Fossil find reveals just how big carnivorous dinosaur may have grown

[Patrx]

Gosh, my mistake. I read that wrong and thought it was Engh you found to appear hypocritical or elitist! That's what I get for reading too fast.

[HD-man]

Gosh, my mistake. I read that wrong and thought it was Engh you found to appear hypocritical or elitist! That's what I get for reading too fast.

No worries, I understand.

[Dinoguy2]

Is it just me, or does the 1st paragraph come off as a bit hypocritical/elitist (not that I'm surprised, but still)? I couldn't help but be reminded of Engh's Youtube comment ("Specific to paleo, there are a lot of paleontologists who are great diggers, phylo trait mappers, geologists and fossil hunters, but simply don't have a good basis in the biology and ecology of living plants and animals, and therefor don't even realize when a life restoration of a given animal is awkward or completely implausible.")

But Engh is spot-on correct in this regard - it's a major problem with palaeoart that has been noted by lots of other folks in the field, like Darren Naish, John Conway, and Matt Martyniuk. Some palaeontologists make lousy consultants regarding life reconstructions simply because that's not their area of expertise or even interest. Surely there's nothing "elitist" involved:

All true, but Cau is certainly among the best in this regard and has a very good grasp of what is and isn't possible/plausible/likely in life restorations.

HD Man, isn't the shoulder impression from the glenoid, ventral to the humerus? That's the armpit, not what most would consider the shoulder.

I'd personally restore carnotaurines with a lot more extensive scales than this, but there's plenty of room for informed speculation here.

Anyway, Cau's first paragraph is elitist *because* he's complaining about people who don't know enough about the evidence making statements/memes about what should and should not be done in paleoart. I'd say it's pretty widely thought inline that Carnotaurus was scaly because we have nearly full body impressions. Cau is pointing out this common misconception is not true, but nobody ever questions it or looks at the original source. He did therefore he has a reason to be elitist. He did genuinely better research than people saying Carnotaurus impressions are full body scaly.

Engh is also being elitist when he says mist pros don't know what the heck they're talking about when it comes to life restorations. That doesn't mean he isn't 100% right.

[HD-man]

HD Man, isn't the shoulder impression from the glenoid, ventral to the humerus? That's the armpit, not what most would consider the shoulder.

Maybe. I was going by what Witton said ("The skin remains of Carnotaurus are a little patchy, but represent many different parts of the body: the anterior neck, shoulder girdle, mid-torso, and the base of the tail": http://markwitton-com.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/dinosaur-scales-some-thoughts-for.html ).

Anyway, Cau's first paragraph is elitist *because* he's complaining about people who don't know enough about the evidence making statements/memes about what should and should not be done in paleoart. I'd say it's pretty widely thought inline that Carnotaurus was scaly because we have nearly full body impressions. Cau is pointing out this common misconception is not true, but nobody ever questions it or looks at the original source. He did therefore he has a reason to be elitist. He did genuinely better research than people saying Carnotaurus impressions are full body scaly.

As annoying as it is to see non-experts act like experts, it's not necessarily a big deal. It's 1 thing when Dr. Pterosaur/Doug Dobney & Gwawinapterus/Johnfaa use their blogs to mislead/misinform regular ppl on a wide scale ("Pterosaurs to Modern Birds" & "Gwawinapterus", respectively), but it's another thing when some random forum members claim that T.rex was an obligate scavenger. While the former is a big deal for obvious reasons (& thus, good reason for experts to be the kind of "elitist" you describe), that latter isn't, yet Cau makes it out to be. It reminds me of his "Paleoartismo" blog post (which is the kind of "elitist" I was originally referring to) & the backlash it got from paleoartists ( http://ewilloughby.deviantart.com/journal/Why-is-Paleoart-Important-A-Response-to-Cau-424673917 ). I hope this clears things up.

Engh is also being elitist when he says mist pros don't know what the heck they're talking about when it comes to life restorations. That doesn't mean he isn't 100% right.

To be fair, he didn't say "[most] pros", but "a lot of paleontologists". Naish said the same thing ("many palaeontologists"). Again, this is the necessary kind of "elitist" b/c they're speaking out against influential ppl who (intentionally or otherwise) use their influence to mislead/misinform regular ppl on a wide scale.

[Sim]

As I can speak Italian, I read Andrea Cau's blog post without translating it into English, so I know I'm not misunderstanding what he said.

Cau was incorrect about some things, one of which is that the only valid source of scientific information about the skin of Carnotaurus is Bonaparte et al. (1990).  Things Cau was incorrect about are pointed out in comments on Cau's blog post.  I've summarised them below.

Stephen Poropat points out other valid sources of scientific information about the skin of Carnotaurus.   His quote from Czerkas and Czerkas includes them saying skin impressions from the head of Carnotaurus probably reflect "the tuberculate scales of the animals face."  Poropat points out that Bonadonna's abelisaur has feathers covering parts of the tail from which scaly skin is known in Carnotaurus (Cau said Bonadonna's abelisaur is perfectly coherent with what is known from Carnotaurus).  In the quote from Czerkas and Czerkas they say a skin impression was found from the area over Carnotaurus's shoulder, so Cau was wrong to say it came from the glenoid/underarm area.  In fact, Bonaparte et al. (1990) say the skin "is from the scapular area near the glenoid cavity", so I don't know why Cau paraphrased that as the glenoid/underarm area.  It looks like Mark Witton was right when he said that skin impression came from the "shoulder girdle".

Mickey Mortimer agrees with Stephen Poropat that the Carnotaurus skin impressions show scales and that the skin impressions extend further dorsally up the tail than what Cau thought and is reflected in Bonadonna's picture.  She also adds another valid source of info on Carnotaurus's skin and another area where Carnotaurus's skin is known but Bonadonna's abelisaur is covered in feathers: the mid-proximal area of the dorsal ribs, which she correctly points out is mentioned in Bonaparte et al..

Christophe Hendrickx also says the Carnotaurus skin impression is from the scapular area, and again confirms a skin impression from its tail comes from an area covered in feathers in Bonadonna's picture.


We already know Mark Witton says the skin impressions of Carnotaurus show scales in his blog post on dinosaur scales which has already been linked to in this thread.  Scott Hartman also says the skin of Carnotaurus is scaly in his reply here and in the description of his Carnotaurus skeletal.

I think Andrea Cau had a good intention here, but his blog post is not completely correct.

[DinoLord]

As I can speak Italian, I read Andrea Cau's blog post without translating it into English, so I know I'm not misunderstanding what he said.

This makes me a bit envious! I think Cau often has great insights to share and would love to include him in my regular blogroll, but reading through the patchy Google translations isn't very appealing.

[Sim]

As I can speak Italian, I read Andrea Cau's blog post without translating it into English, so I know I'm not misunderstanding what he said.

This makes me a bit envious! I think Cau often has great insights to share and would love to include him in my regular blogroll, but reading through the patchy Google translations isn't very appealing.

Hehe!  His next blog post seems to be about why he thinks Concavenator doesn't have quill knobs.  I'm going to read it when I next have time.

[HD-man]

Cau was incorrect about some things, one of which is that the only valid source of scientific information about the skin of Carnotaurus is Bonaparte et al. (1990).  Things Cau was incorrect about are pointed out in comments on Cau's blog post.  I've summarised them below.

Many thanks for posting that. The last time I read Cau's blog post was b-4 Poropat & Mortimer had commented on it.

I think Andrea Cau had a good intention here, but his blog post is not completely correct.

That's basically what I've been saying about Cau's blog in general (See "Semi-good": http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html ).