My modified Brach's "nose"

[Paleogene Pals]

I also came across a book recently that had restorations of macronarian sauropods where the fleshy material around the nostrils looked like noses.


I like it so much that I gave my Brach a "nose" too.

Any constructive suggestions would be appreciated. I will keep posting new pics as progress is made. 

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Wow..that pretty cool ! Kudos !

[Paleogene Pals]

Thank you

[wings]

I also came across a book recently that had restorations of macronarian sauropods where the fleshy material around the nostrils looked like noses...

Your book is probably based on this study (see below); have a read, it's quite interesting.

http://www.oucom.ohiou.edu/dbms-witmer/Downloads/2001_Witmer_nostrils.pdf
http://www.oucom.ohiou.edu/dbms-witmer/Downloads/2001_Stokstad_dino_nostrils.pdf

[Jetoar]

It looks great  .

[Paleogene Pals]

Wings, thank you so much!!!  I downloaded the articles to add to my collection of reference materials for my reconstructions.  They will be most beneficial.

[Spinosaurus Aegyptiacus]

Hey-looks pretty good!

[wings]

Wings, thank you so much!!!  I downloaded the articles to add to my collection of reference materials for my reconstructions.  They will be most beneficial.

I'm glad you've found them useful. The papers were published a while back and I don't think there are any other studies that challenge the idea (yet) so I think it is quite safe to leave it the way you have it (at the moment).

[Lythronax]

Hi Paleogenes Pals,

I just saw your Brachiosaurus in two threads. Can I critique it (always constructively  ). From an artistic point of view is really beautiful. The only artistic criticism is that, in my opinion, the spines close to the head look a bit strange . Maybe are these spines still to be finished? But it is a great work.

Now from a scientific perspective. Well, I already said that in my opinion the dewlap in sauropods is not necessary. It is a structure that can only increase the damage received in a potential attack. Besides, as an "advert panel" is for me totally unnecessary, because the animal has a 24 m-long body that weighs 40 tons, with a large surface to show colorations to attract the opposite sex. Therefore, the existence of a frail, easy to damage structure in order to increase the surface area in an animal that can't and doesn't need to hide, is to me more harmful than beneficial. However, this dewlap is not as big as in other reconstructions that reminded me of a Magnificent frigatebird (Fregata magnificens).

About the spines on the back, I have nothing to say. There are no evidences either in favor or against. I personally regard them as unnecessary. But they look great  .

With regard to the nostrils. Your reconstruction is nice, but not quite correct in my opinion. I like a lot the one in this website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giraffatitan

Personally I think that this reconstruction has elegantly solved a problem that was being carried around since a long time, which is putting a face to sauropods. Besides, on the Brachiosaurus skull the space for the nasal cavity created by the bone is clearly visible. On the other hand, if this is so in sauropods, I think it's very interesting. Because we would probably be facing a case of sexual selection, in which this structure would have arisen to produce sounds and/or to inflate some kind of (small) bag. The latter would be more plausible in Macronarian than in other sauropods.

With regard to the paper that Wings mentions, I haven't been yet able to read where the hypothesis about dinosaur nostrils comes from. I still have to read the article carefully, but there is one thing that I don't like about it. I think that the interpretation of sauropods is correct, and so is that of ceratopsians. In the latter case, I think that I would not place the nostril in the same particular location as the author. But I'm not convinced about the interpretation of Tyrannosaurus. I'm not against the shift in nostril position, but the author draws too small nostrils (just think that a 6-ton animal must breathe through them). Besides, if nostril position must be shifted, I would place them in an intermediate location between the traditional placement and the new placement in the paper, I would keep the fleshy nostril close to the bony nostril. The reason is that with a fleshy nostril so close to the mouth, it's easy that it gets dirty with blood and tissue of the prey, which should increase the probability of getting infections and parasitoids in the nasal cavity. I can't think of any predator with the nostrils so close to the mouth.

