Gryphon Art- update 5/5

[Yutyrannus]

What reason should the therizino have to be more covered in feathers?  We know it probably had feathers in some form but as to how much is still a mystery.  It was very large so its fine making it more sparse than something like a Beipiaosaurus.  Check out an ostrich.  They are bare on a lot of their bodies too.  My version would have feathers all down the top of the body you can sort of see them sticking out over the sides a bit.  but the belly is bare.  Nothing wrong with it. 

Nevermind, it IS just the angle .

I'll eventually do a living therizino.  That will clear everything up haha.

Cool! Also, this is kind of off topic, but I recently read the whole argument on your two unenlagia in a tree painting about how accurate/inaccurate it is. In my opinion I agree that an adult unenlagia could most likely climb a tree if it wanted too, and a juvenile almost certainly could. And unenlagia was definatly not to heavy to climb, after all a 300 something pound leopard can carry not only itself but it's prey into a tree, and unenlagia probably only weighed about 50 pounds.

[Gryphoceratops]

Thanks man.  Yeah I don't really see unenlagia being a purely arboreal animal but I don't see anything wrong with imagining they may have ventured up there for a mating ritual or something once in a while right?     Like you said leopards do it as do bears which are even heavier! 

[Sharptooth]

Had this one done for a while forgot to share it on here.  Tarbosaurus. 

Very good! The Tarbosaurus looks massive, and that's good for me 

[stoneage]

Thanks man.  Yeah I don't really see unenlagia being a purely arboreal animal but I don't see anything wrong with imagining they may have ventured up there for a mating ritual or something once in a while right?     Like you said leopards do it as do bears which are even heavier!

I can't understand why you would compare a dinosaur which you consider related to birds, to a goat, leopard or bear!  Kenneth Carpenter and Phil Senter said it was unable to life its forelimbs above its back.  Its wings are too short to support it and flying Pterosaurs with the same wing span weighed much less.  There also is no fossil evidence of feathers and if it did have feathers they were probably more like an Ostrich. Also some scientist think it is actually a small Megaraptor.

[Yutyrannus]

Thanks man.  Yeah I don't really see unenlagia being a purely arboreal animal but I don't see anything wrong with imagining they may have ventured up there for a mating ritual or something once in a while right?     Like you said leopards do it as do bears which are even heavier!

I can't understand why you would compare a dinosaur which you consider related to birds, to a goat, leopard or bear!  Kenneth Carpenter and Phil Senter said it was unable to life its forelimbs above its back.  Its wings are too short to support it and flying Pterosaurs with the same wing span weighed much less.  There also is no fossil evidence of feathers and if it did have feathers they were probably more like an Ostrich. Also some scientist think it is actually a small Megaraptor.

Megaraptor is a carnosaur! Also I never said anything about them flying! Just like microraptor, unenlagia could easily climb up in the same style as a leapard! Not to mention, I wasn't in any way comparing the phisyliology of unenlagia to that of a leopard, and they are in no way similar, exept that they both have razor sharp claws that can be just as helpful in climbing (if it comes to it) as they can be when it comes to hunting! Also, if you dislike flying dromaeosaurs so much, then how does this look?

[Attachment deleted by admin to save space. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.]

[stoneage]

Thanks man.  Yeah I don't really see unenlagia being a purely arboreal animal but I don't see anything wrong with imagining they may have ventured up there for a mating ritual or something once in a while right?     Like you said leopards do it as do bears which are even heavier!

I can't understand why you would compare a dinosaur which you consider related to birds, to a goat, leopard or bear!  Kenneth Carpenter and Phil Senter said it was unable to life its forelimbs above its back.  Its wings are too short to support it and flying Pterosaurs with the same wing span weighed much less.  There also is no fossil evidence of feathers and if it did have feathers they were probably more like an Ostrich. Also some scientist think it is actually a small Megaraptor.

Megaraptor is a carnosaur! Also I never said anything about them flying! Just like microraptor, unenlagia could easily climb up in the same style as a leapard! Not to mention, I wasn't in any way comparing the phisyliology of unenlagia to that of a leopard, and they are in no way similar, exept that they both have razor sharp claws that can be just as helpful in climbing (if it comes to it) as they can be when it comes to hunting! Also, if you dislike flying dromaeosaurs so much, then how does this look?

Razor sharp claws don't mean you can climb.  Microraptor was the size of a pigeon!  It probably climbed trees so it could glide.  Oh and I don't have anything against flying dromaeosaurs as long as their equipped for it.

[Gryphoceratops]

Thanks man.  Yeah I don't really see unenlagia being a purely arboreal animal but I don't see anything wrong with imagining they may have ventured up there for a mating ritual or something once in a while right?     Like you said leopards do it as do bears which are even heavier!

I can't understand why you would compare a dinosaur which you consider related to birds, to a goat, leopard or bear!  Kenneth Carpenter and Phil Senter said it was unable to life its forelimbs above its back.  Its wings are too short to support it and flying Pterosaurs with the same wing span weighed much less.  There also is no fossil evidence of feathers and if it did have feathers they were probably more like an Ostrich. Also some scientist think it is actually a small Megaraptor.

