David Silvas New Kickstarter: Articulated Dinosaur TOYS

[Faelrin]

They look interesting but I want to see how they turn out on the sculpts.

[Sim]

There's a new post on the Creative Beast Studio Facebook page, where David has asked what people would be interested in seeing as colour inspirations for the ceratopsian figures: https://www.facebook.com/BeastSculptKit/photos/a.125819777433236.23596.113487525333128/1927526193929243/?type=3&theater

Previously, there's been varied opinions regarding the raptor series figures having colourations based on extant birds.  I feel those opinions expressed a number of interesting points, and regardless of how I personally felt about using extant bird colourations for the raptor series figures, I feel all those opinions have shown good judgement.  Besides a couple of factors, I've really quite liked the raptor series figures having their colourations based on extant birds, as it's meant basing their colourations on animals that overall are anatomically relatively similar with regards to integument, and also in belonging to the same 'group' of animal, in this case birds and the raptor series figures are all feathered maniraptorans.  This is in contrast to basing their colouration on extremely different animals such as mammals.

After seeing the Facebook post linked to above and reading comments below the post, I feel I'm quickly starting to no longer like the idea of basing colourations on extant animals.  I thought it was a nice idea to base the colourations of the ceratopsians on extant lizards and even turtles and other scaly reptiles, because ceratopsians being scaly reptiles are overall anatomically similar relative to other kinds of animals, e.g. in integument (compared to mammals and birds) and colour vision (compared to many mammals).

I associate certain types of colourations/colour textures/colour patterns with certain types of animals/integument.  So seeing a ceratopsian's colouration looking like something so anatomically different is just weird for me.  Like a mammal, bird or amphibian that have such different types of integument to ceratopsians, not to mention that many mammals are colour-blind.  These kinds of animals were suggested as colour inspirations in the Facebook comments. What I found bizarre though were the suggestions of using fish and even insects for ceratopsian colouration.  I genuinely don't understand the reasoning for using fish or insects given how behaviourally different they are from ceratopsians, with fish living underwater and insects being so structurally different.  To clarify, I'm not referring to suggestions of using colouration from insects/amphibians/other animals for only the frill.  That's one thing, it's another to use these animals for most/all of a ceratopsian's colouration.

I also found the suggestions for cow and horse colourations bizarre.  Domesticated animals are in a way the opposite of Mesozoic dinosaurs, the latter being very much free of human influence.  Those mammals are also so anatomically different from ceratopsians.  I find basing ceratopsian colouration on these domesticated mammals to be a juxtaposition.

To be clear, I'm not criticising anyone in this post.  I'm just sharing my thoughts as I find this BotM colouration topic interesting to think about and consider.  At this point, I wonder if I'll get any of the BotM ceratopsian figures.  I was thinking of getting something like one or two species I found interesting, but I'm not sure I could buy a ceratopsian figure if its colour scheme was based on an extant animal that isn't a scale-covered reptile.  I would find it so weird to look at the ceratopsian figure and think its colouration comes from such a different kind of animal as a mammal, bird, and especially an amphibian, fish or invertebrate.

One Facebook comment said to pay homage to Dino-Riders figures, including the Pachyrhinosaurus and Chasmosaurus.  I remember some time ago David said he wanted to base some of the ceratopsian colour schemes on Dino-Riders figures.  I'm never thrilled when a figure's colour scheme is based on someone else's design, but it can be okay I guess.  Chasmosaurus was one of the two ceratopsians I was thinking of getting though, and I'm not sure whether I'd like it if its colouration was based on the Dino-Riders figure.

Seeing the colouration of extant animals that aren't reptiles being considered for the ceratopsians has made me lose enthusiasm for basing BotM figure colourations on extant animals.  It just feels like the colouration inspirations are getting too weird at this point, for me.  Maybe it's mostly my own feelings though, I'm not sure.  If I don't end up getting any of the ceratopsian figures due to my species/colouration preferences, I think it'll be a little disappointing as I was interested in getting around one or two, but I won't be very upset as I don't like ceratopsians a lot.

I hope this post wasn't too long, I find this BotM colouration topic quite interesting to think about.  I'd be interested in knowing what others of you think about it?

[paintingdinos]

I like most of the suggestions I've seen so far. Especially the butterfly agama and the thorny devil; personally I think those would look very neat on one of the ceratopsians (thorny devil colors on the protoceratops sounds pretty great to me).

