brandem's sculpture {recent art 2019}

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Im actaully excited for the Aquilops.  Ever since i seen this picture i fell in love with the Genus



Now i can have my own

lol that's one of the pics I found online that had me excited about it as well! 

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Im actaully excited for the Aquilops.  Ever since i seen this picture i fell in love with the Genus



Now i can have my own

lol that's one of the pics I found online that had me excited about it as well! 

This is alot of what I keep saying about these dinosaurs, and people dont seem to get it. Psittacosaurus at its largest might have been six feet, but examples like the species in Shane's model were three feet long. Archaeoceratops, a close relative of Aquilops , was perhaps one meter at most while Microceratus was perhaps two feet long at best. These were some amazing little dinosaurs that we know so little about and are just beginning to discover and learn from >  Just a truly unique family of dinosaurs .

[triceratops83]

Are you gonna start selling these through Dan's Dinosaurs? If not, how do we go about ordering from you? I want, want, WANT!

Amargasaurus is right, people tend to take the measurements given in books to be canon. There are plenty of small dinosaurs that could, no SHOULD be done in 1:1 scale - bring on the Basal Ornithischians!

[SBell]

Are you gonna start selling these through Dan's Dinosaurs? If not, how do we go about ordering from you? I want, want, WANT!

Amargasaurus is right, people tend to take the measurements given in books to be canon. There are plenty of small dinosaurs that could, no SHOULD be done in 1:1 scale - bring on the Basal Ornithischians!

You buy directly from him.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Brandon is a great guy and a talented sculptor, we're really excited to showcase his work here. If these go over well I do think we'll be ordering some other smaller species later on.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

More food for thought and not sure if I agree, but well here it is. In the 2002 SVP release, Jack Horner provided an abstract seeming to suggest that  larger ceratopsians skull bones and frills were in fact covered in keratin. Here is the abstract......

KERATINOUS COVERED DINOSAUR SKULLS
HORNER, John R., and MARSHALL, Cynthia, Museum of the Rockies, Montana
State Univ, Bozeman, MT 59717.
The frills, horns and some other areas of ceratopsian skulls are indented with meandering
grooves that have been previously interpreted as channels that carried blood vessels. This vasculature
is most prominent on the skulls of ceratopsians like Triceratops and Torosaurus, and
indicates a vast supply of blood feeding an epidermal layer. Comparisons with Pleistocene and
Recent mammals and birds indicate that such structures are consistent with bony surfaces
located beneath keratinous sheaths. Identical vascular grooves are present on the lateral surfaces
of the unguals of the giant ground sloth Megalonyx, and also on the bony beaks of all
living birds, particularly in areas of a thickened rampothaeca. In Triceratops and Torosaurus
a keratinous sheath appears to have covered nearly the entire skull, including the ventral surfaces
of the frill. In modern taxa thickness of the keratin correlates with the size of the vasculature,
thicker keratin existing above deep and wide vessels. Based on this morphology, other
dinosaur taxa, including some thyreophorans may have also had keratinous coverings on
regions of the skull and armor, as suggested by Gilmore of the plates of Stegosaurus.

     To further confound the issue, and using poor methodology it has been stated the dueling dinosaurs has a ceratopsian which demonsrates a frill covered in pebble-like scaling, however since the specimen has not been properly written up and released........

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

You can see a keratin faced reconstruction in the Triceratops from Dinosaur Revolution.

It's an interesting idea and does make sense to an extent..but I don't see enough evidence of it to be honest. Given the look of it, you could do a piece with no scales and just say it has a keratin covering..would work for it as well as just slightly wrinkly skin.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

You can see a keratin faced reconstruction in the Triceratops from Dinosaur Revolution.

It's an interesting idea and does make sense to an extent..but I don't see enough evidence of it to be honest. Given the look of it, you could do a piece with no scales and just say it has a keratin covering..would work for it as well as just slightly wrinkly skin.

You see that is just the problem, if Horner is correct, you will not find any evidence. An absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence of........it is indeed an interesting theory to be sure. Until someone finds a ceratopsian with intact cranial features it is going to be hard to prove one way or another. The argument he has given is provocative if not concusive.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Agreed. I prefer to err on the side of caution though, especially where money is concerned.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Agreed. I prefer to err on the side of caution though, especially where money is concerned.

In this case, there is no side you can err on and call it caution...any or all may be incorrect. We know that birds and crocodilians are two of the closest living relatives of dinosaurs for instance. So following the bird, the body is covered in feathers and so is the head, simple enough, However the crocodile...covered in scales,but the head is covered in skin, that has cracked and folded to resemble scales. And then there is Horner's idea...also equally pausible.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Agreed. I prefer to err on the side of caution though, especially where money is concerned.