What in that paragraph has anything to do with what we are talking about? 

1) Yes it couldn't lift its arms up like a bird.  Therefore it couldn't climb???  No.
2) Nobody said anything about flying.
3) There is fossil evidence of feathering on close relatives like Velociraptor.  That's enough scientific evidence to portray unenlagia the same way until further evidence is found. 
4) Why would they be ostrich-like?  Other dromaeosaurs show more advanced feathers.  Again, its most scientific to portray this animal like that
5)Think its a small megaraptor?  Thats been disproved.  The megaraptor claw is almost identical in shape to a spinosaur claw.  Unenlagia was clearly not that kind of an animal looking at the rest of its known anatomy.
6) Sharp claws doesn't mean it was necessarily a climber....yeah but they sure help if it was.  Its an animal thats been extinct for over 80 million years.  We are allowed to speculate within reason. 

I find it funny how the last time you showed up on my art thread was to vocalize your apparent mortal fear for any birdlike dinosaur doing anything remotely birdlike.  Do we really need to debate about this all over again?  Cant you just go back to the first time it happened on the old thread and read that again instead? 

[Horridus]

Also some scientist think it is actually a small Megaraptor.

....What!?!

[stoneage]

Thanks man.  Yeah I don't really see unenlagia being a purely arboreal animal but I don't see anything wrong with imagining they may have ventured up there for a mating ritual or something once in a while right?     Like you said leopards do it as do bears which are even heavier!

I can't understand why you would compare a dinosaur which you consider related to birds, to a goat, leopard or bear!  Kenneth Carpenter and Phil Senter said it was unable to life its forelimbs above its back.  Its wings are too short to support it and flying Pterosaurs with the same wing span weighed much less.  There also is no fossil evidence of feathers and if it did have feathers they were probably more like an Ostrich. Also some scientist think it is actually a small Megaraptor.

What in that paragraph has anything to do with what we are talking about? 

1) Yes it couldn't lift its arms up like a bird.  Therefore it couldn't climb???  No.
2) Nobody said anything about flying.
3) There is fossil evidence of feathering on close relatives like Velociraptor.  That's enough scientific evidence to portray unenlagia the same way until further evidence is found. 
4) Why would they be ostrich-like?  Other dromaeosaurs show more advanced feathers.  Again, its most scientific to portray this animal like that
5)Think its a small megaraptor?  Thats been disproved.  The megaraptor claw is almost identical in shape to a spinosaur claw.  Unenlagia was clearly not that kind of an animal looking at the rest of its known anatomy.
6) Sharp claws doesn't mean it was necessarily a climber....yeah but they sure help if it was.  Its an animal thats been extinct for over 80 million years.  We are allowed to speculate within reason. 

I find it funny how the last time you showed up on my art thread was to vocalize your apparent mortal fear for any birdlike dinosaur doing anything remotely birdlike.  Do we really need to debate about this all over again?  Cant you just go back to the first time it happened on the old thread and read that again instead?

1.  So you agree it couldn't lift its wings up like a bird.  So it couldn't flap like a bird.
2.  If I remember correctly back in version one you claimed it could fly like a turkey.
3.  The fossil evidence for Velociraptor just shows near microscopic knobs on the arms much smaller then a turkey vulture.  It could have had feathers of some sort.
4.  Only a few deinonychosaurians possessed asymmetrically veined wing feathers, most had symemetrical or non-veined feathers.
5.  I agree its no longer considered valid.
6.  Allosaurus has sharp claws also.

I reread part of the old thread and I remember you said Unengalia was 3 feet long, and I said based on countless articles that it was the size of an ostrich which was too big.  Both of us were incorrect on some things in my opinion.
Anyway Dr. Steve Salisbury (Vertebrate Palaeoontology and Biomechanics Lab at the University of Queensland found that "Among living birds, the curvature and length of the claw closely correlates with climbing ability, only a few can use their claw to cling to and climb up trees."  Anatomist at the University of Queensland found that the curvature and length in the majority of deinonychosaurians resembled that found in ground foraging birds such as pigeons and cockatoos.  "They can't cling to or climb trees.  Therefore the same was probably true for their dinosaurian forebearers" says Salisbury.  The only reason they would adapt climbing ability is if they foraged in trees.  Anyway you can speculate anything you want , but scientific consensus is they were unable to actually climb trees. 

[Seijun]

My pet dove can climb up my shirt to my shoulder if I am at about a 50 or 60 degree angle, and using just his claws, no flapping. He uses the "wrists" of his wings to steady himself when he starts to tip, but other than that his wings are not involved. So maybe the tree in Gryph's painting was at an angle

[Gryphoceratops]

Thanks man.  Yeah I don't really see unenlagia being a purely arboreal animal but I don't see anything wrong with imagining they may have ventured up there for a mating ritual or something once in a while right?     Like you said leopards do it as do bears which are even heavier!

