraptor is a bird not a dinosaurs. it has bird hip tooth replacement is differant from dinosaurs does not have ziphodont teeth and does not have a crocodilian type brain it has inner ears of bird probly does not have epipterygoid or profrontal bone jaws are differant from dinosaurs.it has bird moon shape wrist bone flight sternum . bird finger and toes does not match dinosaurs .crocodilian does.dinosaurs is a prehistoric alligator.crocodiliian ancestor is spinosauridae both have sensory dot skin croc belly scale skin secondary bony palate triceratop head skin hepactic piston diaghragm . coelophysis does not have fuse furcula . carnotaurus allmost complete skin fossil look like crocodilian back same for allosaurus group allthou spine with tuatara look with croc bums. spinosaurus a advance spinosauridae has delope a giant thermoregulation sailfin

    RispondiElimina
    Risposte
    1. Please, "coelophysis", rewrite your comment in a correct way: use punctuations and capital letters.
      Your comment is full of nonsense:
      Therizinosaurs, parvicursorines and ornithischians have "bird hips": are they birds? Tooth replacement in dinosaurs and birds is the same: explain why you write otherwise. Dromaeosaurid teeth are ziphodont (blade-liked with serrated carinae). The braincase of maniraptoforms is intermediate between crocodiles and birds: this does not mean they are distinct from other dinosaurs, just intermediate between other dinosaurs and birds. Epipterygoids and prefrontals are reported in dromaeosaurids and oviraptorosaurs. "Jaws are different", as you wrote, means nothing if not explained. Semilunate carpal is not different from the carpal block of allosauroids, just semilunate in shape. Sterna are known in alvaresaurids, spinosaurs and other dinosaurs. Manual digit embriology of dinosaurs is unknown thus cannot be used agains a bird-dino relationship. "[D]inosaurs is a prehistoric alligator" means nothing. Crocodiles cannot be spinosaur ancestors since that is completely unparsimonious. "Sensory dot" is a rumor and what is known in spinosaurs are neurovascular foramina as in most reptiles and basal birds. "croc belly" means nothing. Secondary bone palate is also in birds and many coelurosaurs. "Triceratop head skin" means nothing. The so called "hepatic piston" of Scipionyx resulted a diagenetic formation of the limestone, not of organic origin, and dinosaur pubes cannot move in the way croc pubes move allowing diaphragmatic contractions. Coelophysoids show furculae. The scaly skin of Carnotaurus - if confirmed - is plesiomorphic for diapsids and cannot be used against a bird-dino relationship.
      Conclusion: YOU ARE A COMPLETELY IGNORANT MORON.

      Elimina
  3. Yep, I understood that; Triceratop head and croc bum. I could not have put it better, myself.


    Paul W.

    RispondiElimina
  4. michele tv22/1/13 18:05

    a prima vista sembrava un disegno montato in una foto.
    guardandolo bene, l'acqua del mare deve essere fatta a mano, forse il celo e montato da una foto

