t rex sketch (new stuff on page 3)

[fleshanthos]

Fenestrae not entirely merged with eye socket in at least some species. DOES it show up in the live bird? I don't think so. I think T-rex would look more avian. This is why I'm not so crazy for it.

In any event,  we could both put forth 50 reasons for either case, and won't know the true version until we get him cloned. Meanwhile, let the artist do as he wants to!

[wings]

Fenestrae not entirely merged with eye socket in at least some species. DOES it show up in the live bird? I don't think so. I think T-rex would look more avian. This is why I'm not so crazy for it.

In any event,  we could both put forth 50 reasons for either case, and won't know the true version until we get him cloned. Meanwhile, let the artist do as he wants to!

Firstly, apart from the first skull, none of the skulls that you posted have sort of a complete fenestra (but that is beside the point). Now getting back to the issue of fenestrae; depending on the light condition some birds do appear to shown these incomplete fenestrae (see below):

"antorbital opening" on a secretary bird:





nevertheless, I think you might be missing the point. All we are saying is such possibility could exist (rough outline of the opening being visible). Don't get me wrong, I never said you are wrong but all I'm saying is either way is possible for the time being. Rather than implying there is only one way of depicting such feature as you did earlier (see below):

There's no modern animals that I know of which show their fenestrae. You might want to smooth those over.

And we both know that just because you've never seen one doesn't meant that they don't exist... (just like the secretary bird example above)

If you go back to my initial comment this is what I said (see below), I'm not the one forcing the artist to do either way here...

...It is not necessarily wrong to draw/indicate skull openings, it still is a possibility...

[fleshanthos]

Yep - looks like there are some animals that do show Fenestrae - which can depend on light conditions.

Both pics after the parrot show definite large areas devoid of bone = fenestrae; even if not completely sealed. I question the pic of the secretary bird - is that one alive, or a stuffed specimen? 

evidentish:


not evident





also:



This is the idea I've been trying to put across. Ignore it if you want - like I said, the artist can do as they wish, and we won't know what is correct until we have a live T-rex. Get going, Scweizer et al.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Looks at all those beautiful creases and detailing about the eyes..I'm getting inspiration ! lol

[wings]

Yep - looks like there are some animals that do show Fenestrae - which can depend on light conditions.

Both pics after the parrot show definite large areas devoid of bone = fenestrae; even if not completely sealed. I question the pic of the secretary bird - is that one alive, or a stuffed specimen? 

This is the idea I've been trying to put across. Ignore it if you want - like I said, the artist can do as they wish, and we won't know what is correct until we have a live T-rex. Get going, Scweizer et al.

I'm not too sure maybe it is stuffed but here is a better picture.

The area is clearly sunken in this. Even more so than the "stuffed" one.



another example, "striated heron"- the incomplete antorbital opening, see the light hitting the jugal bar and the slight depression above it.





I'm not sure how relevant (or that useful) this would be when we are looking into incomplete openings as well for this kind of reconstruction on a theropod which has "complete" openings (by incomplete I'm referring to when we compare it to the tyrannosaur skull, which has nasal, antorbital, orbital, postorbital and temporal openings separate). In the crows and ostriches the antorbital, postorbital and temporal are incomplete. For us to talk about whether we can possibly see the outline shape of these fenestrae would be almost impossible since we didn't get all the bony struts to form these windows. If there is no struts then even if we are getting the right angle and light condition; we wouldn't be able to see the formation/outline of these windows would we?

Lastly, at what point did I ignore your view on the possibility of not seeing the outline of these openings? What did I say that would imply that your idea is wrong?

[fleshanthos]

It seems like both our posts were trying to make the point one way or another. You're definitely right about fenestrae showing in some birds. Some of them don't show them much in other pics.
Like I said, I don't think we can know for sure without an actual clone which is still in the far future. Assuming humanity can solve the current problems and survive however long it will take to get to that kind of technology. Dammit.

And like I said before, the artist can do what he wants with it...
out:


in:



neither:

[wings]

Not sure where you get this idea from but at no point on this thread that I've implied it is one way or another and tried to argue that your idea is less favorable. If I did please let me know where I said that.