I have only skimmed the paper but I think that it is only about the nostril. However, in Fig 3.C the author sneaks us a Tyrannosaurus without lips, a hypothesis that is not tackled in the paper but that has been discussed extensively in the scientific literature. Therefore, I think that this author is not playing entirely fair.

[wings]

I haven't been yet able to read where the hypothesis about dinosaur nostrils comes from. I still have to read the article carefully,...Besides, if nostril position must be shifted, I would place them in an intermediate location between the traditional placement and the new placement in the paper, I would keep the fleshy nostril close to the bony nostril...

This is not entirely baseless assuming we are still talking about Brachiosaurus (nose, since that is the thread title) in general. Here is a paragraph from Taylor's (http://svpow.com/2011/11/16/sideshow-collectibles-apatosaurus-maquette-part-2-the-head/) (please see below):

"... the troughs and tracks in front of the nostrils in sauropods with retracted nares. These tracks are most clearly expressed in the skull of Giraffatitan, but they are present in other sauropods as well, like the Denver museum Brachiosaurus sp. skull shown above. Witmer's hypothesis of nostril position made good sense to me because of my experience working on postcranial pneumaticity in sauropods. External pneumatic traces on sauropod vertebrae often consist of pneumatic foramina set inside larger pneumatic fossae. Similarly, the bony nares of sauropods can be thought of as pneumatic foramina set at the posterior end of the pneumatic fossae formed by the troughs and tracks on the snouts..."

[Lythronax]

Hi Wings,

there is a misunderstanding, my comment was just side comment in reference to the nose of Tyrannosaurus in that paper... I made this side comment because of this:

Wings, thank you so much!!!  I downloaded the articles to add to my collection of reference materials for my reconstructions.  They will be most beneficial.

I agree with the interpretation of the skulls of sauropods in the paper. But at least in the case of Theropods (Tyrannosaurus) I would take it with a grain of salt.

[wings]

Hi Wings,

there is a misunderstanding, my comment was just side comment in reference to the nose of Tyrannosaurus in that paper... I made this side comment because of this:

Wings, thank you so much!!!  I downloaded the articles to add to my collection of reference materials for my reconstructions.  They will be most beneficial.

The reason is that with a fleshy nostril so close to the mouth, it's easy that it gets dirty with blood and tissue of the prey, which should increase the probability of getting infections and parasitoids in the nasal cavity. I can't think of any predator with the nostrils so close to the mouth.

I agree with the interpretation of the skulls of sauropods in the paper. But at least in the case of Theropods (Tyrannosaurus) I would take it with a grain of salt.

Well, the reason I linked you to see that page is because it also kind of answered your concern on nostril position of carnivorous animals. I didn't mention this from my previous comment because this is irrelevant to the thread (I assume that you would see it since it is such a short article). I was hoping not to hijack someone else thread to express other ideas ("side comment").

"...One last thing on nostril position in dinosaurs. I've seen people argue that terminal nostrils would have been bad for dinosaurs (especially carnivores) because they would have gotten poked by vegetation or fouled with food. To which I can only say, good people, stop trying to figure out dinosaurs from first principles and just look at live animals..." (http://svpow.com/2011/11/16/sideshow-collectibles-apatosaurus-maquette-part-2-the-head/, same link as before)

[Paleogene Pals]

Lythronax

I appreciate, and believe it or not do agree with, your arguments against some of the decisions I took in reconstructing the Brach.  In all likelihood, there probably was no dewlap, as it was unnecessary as you had said. As for the spines and nostrils, the jury is still out.  As for the spines near the head, it was my attempt to recreate the picture on Wikipedia which I liked.  Therein lies the problem, while the scientist in me, and I am a geologist, cringes at what I had done, the artist in me loves it. It makes for a more dramatic, visually-appealing piece, especially once painted. Plus, I wanted to create something unique from the other Brachiosaurs out there. I guess I can get away with it because it is an extinct animal, but what if I was doing a lion. There would be no excuse for taking artistic liberties and still claim to be scientifically accurate. For my Barylambda, I made something that I found artistically appealing but terribly anatomically inaccurate.  The inaccuracies are so bad that I will have to fix them.  I'm new to paleolife reconstruction but am realizing there is more to it than kneading out some clay, slapping some scales or fur on it, and calling it all good.