    RispondiElimina
  5. coelophysis22/1/13 23:02

    i not good writer i am good at evidence let talk about evidence. what will allways be there. answer coelophysis do not have fuse furcula coelophysis furcula is found in older reptile. fuse furcula is needed to fly and has four finger. protoavis bird was before coelophysis. and anwser the triceratops unigue THERMOREGulation head skin they found fossil of sheildcroc with it. protosuchus no bony palate that the hard plate or secondary bony palate has 5 finger and claws and the same toe claws. junggarsuchus with a bony palate no secondary bony palate 4 finger and claws the same with the toes claws. these are the top candidate to turn into modern crocodilian. secondary bony palate prehistory crocodilian had 5 finger 3 claws 4 toe 4 claws catcroc 5 finger 5 claws 4 toe 4 claws dated 105 millon years ago. crocodilian become aquatic 150 millon years ago. do the math the candidate do not match with crocodilian. plus were did crocodilian learn that aquatic feature they learn it from spinosauridae were there toe and finger match when they evolve if put catcroc evoution into mix. if you can grow claws back you can grow finger back too. it been successfull today in water and land like how cat retrack claws to help them in the hunt. no animal have that design. and they had croc like animal before and they do not have that design and many land animal when back on land. plus with web toe. protosuchus junggarsuchus eyes are below there nose a land feature. no evidence aquaticnesss that just a cougar stand. plus they do not walk like today crocs they can not sprawl but give them that much they are closes to croc in that department. but problem is gharial can not do the high walk or sprawl so crocodilian are not generalize. junggarsuchus had powerful bite because of bony plate but not like today croc it could not do the death roll it need secondary bony palate for that. crocodilian cranial kinesis movement upper jaw barly move at all or none at all turtle crocodilian are worst in reptile because of the bony palate bird because have powerful bite bird are the best because delope ecthemoid a bird feature help in movement the think its fuse to prefrontal archaeoteryx does not have prefrontal that why it has good upper jaw movenment so has ectemoid which found in maniraptoran av......... bony palate only found in turtle crocodilian dinosaurs and not all dinosaurs had them like how only junggarsuchus found with won in crocodyliformes. that why they use alligator to test dinosaurs bite force weak bite good upper jaw movement. you see they found the dinosaurs its just a prehistoric crocodile. and bird finger are 2,3,4, dinosaurs are 1,2,3, bird toe are 2,3,4,5 dino are 1,2,3,4, do the math. four finger carnotaurus a advance dinosaurs brain is like modern crocodilian and they are not closely related. a compsognathidae diaghragm allmost exact like a alligator. sensory dot skin allso found in fish its differant and they know spinosaurus had crocodilian won. dromaesauridae prefrontal is it ghost bone like ghost ghost protofeathers palo people they think things that are not facts but still write it.i like see those evidence. croc unigue belly scale is a big deal like those missing claws. do you see any other animal with that. by useing missing claws i could trace that theropod had sprawling quadrupedal movement assit a bipedal attack and more.please no short bony palate or short secondary palate which has no nasel seperation like palatine in birds

    RispondiElimina
    Risposte
    1. Please, write in a better way: it is extremely hard to understand all the long comment that you wrote if no punctation is used in the correct way. Try to write better, if you want to be read. Otherwise, it seems you don't care of your reader.
      The main problem in your argument is that you focus just in a few features that are convergences, and avoid to mention the large series of features that link dinosaurs with birds and put crocodylians more far.
      Further, you mention outdated hypotheses and wrong studies.
      Protoavis has been re-interpreted as a chimaera, and is not at all a "proto-bird": it's just a mix of bones from a small coelophysoid and a drepanosaur reptile, both found in the Protoavis type site.
      You mentioned the secondary bone palate, but croc palate is more different than spinosaur palate. It's much more plausible that they evolved by convergence. Spinosaur palate lacks a palatine and pterygoid participation, and lacks a posteriorly retracted choana. The rest of spinosaur and croc anatomy is very different, and it's more more more parsimonious to consider them as belonging to two separate archosaurian lineages. Basal crocodylomorph are not comparable to theropods. The pelvis, hand, vertebral lamination, and antorbital region are very different. Theropod hands show the same phalangeal proportion and formula of Archaeopteryx and Mesozoic birds: medialmost finger with short metacarpal + 2 phalanges; second finger with longest metacarpal and 3 phalanges; third finger most gracile with 4 phalanges. The same morphology is present in allosauroids like Megaraptor, the latter with an additional split-like fourth metacarpal that is a vestige of the ancestral dinosaur condition. No crocs show this kind of hand. The bird hand is a theropod hand.
      You mentioned "compsognathidae diafragm" but that was a bad misunderstood of a fossil and recent re-examination of these compsognathids showed that NO diafragm is present. Further: compsognathid pelvic bones lacks the pubic mobility of croc, thus it is impossible that they used a hepatic ventilation.
      Please, stop writing these huge comments full of nonsense, full of outdated errors, full of your personal unsupported pseudo-arguments.
      And, please, next time, try to write in a more clear way: if you want to be read, try to be readable.
      Another badly written post will be ignored. I spend part of my time in answering your words, so, you have to spend part of your time writing in the correct way.

      Elimina
  6. many land animals when back on water oh well.that lot to write

    RispondiElimina

ATTENZIONE:
- COMMENTI OFFENSIVI, VOLGARI O SPAM SARANNO ELIMINATI. -
- I COMMENTI ANONIMI O PRIVI DI FIRMA SARANNO ELIMINATI. -