Blade-of-the-Moon's Art

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Hmm..I'm not sure I understand. The nasal openings/nostrils should be larger ? 

I did add some flesh around them so that may make the size reduced and mine do face downward and aren't visible really from the front or at all from the top.

[wings]

Hmm..I'm not sure I understand. The nasal openings/nostrils should be larger ? 

I did add some flesh around them so that may make the size reduced and mine do face downward and aren't visible really from the front or at all from the top.

I hope it is self explanatory enough. My concern is not really about the size of the nostrils but rather skull (snout) form of your animal. If I slice down the same region from your model; I would not have produced a similar outline as indicated in the illustration (the contour would probably be a simple flat plane on your model). 

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I think I get you now, thanks for the images. I'll have a look at it tonight and see how it compares.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Stygimoloch finished:

[mb-cg]

Congratulations for your last dinosaurs!. I like a lot the Stygimoloch, maybe I would have chosen a different pose for the legs, although it's easy for me to say it because I'm used to do the poses with a click of the mouse in the computer XD

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Congratulations for your last dinosaurs!. I like a lot the Stygimoloch, maybe I would have chosen a different pose for the legs, although it's easy for me to say it because I'm used to do the poses with a click of the mouse in the computer XD

Thanks !

Yeah I get you, I've done so many action poses already though I wanted another dinosaur that was just  kind of standing there, maybe eating and then you come across him on the path and he's looking right at you.  I also have some stability issues being outdoors and all..really wish I could weld..and afford to do it as well.

We just started the Ankylosaurus body today..it's legs are in a mostly neutral position as well ..though I do plan to have him bellowing with his tail raised slightly.

I might have the Carnotaurus attacking him..or at least looking him over.  I will be listing the different time periods and regions of course..but here in the park all the animals sort of mix and roam together.. heh

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Hmm..I'm not sure I understand. The nasal openings/nostrils should be larger ? 

I did add some flesh around them so that may make the size reduced and mine do face downward and aren't visible really from the front or at all from the top.

I hope it is self explanatory enough. My concern is not really about the size of the nostrils but rather skull (snout) form of your animal. If I slice down the same region from your model; I would not have produced a similar outline as indicated in the illustration (the contour would probably be a simple flat plane on your model).

I think this is more in line with what your image shows..I did my best to increase it.

[wings]

It's closer, now all it needs is a beak... and where are you going to place the nostrils?

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

It's closer, now all it needs is a beak... and where are you going to place the nostrils?

Hmm..it already has a beak ..not pointed and all though..the fossil's looked more rounded what I could see of it and of course it's already fleshed out. The nostrils are there as well..right under the nostril area I enlarged pointing downward. Might just be hard to tell since it's all the same color...they are really only visible from the bottom.

[wings]

Hmm..it already has a beak ..not pointed and all though..the fossil's looked more rounded what I could see of it and of course it's already fleshed out. The nostrils are there as well..right under the nostril area I enlarged pointing downward. Might just be hard to tell since it's all the same color...they are really only visible from the bottom.

First of all the "beak"; the specimen on Witmer's is incomplete (notice the dashed lines on the "beak" region from my previous post). As for the nostrils (see below):





The nostrils are also visible from the side. The top portion follows the contour of the "bulge" whereas the lower portion isn't. So you can still see them clearly from the side.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I was not aware of that..there was no indication the specimen of Witmer's was incomplete that I saw before. I don't really see a difference there. It's less of a "beak " and more of a " snout " I guess..kinda like on Euoplocephalus. 

You can sort of see them from the side :

[wings]

I was not aware of that..there was no indication the specimen of Witmer's was incomplete that I saw before. I don't really see a difference there. It's less of a "beak " and more of a " snout " I guess..kinda like on Euoplocephalus. 

Witmer's site is very much showing what we have without any restoration; the purpose of me sending you the link is because he took photo of the specimen in different angles which help you conceptualizing the 3D form of the element (in this case the skull). As we know they are casts rather than the actual materials so it could be tricky to interpret whether certain elements are broken or not. If this is the only published photos of the specimen then sure you might have missed this detail however, I'm sure at some point I've also sent you Carpenter's Ankylosaurus redescription paper and in it; I'm sure it would have talked about its beak being incomplete for this specimen. That is the reason why I've sent you the paper so you can cross reference the description with photos that you've found on the net. It is depressing that now I would wonder what is the point of bringing up these papers when you don't try to read through them (or even skimming through them, I just have a quick look at Carpenter's and it is clearly indicated in figure 2...)? When I talk about "beaks"; I was just referring to that area being covered by keratin regardless how sharp it is. As to Euoplocephalus, it also has a beak like "most" if not all ornithischians. I'm not sure what you are referring to as a "snout" though (no keratin covering and just plain scales) perhaps?