As for my Brach, I like what I had done, more so every day. And, when I do my scratch-built Camarasaurus, I'll probably do something similar because I like the outcome.  But, I post to get your input so I know what I need to improve next. Hopefully, one day, I would like to be as good as Sean Cooper, Shane Foulkes, Bob Morales, David Krentz, and all of the other artists out there. I guess the only way to do that is sculpt, make mistakes, and learn.

But I do appreciate everyone's input.

Thanks!

[wings]

...As for the spines near the head, it was my attempt to recreate the picture on Wikipedia which I liked...

The "spines" are probably based on this (http://www.plesiosauria.com/pdf/Czerkas_sauropodspines.pdf) and also see this for additional ideas (http://dml.cmnh.org/2001Feb/msg00655.html).

[Paleogene Pals]

Wings

Thank you once again! If I had a budget, I would hire you as my science advisor.

[ITdactyl]

I liked how you said that you just wanted to make it look good - as it was never intended to be a museum model. 

Since some scientific points were raised, I'd also like to dip with my (relatively amateurish) 2 cents.  In most extant archosaurs, the "nostrils" match the nasal openings in the skull.  In some where the nostril doesn't match the exact nasal opening, the "extension" looks more like a solid sheath instead of a fleshy cavity.

I guess the final appearance will depend on how you'd finish it (especially with the paint).  However you intend to do it though, I'm excited to see the results.

[Paleogene Pals]

There is a small natural history museum in town that I would to do commissions for. But, this Brach for me to display. But, in the future, no more artistic wild flights of fancy...well maybe 

Anyway, this whole discussion has been absolutely fascinating!

[wings]

You might find this interesting as well (see below):

Skull of a Komodo Dragon (please note the "troughs and tracks in front of the nostrils")



now, view from the top (below)



and the nasal openings are located at...



Maybe this is an example of a "fleshy cavity"?

and Of course this is just a possibility rather than a rule.

[radman]

I like the macronares and wattles.  While there is no compelling evidence for or against them, except that many extant birds and reptiles have them, overall it gives your brach a unique and interesting look. 

[Lythronax]

Lythronax

I appreciate, and believe it or not do agree with, your arguments against some of the decisions I took in reconstructing the Brach.  ...

Thank you for showing us such spectacular Brachiosaurus, I'm looking forward to see it painted. 

... As for the spines and nostrils, the jury is still out...

Regarding spines, I'm not arguing over whether they could have existed or not. They simply seem unnecessary to me from a scientific perspective (but they look great from an artistic point of view). So I'm leaving this to the choice of the artist. Because only in Diplodocoidea have remains of spines been seen. It seems that there is a tendency whithin this group, (e.g. Amargasaurus). Personally, I prefer to consider Diplodocoidea as the only group of Sauropods with spines.  So not all sauropods would be exactly equal (which to me renders this group more "natural"). But as I said, my interpretation of spines is not strong, I will be very happy to change my opinion  if one day remains of spines are found in Macronaria

Regarding the nose, I'm afraid that I failed to made my criticism clear enough. To simplify, I think that you made a "tubular" nose, more in keeping with a Diplodocus, not corresponding to a Macronaria.

...  As for the spines near the head, it was my attempt to recreate the picture on Wikipedia which I liked.  Therein lies the problem, while the scientist in me, and I am a geologist, cringes at what I had done, the artist in me loves ...

At first I thought that you wanted to make all spines equal. If you are following artistic wishes, I have nothing to say except one thing: the shape of the third and fourth spines from the head doesn't convince me. Maybe is the angle in the picture, but can it be that the core wire of these spines is too visible?

Well, that's all that I can say, I just hope that we soon see pictures of your Brachiosaurus painted.