In this case, there is no side you can err on and call it caution...any or all may be incorrect. We know that birds and crocodilians are two of the closest living relatives of dinosaurs for instance. So following the bird, the body is covered in feathers and so is the head, simple enough, However the crocodile...covered in scales,but the head is covered in skin, that has cracked and folded to resemble scales. And then there is Horner's idea...also equally pausible.

It would be Horner's idea I was referencing. But to sum up my thoughts I would side with the current consensus.  I don't see enough proof of Horner's theory, interesting and possible though it may be and I can say the same for a lot of feathers on ceratopsians. Quills are about as far as many want to go on these guys..which I do think could be possible in reality. Possible on the sculpt could be an issue as such things are prone to damage..squirrel drops a walnut for example.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Agreed. I prefer to err on the side of caution though, especially where money is concerned.

In this case, there is no side you can err on and call it caution...any or all may be incorrect. We know that birds and crocodilians are two of the closest living relatives of dinosaurs for instance. So following the bird, the body is covered in feathers and so is the head, simple enough, However the crocodile...covered in scales,but the head is covered in skin, that has cracked and folded to resemble scales. And then there is Horner's idea...also equally pausible.

It would be Horner's idea I was referencing. But to sum up my thoughts I would side with the current consensus.  I don't see enough proof of Horner's theory, interesting and possible though it may be and I can say the same for a lot of feathers on ceratopsians. Quills are about as far as many want to go on these guys..which I do think could be possible in reality. Possible on the sculpt could be an issue as such things are prone to damage..squirrel drops a walnut for example.

Alright I will alter the wording then....what is your guess the current consensus is? After three days of researching I am discovering that it does not seem to exist. Any of the options seem just as likely or possible. There is no safe or consensus position to fall back here to.....its at this point seemingy a matter of preference. As for Horner's theory if proof is your guiding point, there is more in favor of his theory than any other, simply because it requires no proof. All of the other possibilities give NONE whatsoever. There are a few things at least that could be argued in favor for Horner's idea. My comment about birds and feathers was by way of the argument most animals have consistent integument both head and body, however crocodiles do not for instance. Quills and feathers really have nothing to do with the point I am making....I am curious what your concept of a current consensus might be where none seems to exist?

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Agreed. I prefer to err on the side of caution though, especially where money is concerned.

In this case, there is no side you can err on and call it caution...any or all may be incorrect. We know that birds and crocodilians are two of the closest living relatives of dinosaurs for instance. So following the bird, the body is covered in feathers and so is the head, simple enough, However the crocodile...covered in scales,but the head is covered in skin, that has cracked and folded to resemble scales. And then there is Horner's idea...also equally pausible.

It would be Horner's idea I was referencing. But to sum up my thoughts I would side with the current consensus.  I don't see enough proof of Horner's theory, interesting and possible though it may be and I can say the same for a lot of feathers on ceratopsians. Quills are about as far as many want to go on these guys..which I do think could be possible in reality. Possible on the sculpt could be an issue as such things are prone to damage..squirrel drops a walnut for example.

Alright I will alter the wording then....what is your guess the current consensus is? After three days of researching I am discovering that it does not seem to exist. Any of the options seem just as likely or possible. There is no safe or consensus position to fall back here to.....its at this point seemingy a matter of preference. As for Horner's theory if proof is your guiding point, there is more in favor of his theory than any other, simply because it requires no proof. All of the other possibilities give NONE whatsoever. There are a few things at least that could be argued in favor for Horner's idea. My comment about birds and feathers was by way of the argument most animals have consistent integument both head and body, however crocodiles do not for instance. Quills and feathers really have nothing to do with the point I am making....I am curious what your concept of a current consensus might be where none seems to exist?

My guess would be that Horner's theory isn't widely accepted..or at the least utilized or well known. Just from image searches of both popular paleo-artists and amateurs I can only find it in Dinosaur Revolution at least to a great degree. Granted it's a difficult thing to prove what others think, but that's my take.  Perhaps I just missed the point. I suppose it's really up to artistic license, I used to think dinosaurs were very fact oriented at least compared to the dragons and such I would also draw..turns out that is just not the case.

[brandem]

taking the scales in a new direction

[amargasaurus cazaui]

taking the scales in a new direction

Just my own take but thats a definite win for me, much more natural looking and realistic from my perspective at least...very nice

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

VERY nice! I love it!

[brandem]

Hey all in general I've been slammed with lots of commissions and orders to go along with my day to day business but I wanted to let you see something that's pretty my done: pouncing diliphosaurus, commissioned by paleo pal



Anyone can order of course but I want to thank him for the idea

[Takama]

Looks great.       Tempted to get one for myself.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Cool man, love the detail!

[Takama]

Could you take a picture of your Sinnosaurus with its cousin Brandem?