Rebor Deinosuchus hatcheri 'Meta' w/ Appalachiosaurus montgomeriensis prey

[Flaffy]

So they really aren't going to bother correcting the osteoderms, are they? That's just lame, especially considering that they're one of the most diagnostic features of Deinosuchus. But I'm hardly surprised.

Also unlike their modern relatives Deinosuchus had fully functional claws on all digits, and a more useful tongue too.

Do you have a source for this claim? @REBOR_STUDIO

[The Prehistoric Traveler]

The were more bulbous and deeply pitted (thats where most of their shape went) other than that there was nothing unique about them.

Please go read the article by Mark Witton that I posted above. And the paper on Deinosuchus schwimmeri. It honestly sounds like you're trying to downplay a crucial part of the animal's anatomy because you don't want to acknowledge that Rebor simply got it incorrect. A Deinosuchus with osteoderms like the ones on that model is like an African lion with fur like a snow leopard's.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2020.1767638

I already said they were more bolbous and or robust so REBOR should raise theirs. What else do you want? Light up features?

I sincerely agree that the way they look now is hugely unsatisfying and yes incorrect.

[The Prehistoric Traveler]

Also the great irony is that with REBOR's enthusiasm for monstrous-looking features they remove something on an animal that is actually in that realm of preference.

[Gwangi]

So they really aren't going to bother correcting the osteoderms, are they? That's just lame, especially considering that they're one of the most diagnostic features of Deinosuchus. But I'm hardly surprised.

Also unlike their modern relatives Deinosuchus had fully functional claws on all digits, and a more useful tongue too.

Do you have a source for this claim? @REBOR_STUDIO

Yeah, I'm interested in hearing more too. It is my understanding that clawless digits 4 and 5 on the forelimbs is a defining characteristic of all archosaurs.

[stargatedalek]

I thought I'd replied here, guess that was in the other thread.

Major points for updating the snout, I remember a Deinosuchus being shown a while ago that didn't have an accurate snout, and this would make you guys the first company to represent this!

But yah, the osteoderms on the neck in particularly should be very visibly round with large sail like raised portions, hopefully it isn't too far along to tweak that.

I was also under the impression the clawless digits were something basal to archosaurs, and not something that appeared in modern crocodiles.

[REBOR_STUDIO]

The were more bulbous and deeply pitted (thats where most of their shape went) other than that there was nothing unique about them.

Please go read the article by Mark Witton that I posted above. And the paper on Deinosuchus schwimmeri. It honestly sounds like you're trying to downplay a crucial part of the animal's anatomy because you don't want to acknowledge that Rebor simply got it incorrect. A Deinosuchus with osteoderms like the ones on that model is like an African lion with fur like a snow leopard's.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2020.1767638

What's the most ancient Alligatoroidea species living today? Caimans. Cuvier's dwarf caiman to be specific. Which living Alligatoroidea species has the most protruding osteoderms？Again the answer is Cuvier's dwarf caiman. You might want to check out what their backs look like.

Also please do compare Deinosuchus osteoderms with those of modern Alligatoroidea species, Alligator mississippiensis for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928493113006371

[stargatedalek]

The were more bulbous and deeply pitted (thats where most of their shape went) other than that there was nothing unique about them.

Please go read the article by Mark Witton that I posted above. And the paper on Deinosuchus schwimmeri. It honestly sounds like you're trying to downplay a crucial part of the animal's anatomy because you don't want to acknowledge that Rebor simply got it incorrect. A Deinosuchus with osteoderms like the ones on that model is like an African lion with fur like a snow leopard's.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2020.1767638

What's the most ancient Alligatoroidea species living today? Caimans. Cuvier's dwarf caiman to be specific. Which living Alligatoroidea species has the most protruding osteoderms？Again the answer is Cuvier's dwarf caiman. You might want to check out what their backs look like.

Also please do compare Deinosuchus osteoderms with those of modern Alligatoroidea species, Alligator mississippiensis for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928493113006371

The problem is not that they are protruding. As you say, that's a good thing. The problem is they are the wrong shape and in the wrong formation.

There is no sense in basing Deinosuchus osteoderms on modern caiman, since the actual ones from Deinosuchus itself are preserved! This is a very good diagram of what they look like from above and from the side:

[REBOR_STUDIO]

So they really aren't going to bother correcting the osteoderms, are they? That's just lame, especially considering that they're one of the most diagnostic features of Deinosuchus. But I'm hardly surprised.

Also unlike their modern relatives Deinosuchus had fully functional claws on all digits, and a more useful tongue too.