It sounds like there's going to be plenty to pick from in this set, just like the Raptors (maybe even multiple choices for each one). Like them, I'll probably buy the ones I really like and pass on the ones that interest me less. Hopefully he'll release kits again too- then people can have whatever color scheme they want

[stargatedalek]

I would actually argue insects are potentially one of the best references for ceratopsian (shield) colour! Mammals we can discount right off the bat because they perceive colour differently from most other animals, and very few modern reptiles are actually evolved for display. Ceratopsians have large display surfaces but perhaps most importantly they have large hard display surfaces, the only animals that use hard display surfaces besides deer are arthropods and birds. I would argue that even the distinctive head "shield" patterning of some fish is a better reference than most modern reptiles.

I for one think toucans, sunfish and beetles would make some visually striking references, and the patterns could be easily applied to a ceratopsian body-plan.

There are two ways to go about applying modern animal colours to extinct animals. You can go as generic as possible, use a palette and general pattern that multiple animals use and you'll get something perfectly plausible. Alternatively, you go all out and you base your ceratopsians on butterflies, crabs, beetles, and perch!

[Faelrin]

I'll have to wait and see how these turn out before I make any judgements on getting them or not. Hope I'll have some space by then though for a few figures of the genus I'm interested in.

[tanystropheus]

I would actually argue insects are potentially one of the best references for ceratopsian (shield) colour! Mammals we can discount right off the bat because they perceive colour differently from most other animals, and very few modern reptiles are actually evolved for display. Ceratopsians have large display surfaces but perhaps most importantly they have large hard display surfaces, the only animals that use hard display surfaces besides deer are arthropods and birds. I would argue that even the distinctive head "shield" patterning of some fish is a better reference than most modern reptiles.

I for one think toucans, sunfish and beetles would make some visually striking references, and the patterns could be easily applied to a ceratopsian body-plan.

There are two ways to go about applying modern animal colours to extinct animals. You can go as generic as possible, use a palette and general pattern that multiple animals use and you'll get something perfectly plausible. Alternatively, you go all out and you base your ceratopsians on butterflies, crabs, beetles, and perch!

Interesting!

What if we are totally wrong about ceratopsian physiology; they actually featured simple eyes (packed with photoreceptors) on their fenestrae? 

[Sim]

I would actually argue insects are potentially one of the best references for ceratopsian (shield) colour! Mammals we can discount right off the bat because they perceive colour differently from most other animals, and very few modern reptiles are actually evolved for display. Ceratopsians have large display surfaces but perhaps most importantly they have large hard display surfaces, the only animals that use hard display surfaces besides deer are arthropods and birds. I would argue that even the distinctive head "shield" patterning of some fish is a better reference than most modern reptiles.

What about chameleons?  As far as I'm aware, among extant animals the closest thing to ceratopsian head frills is chameleon head frills, by far.  Ceratopsian frills tend to have large fenestrae, so if you consider them "hard display surfaces", would that not mean chameleon frills are also hard display surfaces?  Chameleon heads are actually surprisingly similar to ceratopsian heads, in having bony frills, but also in other head features such as having horns in some species.

[Faelrin]

Chameleons come in all kinds of crazy colors. Not sure how well their colors would be translated onto a figure of an animal that was much larger then them by far. Unless you just mean the frill and/or head, and not the whole body, then I think that would be a great idea for them to be used as reference material.

I think I also need to further expand upon my previous comments. While I want to reserve my judgement until I see the prototypes finalized, and while I'm not picky about color schemes used, I still want these to look natural, aka consider their size and niche in nature, and how that could effect them. I think the two colored concept sketches for the Xenoceratops and Zuniceratops (give or take the blue tail) look fine and believable so far, but depending upon which reptiles or other animals are referenced, I might not find some of them believable. I actually had this issue with a few of the raptors, though I'm not sure I ever mentioned it. While I initially liked the standard Zhenyuanlong, I'm not sure that color scheme works that well for a predator. I can't think of any birds of prey colored that way, and those are probably the next best thing to modern day dromaeosaurids. Same goes for the exclusive blue Velociraptor, and the Linheraptor, and the FC Pyroraptor.

