Good Skeletal Anatomy of Australian Dinosaurs

[Balaur]

Has anyone seen good skeletal anatomies of Australovenator wintonensis and Leaellynasaura amicagraphica? I'm working on a drawing of them and I want it to be very scientifically accurate.

[Gryphoceratops]

Its tough since Australovenator is only known from fragments. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australovenator_wintonensis.png

[Balaur]

Its tough since Australovenator is only known from fragments. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australovenator_wintonensis.png

Yeah, kinda tough, but this is the best we have of Australovenator until a more complete skeleton is found. Thanks!

[Brontozaurus]

I don't know what you'd use for Leallynasaura. At first I was going to suggest using a hypsilophodontid skeletal, but since Leallynasaura seems to be one of those dinosaurs that doesn't easily fit anywhere taxonomically, that might not be the best idea. There's apparently a paper floating around describing the postcranial anatomy of this dinosaur (which is apparently why recent restorations give it an amazingly long tail), but I can't find it, and that really annoys me as it sounds like an interesting read.

[Balaur]

I don't know what you'd use for Leallynasaura. At first I was going to suggest using a hypsilophodontid skeletal, but since Leallynasaura seems to be one of those dinosaurs that doesn't easily fit anywhere taxonomically, that might not be the best idea. There's apparently a paper floating around describing the postcranial anatomy of this dinosaur (which is apparently why recent restorations give it an amazingly long tail), but I can't find it, and that really annoys me as it sounds like an interesting read.

Hmmm... They should release the papers soon. Also should I give my Leallynasaura plumage like Tianyulong?

[Himmapaan]

There doesn't appear to be a ready skeletal of Leaellynasaura at all. I did base mine on hypsilophodonts (aware at the time of its questionable place within the family, but erring on the side of caution with what information I had), though I now find that somebody has very helpfully reconstructed a skull, which apparently shows it being much narrower than those of most hypsilophodonts.

Some information regarding the speculative fuzz and long flexible tail can be found here and here (in the latter, the author provides a link in the text to revised drawing with the long tail).

[Yutyrannus]

I don't know what you'd use for Leallynasaura. At first I was going to suggest using a hypsilophodontid skeletal, but since Leallynasaura seems to be one of those dinosaurs that doesn't easily fit anywhere taxonomically, that might not be the best idea. There's apparently a paper floating around describing the postcranial anatomy of this dinosaur (which is apparently why recent restorations give it an amazingly long tail), but I can't find it, and that really annoys me as it sounds like an interesting read.

Hmmm... They should release the papers soon. Also should I give my Leallynasaura plumage like Tianyulong?

I think it should have protofeathers since it was living in a relatively cold climate. Also this drawing sounds cool, I would like to see it.

[Yutyrannus]

As for the Australovenator, will this help?

[attachment msg=16825][/attachment]

[Balaur]

As for the Australovenator, will this help?

Yes. Thanks, that skull would help a lot. I'm drawing them on different papers the best I can and then colouring them WWD style.

[Gryphoceratops]

Is there any hard evidence of any ornithopod save for heterdontosaurs with feathering?  An animal CAN survive in a seasonally cooler climate with just scales.  Honestly either way nobody can say you are wrong but its certainly not considered scientifically inaccurate if a hypsilophodont has just scales (until further notice). 

[wings]

@ balaurbondoc2843
Not sure whether you are aware of this ( http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006190 ), all we have of the animal is a few teeth and its dentary. As far as the skull reconstructions go, you can very much base your illustration on any basal allosauroids.

@ Gryphoceratops
If you are looking at the Heterodontosauridae family. We know that Tianyulong has filamentous integuments. Apart from this I'm not sure if we've actually found any more body covering impressions (scales and/or feathers) from this family of animals. Maybe we have but just hasn't been published yet... Of course, there could be differences in integument distribution also (for example, like Sinosauropteryx and Juravenator where one was found almost fully covered by filamentous integument while other was partially covered with scales as well). As for your comment on whether it should be considered wrong to have a plain scaly hypsilophodont, we can only say that it is unlikely rather than definitively wrong (it is still a possibility, just that we don't actually have any hard evidence at all to state this claim at the moment).

   

[wings]

@ Gryphoceratops
I should have included this in my previous comment but I've totally forgot.
In addition, we do have some integument impressions of the hypsilophodont group. In Gilmore's 1915 paper ( http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/14925/1/USNMP-49_2127_1915.pdf ), he mentioned there are two patches of skin impressions found on the Thescelosaurus specimen (both preserved on the body and these skin patches have punctured surfaces) which indicate that perhaps these areas have bare skin rather than scaly. Maybe they have "feather tracks" like most birds and these areas were covered, but definitely we don't have any hypsilophodonts' scales yet.