And like I said before, the artist can do what he wants with it...

and also you've said this:

There's no modern animals that I know of which show their fenestrae.
You might want to smooth those over...

Now who is the one suggesting to the artist what he should do?

[fleshanthos]

Ya that was my first post before you pointed out some birds that DO show fenestrae. So it's therefore up to the artist after all. He might want to smooth those over, and he might not.

If you agree with that, then there's no need to keep going in circles. Right?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

wait, are they fenestrae, orbits or circles? I sorta lost track !!

[wings]

Ya that was my first post before you pointed out some birds that DO show fenestrae. So it's therefore up to the artist after all. He might want to smooth those over, and he might not.

If you agree with that, then there's no need to keep going in circles. Right?

I certainly don't have problem (in fact, never have to begin with) with that; just I'm not sure why you would kept insisting that I ignore your view and implying I tried to persuade what the artist should do. That's all.

[fleshanthos]

I am not going to go in circles. Pointe finale.

Zelan, what have you decided about your depictions, having reviewed these pix of the relatives, including the Komodo you linked to? 
Some of the modern animals show a definite depression with an open mouth, and that is what you put in your sketch...

Checking "Dinosaur Art" ISBN 9780857685841, I find both depictions.
It's interesting that one pic shows T-rex (I don't give a dam how it's correctly abbreviated) with depressed fenestrae and birds entirely without!

Will look up in-depth anatomical studies in a few days, now that my interest has been drawn in to this question much deeper than the passing interest I originally responded with.

[wings]

I am not going to go in circles. Pointe finale.

The only reason that was going in circle is because you never give a straight answer and twisting what has been said...

Checking "Dinosaur Art" ISBN 9780857685841, I find both depictions.
It's interesting that one pic shows T-rex (I don't give a dam how it's correctly abbreviated) with depressed fenestrae and birds entirely without!

What is more interesting is that you would try to analyze other artists' work as some kind of support data; I would question whether this kind of reasoning would be any better than using a stuffed animal as proof...

@Zelan
Here is an interesting video for you (it was posted before but it seems relevant to this thread as well):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdezagMXE2w

and the paper link to it http://www.oucom.ohiou.edu/dbms-witmer/Allosaurus_mechanics.htm

[HD-man]

I like your T.rex. I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this yet, but it's strikingly similar to the T.rex in "The Dinosaurs!" (See 4:12-4:42).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fk7coNQDDE

[fleshanthos]

Excuse me, Wings, but I did give straight answers. I simply didn't answer all the questions you wanted nor in the way you were trying to direct them. IF I am "twisting" anything, then so are you; to use your words: "I never said" that other artists' works were any sort of 'proof'.
Now if you want to continue "you said, I said" do it in a PM. Nobody wants to read that kind of crap hijacking a thread out here, including me.

Zelan: That's a good video for an Allosaurus. But the paper itself said

A feeding style that involved defleshing a carcass by avian-raptor-like retraction of the head in Allosaurus is more probable than is lateroflexive shake-feeding, such as that seen in crocodilians and inferred for tyrannosaurids.

[wings]

Excuse me, Wings, but I did give straight answers. I simply didn't answer all the questions you wanted nor in the way you were trying to direct them. IF I am "twisting" anything, then so are you; to use your words: "I never said" that other artists' works were any sort of 'proof'.
Now if you want to continue "you said, I said" do it in a PM. Nobody wants to read that kind of crap hijacking a thread out here, including me.

The question was quite simple, all I asked is how did I influence what the artist what he/she should do or denying your view on the fenestrae. All you have to do is direct or quote me on the post because honestly I don't think I have. But somehow I've asked quite a few times and your answer is ... nothing. Instead of giving a straight answer you would plainly rewording what you think I meant without reference. Which I find unusually odd... I have no interest of PM if I can't even get a simple answer here. If I did get the quote before then the messages wouldn't be getting this far.

I twisted your word? I highly doubt that. It's more of what you placed in your comment. What is the point of showing other artists' work on your post (those images showing how other depict these elements) if the purpose for them aren't as your additional/supportive data/materials ("proof") and what about pointing out what you've observed from the "Dinosaur Art" book? Just a few posts up you wouldn't miss them.