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I think we're just seeing something different..that's what I'm having trouble with seeing what your seeing bud. To me it looks like one big boney area..I can't really see where a beak would be on the skull but if there was one it's up to interpretation I suppose. I think I accounted for the " beak "  but it was just attached as a part of the skull and covered and thickened til it looked like one piece. Euplocephalus looks to not have a beak at all except maybe  a small one on the bottom jaw whereas the upper jaw area just looks more like a pig snout with the nostril placement.  If you could point me to a reconstruction or model or figure I may be able to see what you mean..this being the Dino Toy Forum most us including myself have a large collection.  It would be great if I had a skeleton to work from as well..pictures are fine but it's very hard to beat three dimensional pieces you can actually sit and study.

It may have said something in that paper..I'm managing about ten different things at once here so sometimes things are overlooked, or I just forget in midst of all the craziness. For example, I worked on coating a Suchomimus foam base skull last night, today I just crawled out from under the mama Para sculpt which I was working on in the pouring rain under a tarp to try and get the vinyl work on the body done. I need her moved so I can get the Ankylosaurus out so I can have more space on it. My crew works as well on odd days and they have to be guided. I also have visitors that want a moment of my time, budget issues, plants that I keep checking for frost damage..I mean the list goes on and on. I'll try and go back and read it...I am sorry if I missed it..I really need cliff notes or something I guess.

This process as MB-CG noted is a lot more involved than manipulating a drawing or a cg model ( no offense intended ! ) I have to free hand draw the pieces, assemble them correctly, add foam which is sticky and messy and then carve it to the correct shape and make it the same on both sides..then layering the vinyl with a heat gun smokes and burns and once painted I'm stuck with a piece as is..it can't be altered. So I'm a little hesitant about making changes til I'm 100% sure of something you know ?

I appreciate the help and feedback, that's why I post pictures. There used to be a time on this forum when we had a lot of people weighing in and offering help to our artistic members, sadly not so much anymore.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

This might be off topic but reading all of this I do have a question I hoped someone might chime in and clarify for me. I had understood the category of dinosaurs classified as marginocephalia all shared the common factor of having a fused rostral bone. This would mean armored dinosaurs of all types would have at mimimium an upper beak that is a fused single bone. Having the upper or rostral would imply the lower would be present as well ? i.e. Stegosaurus, Anklosaurus, triceratops and the basal forms of these animals that were not as derived.
  Is this a condition now being stated for all ornithischians ? Did all of them have rostrals, or just the marginocephalia? Wings stated "As to Euoplocephalus, it also has a beak like "most" if not all ornithischians" Which makes me curious if this was a condition for all ornithischians or only the marginocephalia?
  Sorry if a bit off topic but it does have some bearing to the discussion and I hope noone minds my asking

[Gryphoceratops]

Amargasaurus:

I don't think thyrophorans or ornithopods have a true rostral bone like ceratopsids.  An animal can have a beak without a rostral bone.  I'm not sure if pachycephalosaurs had a true rostral bone either.  I always thought a derived shared characteristic of marginocephathelia was the bone shelf on the back of the skull.

http://www.wvup.edu/ecrisp/LEC10-ORNITHOPODA.HTML

Blade:

Awesome work as normal.  I haven't been on here in a while everything looks awesome!  I can understand what your point was with the nostrils on the ankylosaurus.  It would be hard to make out the shape of them in the photo since the color and texture is uniform.   Maybe take some photos with different lighting or from different angles?  (if you feel you need to) 

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

No problem with posting your query here as it does pertain to our discussion Amarga.

I think some sort of beak in those species is a good look if nothing else..and something we've come to expect to an extent.   If you look at the Carnegie/Safari figure which was I believe based on Carpenter's paper it has a more pointed " beak " or skull I suppose. Mine isn't near so pointed as that, but it still a sort of beak..it will probably show more when painted..but I could flesh out the tip a bit more I suppose.  Did you see this pic :



I took it and colored in the nostril in red, then outlined it in black and drew some pinkish color lines around the fleshy wrinkles.

[wings]

I think we're just seeing something different..that's what I'm having trouble with seeing what your seeing bud. To me it looks like one big boney area..I can't really see where a beak would be on the skull but if there was one it's up to interpretation I suppose. I think I accounted for the " beak "  but it was just attached as a part of the skull and covered and thickened til it looked like one piece. Euplocephalus looks to not have a beak at all except maybe  a small one on the bottom jaw whereas the upper jaw area just looks more like a pig snout with the nostril placement.  If you could point me to a reconstruction or model or figure I may be able to see what you mean..this being the Dino Toy Forum most us including myself have a large collection.  It would be great if I had a skeleton to work from as well..pictures are fine but it's very hard to beat three dimensional pieces you can actually sit and study.