Do you have a source for this claim? @REBOR_STUDIO

Yeah, I'm interested in hearing more too. It is my understanding that clawless digits 4 and 5 on the forelimbs is a defining characteristic of all archosaurs.

Modern crocodilian species including those from the Alligatoroidea superfamily clearly have vestigial claws on the forth and fifth digits in their embryonic state so we believe that Deinosuchus had them too, it's a Late retaceous animal after all and 80+ million years is long enough to turn teeth(yeah we know it's acutally premaxilla) into beaks so why not.

Plus you can simply trim them off if you don't like them, digits 4 and 5 are long enough and their claws are much thinner than the three main claws so cut them off, paint the super tiny cut surfaces with a black marker and voila, you got your preferred reconstruction

[Sim]

Regarding archosaurs with clawed fourth and fifth fingers, I remember a prominent palaeontologist on Facebook saying an ornithopod species was an example of this, and also @Doug Watson provided examples of this here: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=7110.msg211856;topicseen#msg211856

[Stegotyranno420]

So they really aren't going to bother correcting the osteoderms, are they? That's just lame, especially considering that they're one of the most diagnostic features of Deinosuchus. But I'm hardly surprised.

Also unlike their modern relatives Deinosuchus had fully functional claws on all digits, and a more useful tongue too.

Do you have a source for this claim? @REBOR_STUDIO

Yeah, I'm interested in hearing more too. It is my understanding that clawless digits 4 and 5 on the forelimbs is a defining characteristic of all archosaurs.

Modern crocodilian species including those from the Alligatoroidea superfamily clearly have vestigial claws on the forth and fifth digits in their embryonic state so we believe that Deinosuchus had them too, it's a Late retaceous animal after all and 80+ million years is long enough to turn teeth(yeah we know it's acutally premaxilla) into beaks so why not.

Plus you can simply trim them off if you don't like them, digits 4 and 5 are long enough and their claws are much thinner than the three main claws so cut them off, paint the super tiny cut surfaces with a black marker and voila, you got your preferred reconstruction

Exactly. Such a simple, common sense solution, and that is what I would do in this case

[REBOR_STUDIO]

The were more bulbous and deeply pitted (thats where most of their shape went) other than that there was nothing unique about them.

Please go read the article by Mark Witton that I posted above. And the paper on Deinosuchus schwimmeri. It honestly sounds like you're trying to downplay a crucial part of the animal's anatomy because you don't want to acknowledge that Rebor simply got it incorrect. A Deinosuchus with osteoderms like the ones on that model is like an African lion with fur like a snow leopard's.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2020.1767638

What's the most ancient Alligatoroidea species living today? Caimans. Cuvier's dwarf caiman to be specific. Which living Alligatoroidea species has the most protruding osteoderms？Again the answer is Cuvier's dwarf caiman. You might want to check out what their backs look like.

Also please do compare Deinosuchus osteoderms with those of modern Alligatoroidea species, Alligator mississippiensis for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928493113006371

The problem is not that they are protruding. As you say, that's a good thing. The problem is they are the wrong shape and in the wrong formation.

There is no sense in basing Deinosuchus osteoderms on modern caiman, since the actual ones from Deinosuchus itself are preserved! This is a very good diagram of what they look like from above and from the side:

I thought that we were talking about shapes and textures of osteoderms? If it is the arrangement of osteoderms we are talking about then rest assured as we did used that diagram and many other as reference. Some smaller ones on the neck didn't match prefectly with those on the diagram because we had to clear space for articulated upper jaw.

[suspsy]

The were more bulbous and deeply pitted (thats where most of their shape went) other than that there was nothing unique about them.

Please go read the article by Mark Witton that I posted above. And the paper on Deinosuchus schwimmeri. It honestly sounds like you're trying to downplay a crucial part of the animal's anatomy because you don't want to acknowledge that Rebor simply got it incorrect. A Deinosuchus with osteoderms like the ones on that model is like an African lion with fur like a snow leopard's.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2020.1767638

What's the most ancient Alligatoroidea species living today? Caimans. Cuvier's dwarf caiman to be specific. Which living Alligatoroidea species has the most protruding osteoderms？Again the answer is Cuvier's dwarf caiman. You might want to check out what their backs look like.

Also please do compare Deinosuchus osteoderms with those of modern Alligatoroidea species, Alligator mississippiensis for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928493113006371

@REBOR_STUDIO, did you even bother to look at either Witton's article or the paper above? Honest question. I ask this because neither the dwarf caiman nor the American alligator have osteoderms similar to Deinosuchus'. I know this for a fact because I've handled live specimens of both. Not to mention that Deinosuchus is far removed from the alligatorid family just as Yutyrannus is far removed from tyrannosaurids. Check Figure 28 of this study.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2020.1767638#

[stargatedalek]

I thought that we were talking about shapes and textures of osteoderms? If it is the arrangement of osteoderms we are talking about then rest assured as we did used that diagram and many other as reference. Some smaller ones on the neck didn't match prefectly with those on the diagram because we had to clear space for articulated upper jaw.