[Gryphoceratops]

I am completely aware of tianyulong's "feathers".  Heterdontosaurs are too far off on the dino tree to use as a model for hypsilophodonts.  I wouldn't deem a scaled hypsilophodont "unlikely".  We know for a fact that larger ornithopods had scales.  I'll have to look into this thescelosaurus.  I don't know its a bit of a stretch to deem such a tiny bit of skin either scaly or bare skin for sure (there are some very fine scales out there).  More needs to be found.  As of now I personally reconstruct hypsilophodonts with no feathers.  If more is found out that says otherwise I can always add them on.

[wings]

Gryphoceratops wrote: "...Is there any hard evidence of any ornithopod save for heterdontosaurs with feathering?..."

You wrote this right? Perhaps I should separate my answer in two parts from my first comment one on your heterodontosaurs query and one on the hypsilophodonts.

Gryphoceratops wrote: "...Heterdontosaurs are too far off on the dino tree to use as a model for hypsilophodonts.  I wouldn't deem a scaled hypsilophodont "unlikely".  We know for a fact that larger ornithopods had scales..."

It is very unusual that you would say that while heterdontosaurs are too far off then you would continue to compare hypsilophodonts with any large ornithopods. 

As your reasoning for very fine scales, perhaps. Maybe no one notice them or just bad preservation that they weren't so clear to the eyes. I just find it strange that Gilmore would comment on these patches when they aren't good enough for a description. 

[Gryphoceratops]

"It is very unusual that you would say that while heterdontosaurs are too far off then you would continue to compare hypsilophodonts with any large ornithopods. "

Dude.  All I'm saying is that when dealing with hypsilophodontids it can go either way with regards to feathering.  So heterdontosaurs and larger ornithopods like hadrosaurs are both not extremely closely related to them.  So why say one type of covering is more likely than the other?  (not to mention the fact that the tianyulong stuff isn't even that fuzzy, more like long thin tube-shaped scales much like those found on that one psittacosaurus specimen).

ALL reptiles have scales.  Some of them have feathers as well but ALL have scales at least on parts of their bodies.  That being said if there is no direct evidence for feathers in a particular dinosaur, there is nothing "unlikely" about depicting it with just scales until further notice especially if none of their close relatives have evidence for feathers either.  That's all.  I don't know why people get all ruffled (haha! get it?) when I say stuff like this.  I'm not anti-dinosaur-feather.  I just like to stay with the hard facts when dealing with reconstructions that are supposed to be as scientific as possible. 

[wings]

"It is very unusual that you would say that while heterdontosaurs are too far off then you would continue to compare hypsilophodonts with any large ornithopods. "

Dude.  All I'm saying is that when dealing with hypsilophodontids it can go either way with regards to feathering.  So heterdontosaurs and larger ornithopods like hadrosaurs are both not extremely closely related to them.  So why say one type of covering is more likely than the other?  (not to mention the fact that the tianyulong stuff isn't even that fuzzy, more like long thin tube-shaped scales much like those found on that one psittacosaurus specimen).

ALL reptiles have scales.  Some of them have feathers as well but ALL have scales at least on parts of their bodies.  That being said if there is no direct evidence for feathers in a particular dinosaur, there is nothing "unlikely" about depicting it with just scales until further notice especially if none of their close relatives have evidence for feathers either.  That's all.  I don't know why people get all ruffled (haha! get it?) when I say stuff like this.  I'm not anti-dinosaur-feather.  I just like to stay with the hard facts when dealing with reconstructions that are supposed to be as scientific as possible. 

Perhaps you should calm down and actually read what others are saying. Well, my comment is based on all/most integuments we have of these animals so far (to be clear so you won't get confused, the Tianyulong is referring to your heterdontosaurs query while the Thescelosaurus comment is referring to your hypsilophodonts comments). I've never said the heterdontosaurs group is closely related to the Hypsilophodon (as mentioned in the above comments). Like most fossil specimens "complete" integument are rarely found, so I wouldn't say that a scaly Hypsilophodon is totally wrong and it is still a possibility but from the indirect evidence we have of these animals (as in what has been identified as skin patches of the Thescelosaurus and assuming the paper has correctly describe the structures found) so far, it seems unlikely. By the way, I've never implied that they should be fuzzy or not, the fact is I didn't really say the kind of integumnet they have but just what has preserved, not sure where did you get this idea from. Virtually no archosaurs have feathers all over, in some at least they are partially scaled (like their feet for example). Unfortunately, I'm not defending whether they should be feathered or not, I'm merely pointing out and trying to interpret what we have at this time. It is puzzling how mentioning your preference (...I'm not anti-dinosaur-feather...) would have any bearing to this matter at all.