I can't understand why you would compare a dinosaur which you consider related to birds, to a goat, leopard or bear!  Kenneth Carpenter and Phil Senter said it was unable to life its forelimbs above its back.  Its wings are too short to support it and flying Pterosaurs with the same wing span weighed much less.  There also is no fossil evidence of feathers and if it did have feathers they were probably more like an Ostrich. Also some scientist think it is actually a small Megaraptor.

What in that paragraph has anything to do with what we are talking about? 

1) Yes it couldn't lift its arms up like a bird.  Therefore it couldn't climb???  No.
2) Nobody said anything about flying.
3) There is fossil evidence of feathering on close relatives like Velociraptor.  That's enough scientific evidence to portray unenlagia the same way until further evidence is found. 
4) Why would they be ostrich-like?  Other dromaeosaurs show more advanced feathers.  Again, its most scientific to portray this animal like that
5)Think its a small megaraptor?  Thats been disproved.  The megaraptor claw is almost identical in shape to a spinosaur claw.  Unenlagia was clearly not that kind of an animal looking at the rest of its known anatomy.
6) Sharp claws doesn't mean it was necessarily a climber....yeah but they sure help if it was.  Its an animal thats been extinct for over 80 million years.  We are allowed to speculate within reason. 

I find it funny how the last time you showed up on my art thread was to vocalize your apparent mortal fear for any birdlike dinosaur doing anything remotely birdlike.  Do we really need to debate about this all over again?  Cant you just go back to the first time it happened on the old thread and read that again instead?

1.  So you agree it couldn't lift its wings up like a bird.  So it couldn't flap like a bird.
2.  If I remember correctly back in version one you claimed it could fly like a turkey.
3.  The fossil evidence for Velociraptor just shows near microscopic knobs on the arms much smaller then a turkey vulture.  It could have had feathers of some sort.
4.  Only a few deinonychosaurians possessed asymmetrically veined wing feathers, most had symemetrical or non-veined feathers.
5.  I agree its no longer considered valid.
6.  Allosaurus has sharp claws also.

I reread part of the old thread and I remember you said Unengalia was 3 feet long, and I said based on countless articles that it was the size of an ostrich which was too big.  Both of us were incorrect on some things in my opinion.
Anyway Dr. Steve Salisbury (Vertebrate Palaeoontology and Biomechanics Lab at the University of Queensland found that "Among living birds, the curvature and length of the claw closely correlates with climbing ability, only a few can use their claw to cling to and climb up trees."  Anatomist at the University of Queensland found that the curvature and length in the majority of deinonychosaurians resembled that found in ground foraging birds such as pigeons and cockatoos.  "They can't cling to or climb trees.  Therefore the same was probably true for their dinosaurian forebearers" says Salisbury.  The only reason they would adapt climbing ability is if they foraged in trees.  Anyway you can speculate anything you want , but scientific consensus is they were unable to actually climb trees.

*facepalm*

1) Again what does flapping have to do with climbing?  (yes I know some modern birds do it to get up trees but they don't have front claws!)
2) Yeah I defended it two years ago when that was still a theory.  I'm allowed to change my beliefs as new things are discovered no?
3) Who cares how small they were?  They were there.
4) Which true dromaeosaur shows actual fossil evidence of having just primitive feathers?  (Either way what does this have to do with the debate at hand?)
5) If you are aware then why even bring it up?
6) please don't even...just no.  I shouldn't have to explain why that's a silly point to try and bring up.

Well did you actually read or did you "remember"?  Because I said Unenlagia was 3 feet long without the tail (with the tail it was estimated at around 6-7 feet).  I was and still am correct and you were wrong. 

The Salisbury thing...you said he did his study with living birds?  As in birds that don't have three sharp claws on their front limbs (probably could have helped with climbing perhaps maybe i dunno?  I'm not saying they def climb but its not out of the question.

So...you cherry picked out a few sentences from one source you found on the internet and therefore its the general consensus?  Show me a link to the entire paper please.  He said the only reason a nonavian dinosaur would ever go into a tree is for food... if that's REALLY the case he makes then I have to disagree with him (again I want to see the whole paper maybe you took that quote out of context).  But I can with confidence tell anyone (science degree or not) animals evolve for multitudes of reasons not just for food (predator avoidance, environmental changes, mating...the list goes on) and who knows!?!?  Maybe animals like Unenlagia were finding something good to eat in trees?

[Gryphoceratops]

And now for something different.  Needed to get this mammal done for the njblog.  Paraceratherium. 

[Meso-Cenozoic]

Hey, I haven't seen you do a whole lot of mammals. He looks really nice!

I know wayyyyy back on the old board we were discussing leg length on this guy. And, there were arguments on both sides. To me, this guy's legs look just a bit short. But, you did make him to be quite a healthy animal. So maybe it's just the illusion the heavy hanging underside is giving.

[Himmapaan]

That is just gorgeous, Chris.

[Gryphoceratops]

Thanks guys. 

Chuck, I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on this animal lol.  I just looked at images of skeletons and modern rhinos and did my best haha.  Hopefully he is passable.