[stargatedalek]

I would actually argue insects are potentially one of the best references for ceratopsian (shield) colour! Mammals we can discount right off the bat because they perceive colour differently from most other animals, and very few modern reptiles are actually evolved for display. Ceratopsians have large display surfaces but perhaps most importantly they have large hard display surfaces, the only animals that use hard display surfaces besides deer are arthropods and birds. I would argue that even the distinctive head "shield" patterning of some fish is a better reference than most modern reptiles.

What about chameleons?  As far as I'm aware, among extant animals the closest thing to ceratopsian head frills is chameleon head frills, by far.  Ceratopsian frills tend to have large fenestrae, so if you consider them "hard display surfaces", would that not mean chameleon frills are also hard display surfaces?  Chameleon heads are actually surprisingly similar to ceratopsian heads, in having bony frills, but also in other head features such as having horns in some species.

They're very similar in bone structure, but the epidermal surface is very different. Chameleons have large decorative scales on their crests but derived ceratopsians most likely covered their frills with keratin or hardened skin. At the absolute least the horns were covered in keratin, which is on average about 2 toucans worth

[LeapingLaelaps]

I honestly don't care about how accurate the colors are (except for species that we actually know the colors of IE Psittacosaurus), I just care about the anatomical accuracy. At the end of the day if you don't like it you can either not buy it or just repaint it (maybe he'll have Build-A-Ceratopsian packs like he did with the raptors? I hope so).

He's still asking for color suggestions so if you're bothered by possibly unrealistic colorations that much you can go make your own suggestions. Or just go make suggestions anyways because it's super fun looking up neat animal colorations

[Sim]

I would actually argue insects are potentially one of the best references for ceratopsian (shield) colour! Mammals we can discount right off the bat because they perceive colour differently from most other animals, and very few modern reptiles are actually evolved for display. Ceratopsians have large display surfaces but perhaps most importantly they have large hard display surfaces, the only animals that use hard display surfaces besides deer are arthropods and birds. I would argue that even the distinctive head "shield" patterning of some fish is a better reference than most modern reptiles.

What about chameleons?  As far as I'm aware, among extant animals the closest thing to ceratopsian head frills is chameleon head frills, by far.  Ceratopsian frills tend to have large fenestrae, so if you consider them "hard display surfaces", would that not mean chameleon frills are also hard display surfaces?  Chameleon heads are actually surprisingly similar to ceratopsian heads, in having bony frills, but also in other head features such as having horns in some species.

They're very similar in bone structure, but the epidermal surface is very different. Chameleons have large decorative scales on their crests but derived ceratopsians most likely covered their frills with keratin or hardened skin. At the absolute least the horns were covered in keratin, which is on average about 2 toucans worth

It appears there are ceratopsian skulls with correlates for scales though, including for large decorative scales on the frill.  Mark Witton shows this for Centrosaurus in this blog post: http://markwitton-com.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-convention-of-shrink-wrapping.html

Comparing chameleon skulls to the living animals, it seems to me chameleons have scale correlates on their skulls that are similar to the scale correlates on ceratopsian skulls.

[stargatedalek]

It appears there are ceratopsian skulls with correlates for scales though, including for large decorative scales on the frill.  Mark Witton shows this for Centrosaurus in this blog post: http://markwitton-com.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-convention-of-shrink-wrapping.html

Comparing chameleon skulls to the living animals, it seems to me chameleons have scale correlates on their skulls that are similar to the scale correlates on ceratopsian skulls.

Here's the paper he references:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.537.6731&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Although there is evidence for large epidermal scales they aren't necessarily interlocking and they don't cover the entire surface like a chameleons. Chameleon head scales are still derived (directly) from the scales coating their entire body, they're large and flattened, but they aren't particularly raised high above the skin nor do they form patterns in and of themselves like these scales on Centrosaurines do. The scales along the skulls ridges look raised but that's in most part because the skin underneath them is, these ridges aren't formed by the scales.



Ceratopsians had a diverse array of integuments, either dermal or epidermal, including large embossed scales, keratin, and "something" which could reasonably even vary between the major groups covering the broad surface of the head. The most conservative thought right now is that this was keratin or hardened skin since this is what we see covering the horns and beak but it's not exactly like we have tissue impressions from these surfaces to really say for sure.

Another point to consider is that chameleons use their shield for camouflage to break up their outline (and in some species the crest explicitly resembles a leaf), and a multi-ton animal isn't going to be hiding (well) from any predators. Yes chameleons also use them in territorial display but they use their entire bodies and even with their ability to change colour they arguably use motion to communicate more than pattern or colour.