[Gryphoceratops]

I was never anything but calm.  Always am on these forums.  Just because a debate is going on doesn't mean I or anyone else is getting angry.  Please don't get snippy with the "actually read" stuff.  No need for it.  Its a debate yes but lets not get nasty.  I read what you said.  I just disagree with it a bit.

"I've never said the heterdontosaurs group is closely related to the Hypsilophodon"

"We know that Tianyulong has filamentous integuments. Apart from this I'm not sure if we've actually found any more body covering impressions (scales and/or feathers) from this family of animals."

You said that right?  So its close enough related for you to bring it up I suppose is what I mean.  Which is why I bring up the hadrosaur scales, bringing to the conversation that we know other ornithopods had other coverings as well.   

Reconstructed with feathers or fuzz or whatever you would like to call it or not at all and just scales like the ornithopod mummies found- its fine either way right now for hypsilophodontids.  We know that dinosaurs (and I guess archosaurs in general) were experimenting with all sorts of body coverings back then.  It would be silly to say anything is unlikely with so little evidence for what you think could be skin where feathers could have attached.  I know some paleoartists and paleontologists who would say the same thing.

"from the indirect evidence we have of these animals (as in what has been identified as skin patches of the Thescelosaurus and assuming the paper has correctly describe the structures found) so far, it seems unlikely."

If that's what you want to go thinking then okay.  But I disagree.  I think we should be done with this debate since its over something rather nitpicky and we reached the point where I think neither one of us really want's to change either of our views on the matter.

Balaur: I say you are totally fine in the scientifically accurate department with dino-fuzz or just scales for your Leaellynausaura. 

[wings]

I was never anything but calm.  Always am on these forums.  Just because a debate is going on doesn't mean I or anyone else is getting angry.  Please don't get snippy with the "actually read" stuff.  No need for it.  Its a debate yes but lets not get nasty.  I read what you said.  I just disagree with it a bit.

"I've never said the heterdontosaurs group is closely related to the Hypsilophodon"

"We know that Tianyulong has filamentous integuments. Apart from this I'm not sure if we've actually found any more body covering impressions (scales and/or feathers) from this family of animals."

You said that right?  So its close enough related for you to bring it up I suppose is what I mean.  Which is why I bring up the hadrosaur scales, bringing to the conversation that we know other ornithopods had other coverings as well.   

Reconstructed with feathers or fuzz or whatever you would like to call it or not at all and just scales like the ornithopod mummies found- its fine either way right now for hypsilophodontids.  We know that dinosaurs (and I guess archosaurs in general) were experimenting with all sorts of body coverings back then.  It would be silly to say anything is unlikely with so little evidence for what you think could be skin where feathers could have attached.  I know some paleoartists and paleontologists who would say the same thing.

"from the indirect evidence we have of these animals (as in what has been identified as skin patches of the Thescelosaurus and assuming the paper has correctly describe the structures found) so far, it seems unlikely."

If that's what you want to go thinking then okay.  But I disagree.  I think we should be done with this debate since its over something rather nitpicky and we reached the point where I think neither one of us really want's to change either of our views on the matter.

Balaur: I say you are totally fine in the scientifically accurate department with dino-fuzz or just scales for your Leaellynausaura.

I didn't realize the telling people to "actually" pay attention to what has been written by others is nasty (suddenly, I found the term "dude" offensive... ). I suppose different people has different tolerance. Personally, I don't find it offensive at all.  Yes, I wrote: "We know that Tianyulong has filamentous integuments. Apart from this I'm not sure if we've actually found any more body covering impressions (scales and/or feathers) from this family of animals." but you also have to realize that this statement is referring to your comment (...Is there any hard evidence of any ornithopod save for heterdontosaurs with feathering?...) Notice you were using the term heterdontosaurs in this statement (which I would assume that you weren't referring to the Hypsilophodontidae family as well) and I was merely reply to this statement as referring to the Heterodontosauridae family rather than the Hypsilophodontidae family .  Which I've been explaining quite a few times already (unfortunately you've kept misreading it... oh well), also I'm not trying to convert you into my thinking like I said from time to time again I'm merely pointing out what we have.

[Yutyrannus]

Seriously, another argument .