It may have said something in that paper..I'm managing about ten different things at once here so sometimes things are overlooked, or I just forget in midst of all the craziness...

In regard to the head armour and the nostrils; I always thought it looks obvious on Witmers's photos (The red dotted line indicates the separation of the relief and the blue dotted line show the rough extent of the lower portion of the nostrils where to top portion tugs in the underside of the armour expansion; see below) .



As to the "beak"; honestly even if I don't expect you to read the whole paper. I would still have thought that you would have at least looked at the illustrations (figures) on the paper. It is speculative; yes; but we know that it is not complete (from the diagrams on the paper) so the "beak" portion would be coming down more than what is shown on fossil regardless and we can't just take what's there as the true border...

Perhaps you can take a look at ankylosaurs like Tarchia or Shamosaurus for the beak form; as they are quite closely related to Ankylosaurus; pictures of their skulls aren't too hard to find on the net and they do have fairly decent amount of "beak" preserved.

This might be off topic but reading all of this I do have a question I hoped someone might chime in and clarify for me. I had understood the category of dinosaurs classified as marginocephalia all shared the common factor of having a fused rostral bone. This would mean armored dinosaurs of all types would have at mimimium an upper beak that is a fused single bone. Having the upper or rostral would imply the lower would be present as well ? i.e. Stegosaurus, Anklosaurus, triceratops and the basal forms of these animals that were not as derived.
  Is this a condition now being stated for all ornithischians ? Did all of them have rostrals, or just the marginocephalia? Wings stated "As to Euoplocephalus, it also has a beak like "most" if not all ornithischians" Which makes me curious if this was a condition for all ornithischians or only the marginocephalia?
  Sorry if a bit off topic but it does have some bearing to the discussion and I hope noone minds my asking

I think you might be confused with the terminologies used. The "rostral" bone only appears on Ceratopsians. It is a single bone at the tip of the upper jaw and forms the "parrot-like" beaks on Ceratopsians. When I was talking about beaks I was just referring to the keratin sheath on the front borders of their mouths on these animals. The term "beak" is often used loosely in regards to these structures (I've often heard that people refer the "bills" on hadrosaurs as "beaks"; Hadrosaurs don't have "rostrals" but the beaks were supported by the "premaxillae"). Therefore rostral is not the only bone that could support a beak; premaxilla would do just fine as seen on other ornithischians. Certainly that not all Marginocephalians have "rostrals" (as this feature is unique to the ceratopsians) and take Prenocephale or Stegoceras for example; we have fairly complete skull specimens for these which includes the tip of their upper jaws and none of these specimens have "rostral" bones.

The lower "beak" is supported by the predentary which is presented on very much all ornithischians.

It's hard to find a way to balance these terms since every time I bring up a scientific term (like the name of certain bones) then I would be asked to tone it down and use the layman's terms but when I used the layman's terms then often members (like yourself) would get confused. I don't really want to comment twice on one thing and since that is the author's wish so I will just stick with the layman's terms here (on this thread at least).

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I thought it was my images we have trouble telling where the nostrils were ?  Oh well..yeah I see them on Witmer's skull there. They also look to be in the correct place on the Carnegie model, which I used for three dimensional reference.

I think the problem I had is it looks like the snout is pointed from the side..when looked at from the front or top is appears blunt.  I just worked as best I could from the Witmer skull images as there was a plethora of them. 

Is this close to what you mean for a beak ?


I'm looking at art from Dinosaur Revolution for a reference.

Feel free to use whatever terms you wish, if I need clarification I can always ask.  Using the simple layman's terms just helps me assimilate the info a bit faster when I don't want to spend a ton of time online.

[wings]

Here are some images of animals that is closely related to Ankylosaurus (see below):





Perhaps do the estimate of the "beak" through these images;

The reason I've pointed out the nostrils on Witmer's instead of your sculpture is because I can't really tell whether you are getting where everything were and that is why your animal has different proportions to the actual skull.

In terms of using jargon or not; I'm not complaining. I'm only stating this because there are members that get confused due to this reason and hoping that someone can offer a better resolution to this (if possible).

[Takama]

Just an obligatory qustion. Are you going to make this ankylosaur wide like the favorite model? (i think your visitors need to know that it was that big)