It's also been theorized (though to my knowledge never studied in-depth) that in some chameleons these larger scales are to defend them from struggling insects that might otherwise manage to grip onto the rougher surface created by smaller scales and either free themselves or damage the chameleon.

I still maintain that in function ceratopsian frills appear closer to a decorative exoskeleton, and in (epidermal) structure more similar to birds like toucans and hornbills, than to modern reptiles, even chameleons.

[crankydinosaur]

Are there going to be articulated prehistoric mammals and other prehistoric creatures too maybe???

[Sim]

You make some good points stargatedalek.  A couple of things I'd like to comment on:

Chameleon head scales are still derived (directly) from the scales coating their entire body, they're large and flattened, but they aren't particularly raised high above the skin nor do they form patterns in and of themselves like these scales on Centrosaurines do. The scales along the skulls ridges look raised but that's in most part because the skin underneath them is, these ridges aren't formed by the scales.

It seems to me the bolded parts aren't always true for some chameleon species at least.  For example in Jackson's chameleon, there are raised scales that form a pattern above the eye sockets and most conspicuously on the frill that to me look like they correspond to raised areas of bone on the skull, like in the centrosaurines.  In the blog post I linked to previously, Mark Witton says chameleons are an example of animals with shrink-wrapped faces.  Male Parson's chameleon also have raised areas of bone on the skull that seem to correspond to raised scales on the top of the head and around the eye.

Ceratopsians had a diverse array of integuments, either dermal or epidermal, including large embossed scales, keratin, and "something" which could reasonably even vary between the major groups covering the broad surface of the head. The most conservative thought right now is that this was keratin or hardened skin since this is what we see covering the horns and beak but it's not exactly like we have tissue impressions from these surfaces to really say for sure.

Regarding the bolded part, if the "something" that covered the rest of a ceratopsian's face was the same as what is found on their horns and beaks, would we not be seeing the same correlates for this as on the horns and beak?

[stargatedalek]

You make some good points stargatedalek.  A couple of things I'd like to comment on:

Chameleon head scales are still derived (directly) from the scales coating their entire body, they're large and flattened, but they aren't particularly raised high above the skin nor do they form patterns in and of themselves like these scales on Centrosaurines do. The scales along the skulls ridges look raised but that's in most part because the skin underneath them is, these ridges aren't formed by the scales.

It seems to me the bolded parts aren't always true for some chameleon species at least.  For example in Jackson's chameleon, there are raised scales that form a pattern above the eye sockets and most conspicuously on the frill that to me look like they correspond to raised areas of bone on the skull, like in the centrosaurines.  In the blog post I linked to previously, Mark Witton says chameleons are an example of animals with shrink-wrapped faces.  Male Parson's chameleon also have raised areas of bone on the skull that seem to correspond to raised scales on the top of the head and around the eye.

Interesting, admittedly I didn't look all that deeply into the more unusual chameleon structures, I must admit I'm still not exactly sure what's going on with Parsons chameleons nasal(?) structures, do you have any photos of skeletons handy to look at? It's really very unique looking.

Ceratopsians had a diverse array of integuments, either dermal or epidermal, including large embossed scales, keratin, and "something" which could reasonably even vary between the major groups covering the broad surface of the head. The most conservative thought right now is that this was keratin or hardened skin since this is what we see covering the horns and beak but it's not exactly like we have tissue impressions from these surfaces to really say for sure.

Regarding the bolded part, if the "something" that covered the rest of a ceratopsian's face was the same as what is found on their horns and beaks, would we not be seeing the same correlates for this as on the horns and beak?

Most of the skull in derived ceratopsians seems to have been either covered in very thick flesh or very thin skin because it doesn't contain any reliable correlates nor anything taphonomic to go on. Just very smooth "clean" bone surface. Does anyone know if Triceratops and it's comparatively rough texture holds something of comparison? Or is that just a "side effect" of the bone itself being thicker and heavier?

[Sim]

Interesting, admittedly I didn't look all that deeply into the more unusual chameleon structures, I must admit I'm still not exactly sure what's going on with Parsons chameleons nasal(?) structures, do you have any photos of skeletons handy to look at? It's really very unique looking.