I meant their round shape. The ones on the sculpt are square, rather than round. And the "fin" in the middle of them is larger in the real Deinosuchus. The formation of them looks fine.

*edit* They look rounder on closer inspection, but still too squared/squished. I get concessions must be made for articulation but why not shrink them slightly instead of change their shape?

[Flaffy]

Modern crocodilian species including those from the Alligatoroidea superfamily clearly have vestigial claws on the forth and fifth digits in their embryonic state so we believe that Deinosuchus had them too, it's a Late retaceous animal after all and 80+ million years is long enough to turn teeth(yeah we know it's acutally premaxilla) into beaks so why not.

Plus you can simply trim them off if you don't like them, digits 4 and 5 are long enough and their claws are much thinner than the three main claws so cut them off, paint the super tiny cut surfaces with a black marker and voila, you got your preferred reconstruction

So basically you're making things up. Should've said that from the start instead of trying to pass off your speculation as fact.

[Flaffy]

@REBOR_STUDIO, did you even bother to look at either Witton's article or the paper above? Honest question. I ask this because neither the dwarf caiman nor the American alligator have osteoderms similar to Deinosuchus'. I know this for a fact because I've handled live specimens of both. Not to mention that Deinosuchus is far removed from the alligatorid family just as Yutyrannus is far removed from tyrannosaurids. Check Figure 28 of this study.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2020.1767638#

Precisely. Why base the osteoderms on an extant caiman when we have plenty of information on Deinosuchus's osteoderms? It's not like we don't know the size, shape and orientation of them. And I don't see how Cuvier's dwarf caimans being supposedly "primitive" compared to extant species has any bearing on Deinosuchus's osteoderms when the latter is an entirely separate lineage.

[stargatedalek]

Modern crocodilian species including those from the Alligatoroidea superfamily clearly have vestigial claws on the forth and fifth digits in their embryonic state so we believe that Deinosuchus had them too, it's a Late retaceous animal after all and 80+ million years is long enough to turn teeth(yeah we know it's acutally premaxilla) into beaks so why not.

Plus you can simply trim them off if you don't like them, digits 4 and 5 are long enough and their claws are much thinner than the three main claws so cut them off, paint the super tiny cut surfaces with a black marker and voila, you got your preferred reconstruction

Hey I'll disagree on vestigial embryonic features reappearing with no decided purpose being likely, but ultimately fair enough. While it warranted mention it's something easily tweaked to be sure and feels like people are rubbing it in at this point.

Folks, I'm not normally one to jump in front of REBOR, but this is starting to look a little ridiculous. Yes citing modern caimans is, bizarre, when we have the originals preserved, but that's not helpful at this point to jump down their throats about it. I hope the osteoderms get tweaked, but just saying "well look it up better" is only so practical to an extent.

The more I look at this thing the better it looks. The osteoderms on the neck could do with being rounder, and the little "sails" on the osteoderms in general should be rounder, more like semi-circles and opposed to triangles. But aside from that...

[REBOR_STUDIO]

I thought that we were talking about shapes and textures of osteoderms? If it is the arrangement of osteoderms we are talking about then rest assured as we did used that diagram and many other as reference. Some smaller ones on the neck didn't match prefectly with those on the diagram because we had to clear space for articulated upper jaw.

I meant their round shape. The ones on the sculpt are square, rather than round. And the "fin" in the middle of them is larger in the real Deinosuchus. The formation of them looks fine.

*edit* They look rounder on closer inspection, but still too squared/squished. I get concessions must be made for articulation but why not shrink them slightly instead of change their shape?