Zelan: That's a good video for an Allosaurus. But the paper itself said

A feeding style that involved defleshing a carcass by avian-raptor-like retraction of the head in Allosaurus is more probable than is lateroflexive shake-feeding, such as that seen in crocodilians and inferred for tyrannosaurids.

The sole purpose of why I placed the video here is to give an estimate of our current understanding of the rough placement on these jaw muscles and how the operate/interact as the jaw moves. Which muscles contract and which extend during movement and how they tense up and bulge out more and less bulge out when they are relax. The reconstructions on these video and paper are based upon skeletal morphology, inferred from other archosaurs (including both birds and crocodilians, and follows the basic pattern of their arrangement). Whether their necks are going back and forth or side by side seems a little irrelevant to the appearance of these openings. So pointing out such behavior from the paper seems a little pointless. Regardless, various degrees of visibility (bulged out , flat, and sunken in) of these fenestrae has been observed on both birds and reptiles anyway so the answer doesn't really change at this point in time.

[fleshanthos]

PMd most of that. I said I wasn't bickering in here and I meant it.
Most important for others to understand: only data and the manipulation of it using maths is proof. What some artist draws is NOT proof.
It might be accurate, but it might just as easily not be. Given we have no live examples of these animals, there has to be a number of inaccuracies that are shown.   

Don't tell me what I meant and what I didn't. I know that. You do not.
Especially when you have to infer it.

[wings]

PMd most of that. I said I wasn't bickering in here and I meant it.
Most important for others to understand: only data and the manipulation of it using maths is proof. What some artist draws is NOT proof.
It might be accurate, but it might just as easily not be. Given we have no live examples of these animals, there has to be a number of inaccuracies that are shown.

Just to clarify, so you are implying we should just forget those remarks and images of others artworks from your posts then, right? Because they have no values at all in the discussion since they aren't "data" or "proof"; and the reason for these image attachments to your post is ...?

Don't tell me what I meant and what I didn't. I know that. You do not.

Your messages are on a public forum, I suppose they are here for others to interpret. I'm merely stating what I see from your message and nothing more. If you meant otherwise feel free to correct them. Also if they are not for others to read and discuss then don't post them on a public forum. Besides my main concern now is mainly on your misquotes.

Especially when you have to infer it.

Oh really... didn't you do the same. (see your quote below)

Fenestrae not entirely merged with eye socket in at least some species. DOES it show up in the live bird? I don't think so. I think T-rex would look more avian.

You might have missed the point because no one is saying these studies form a definitive solution to this problem (reconstruction of fenestrae) otherwise you wouldn't have Molnar (2013) where he has the anterior pterygoideus originated on the side edge of the antorbitals which is different from what Witmer and others are proposed (as the video earlier). All these were just based on the general condition of the sauropsids. It does seem like these kind of methods (inference and or bracketing) are quite common in most soft tissue restoration researches (through surveying modern animals, though you might argue that is not the exact animal but unless we have developed a better method. These methods are still being used for such estimations). The issue of the fenestrae is not suppose to be settled and there are still possibilities. I'm certainly not trying to convince you one way or another...

Unfortunately, the bottom line is... again, there is no answer to the previous questions...

BTW I've just read your message; well... if you decided to use "colourful" language (perhaps that is what you've meant by "bickering" ) to win an argument rather than sticking to the fact then the discussion becomes meaningless. And I honestly don't see the point of replying to it.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I'm making a request to end this discussion. It looks like I'm going to have to do some editing again. This is an personal art thread . Please take this to PMs .

[fleshanthos]

...Like I've been suggesting for awhile. Sorry your thread got hijacked, Zelan; I tried to get it back on track.

Did you make a final decision as to how you'll depict your T-rex?

[Zelan]

...Like I've been suggesting for awhile. Sorry your thread got hijacked, Zelan; I tried to get it back on track.

Did you make a final decision as to how you'll depict your T-rex?

Still playing around with it, I'll probably do some more sketches until I get the right look.