I did a Google Images search for "Parson's chameleon skull" to find images of its skull.  I think I looked at these two photos a lot:
1. https://goo.gl/images/F9y1Qj
2. https://goo.gl/images/C5HzYA

[ZoPteryx]

Really interesting discussion happening here!  Personally, I think certain lizards make fine analogues for ceratopsian coloration, but some certainly work better than others.  Given their squat bodies, toads and certain frogs could make good analogues as well.  However, since many lizard/frog color schemes don't translate into frills very well, I like the idea of using butterfly wings and such, though some patterns/colors might be unlikely.  Fish fins, bird crests and wattles, and even some mammalian facial patterns could also be of use.  The one "rule" should probably be that, what ever pattern the frill has, it should make the animals appear larger from the front.  So fine intricate patterns that would break up the size of the frill should probably be out or only used in specific regions.

I plan on sending a list and photos of possible color candidates to David.  My favorite at of the bunch is the San Lucan Rock Lizard, Petrosaurus thalassinus.  I think its pattern would look really good on Pentaceratops or something similar. 

[Moodyraptor]

Interesting discussion.  I have to say the fact that the raptors have extant bird colouring was one of the things that really appealed to me, and one of my figures  - the Archeroraptor - I chose specifically because of its blue-footed booby colouring, because I love that bird.  For me, though, it works better on some figures than others - for example, with the Dromaesaurus with American kestrel colours, this figure's colouring reminded me too strongly of the bird in question to work for me, perhaps because these markings are so distinctive, it seems unlikely they could occur naturally on two different species, whereas it's more plausible to me that another animal might just happen to have markings which resemble a blue-footed booby.  That said, the Saurornitholestes with roadrunner colours is equally distinctive, and yet this was the first figure I chose, I absolutely love it.  Maybe it's just because I'm more personally familiar with kestrels than roadrunners, I don't know. 

One advantage of copying an existing animal's colouring is that the colours will at least look naturalistic - nature throws up some amazing colours and patterns, but I think it can sometimes be quite hard for a artist to create a convincingly naturalistic colour scheme from scratch.  Maybe this isn't the best comparison, but for example the Papo "rainbow" raptor and rex - while I like those figures, that particular combination of colour and pattern just doesn't ping me as very natural.  This is all subjective, though, and others may feel completely the opposite. 

Given the number of figures being produced by this line - which is exciting in itself - I can also see the practicality of using existing animal colour schemes, rather than having to come with 23 different completely original and yet natural looking schemes all at once (and that's just for the raptor figures). 

I think perhaps the difference between the raptors and the ceratopsians is that while Mesozoic raptors have an obvious analogue in modern birds, ceratopsians don't have an obvious modern analogue, so it's hard to know exactly what type of modern animal colouring to use as a model.  Using small lizard colourations doesn't ping me as quite right for some reason, but then I may change my mind completely when I see the figures - in fact, I probably will.

Just my thoughts 

[ImADinosaurRARR]

David:

A couple of quick shots showing the BotM Xenoceratops sculpt with the Zuniceratops (both WIP). After designing the articulation on the Zuni, I decided to go back into the Xeno and re-sculpt some of the joints in the shoulders and neck. Always trying to find the best balance between aesthetics and range of motion.

[Sim]

I too would like Beasts of the Mesozoic figures to have believable-looking colour schemes.  For the raptor series figures, the overall colourations I feel aren't believable are those of the purple Zhenyuanlong and of both the blue and the red Velociraptor osmolskae, even if the unnatural colour placement of the two V. osmolskae is ignored.  I think the colourations of these three figures would make them stand out too much if they were the real animals.

To me the colour schemes of the Acheroraptor, Linheraptor and Fan's Choice Pyroraptor seem on the unlikely side for these types of animals, but I think they wouldn't stand out to the point that they are beyond the realms of possibility.  I can see why someone might feel differently about that though.  I really like how the Linheraptor looks with that colour scheme, and I'm very happy to be getting this figure.

The colour schemes that remind me too strongly of the extant animals they were inspired by are those of the Acheroraptor and Fan's Choice Dromaeosaurus.  Whether a BotM colour scheme reminds someone of an extant animal too much might be a somewhat subjective matter though, I think.

One advantage of copying an existing animal's colouring is that the colours will at least look naturalistic - nature throws up some amazing colours and patterns, but I think it can sometimes be quite hard for a artist to create a convincingly naturalistic colour scheme from scratch.

I agree.