If you take a look at this image you'll understand why around osteoderms look squarish. It's because horizontal scale gaps are far wider and deeper than vertical scale gaps and such rule applies to all living crocodilian species:

https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/alligator-back-picture-id139259862

The scale ridges also appear less prominent when soft tissues are added, check out of osteoderms of Alligator mississippiensis:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f5/01/47/f501470e89456febe3e29687ae1d9962.jpg

Then check out their acutal back scales:

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/american-alligator-s-body-hide-covered-watertight-scales-alligators-have-bony-plates-inside-skin-called-osteoderms-201100144.jpg

[REBOR_STUDIO]

@REBOR_STUDIO, did you even bother to look at either Witton's article or the paper above? Honest question. I ask this because neither the dwarf caiman nor the American alligator have osteoderms similar to Deinosuchus'. I know this for a fact because I've handled live specimens of both. Not to mention that Deinosuchus is far removed from the alligatorid family just as Yutyrannus is far removed from tyrannosaurids. Check Figure 28 of this study.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2020.1767638#

Precisely. Why base the osteoderms on an extant caiman when we have plenty of information on Deinosuchus's osteoderms? It's not like we don't know the size, shape and orientation of them. And I don't see how Cuvier's dwarf caimans being supposedly "primitive" compared to extant species has any bearing on Deinosuchus's osteoderms when the latter is an entirely separate lineage.

Cus we still need to figure out how soft tissues may change the appearance of the animal? It quite necessary to find what we call "universal rules" of all crocodilian species so that we can make educated guesses for our own reconstruction.

[REBOR_STUDIO]

Modern crocodilian species including those from the Alligatoroidea superfamily clearly have vestigial claws on the forth and fifth digits in their embryonic state so we believe that Deinosuchus had them too, it's a Late retaceous animal after all and 80+ million years is long enough to turn teeth(yeah we know it's acutally premaxilla) into beaks so why not.

Plus you can simply trim them off if you don't like them, digits 4 and 5 are long enough and their claws are much thinner than the three main claws so cut them off, paint the super tiny cut surfaces with a black marker and voila, you got your preferred reconstruction

Hey I'll disagree on vestigial embryonic features reappearing with no decided purpose being likely, but ultimately fair enough. While it warranted mention it's something easily tweaked to be sure and feels like people are rubbing it in at this point.

Folks, I'm not normally one to jump in front of REBOR, but this is starting to look a little ridiculous. Yes citing modern caimans is, bizarre, when we have the originals preserved, but that's not helpful at this point to jump down their throats about it. I hope the osteoderms get tweaked, but just saying "well look it up better" is only so practical to an extent.

The more I look at this thing the better it looks. The osteoderms on the neck could do with being rounder, and the little "sails" on the osteoderms in general should be rounder, more like semi-circles and opposed to triangles. But aside from that...

Thank you! It's not like we are trying so very hard to sell this figure to you guys you know and it's totally OK if some people don't like it. We are simply trying to explain that we did put lots of thoughts into the sculpt and some of them are justified. There's no THE accurate Deinosuchus as nobody has seen a real one anyway so perhaps we can call those designs "preference" rather than "inaccuracy".

[Flaffy]

@REBOR_STUDIO, did you even bother to look at either Witton's article or the paper above? Honest question. I ask this because neither the dwarf caiman nor the American alligator have osteoderms similar to Deinosuchus'. I know this for a fact because I've handled live specimens of both. Not to mention that Deinosuchus is far removed from the alligatorid family just as Yutyrannus is far removed from tyrannosaurids. Check Figure 28 of this study.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2020.1767638#

Precisely. Why base the osteoderms on an extant caiman when we have plenty of information on Deinosuchus's osteoderms? It's not like we don't know the size, shape and orientation of them. And I don't see how Cuvier's dwarf caimans being supposedly "primitive" compared to extant species has any bearing on Deinosuchus's osteoderms when the latter is an entirely separate lineage.

Cus we still need to figure out how soft tissues may change the appearance of the animal? It quite necessary to find what we call "universal rules" of all crocodilian species so that we can make educated guesses for our own reconstruction.

There's absolutely no problem with referencing extant relatives for extinct taxa. Hence why I'm personally not convinced that Deinosuchus was an exception to the "universal rules" of crocodilians as you put it in regards to clawed digit 4 and 5; especially when there's currently no evidence to support this interpretation.

However, I feel that sometimes it's possible to go overboard with the referencing, and in the process lose what makes the extinct species distinct in the first place. An example would be your Sarcosuchus*, where you referenced Gharial osteoderms, but fail to account for the lack of midline-keels on Sarcosuchus ones.

As of now, the Deinosuchus sculpt reminds me of The Isle's** reconstruction of the giant croc. As in: Overall, bears a resemblance to the extinct genus, but a few details could be tweaked to make it truly stand out as Deinosuchus proper, rather than just an oversized alligator with a few small changes. (same issue with most O. megalodon sculpts)



(*Disclaimer 1: That is a considerably old sculpt by Rebor, and their skill in sculpting crocodilians has improved immensely as seen in their fantastic American Alligator sculpt.)
(**Disclaimer 2: Rebor's reconstruction is noticeably better than The Isle's lackluster effort. But the issues as mentioned by other members still stand)