Safari Pachyrhinosaurus from The Toadshop

[smashtoad]

Hi All,

First repaint...I fear I have acquired a new hobby.  I am sort of a realist when it comes to paint, so you probably won't find any crazy colors.  That said, this pachy is in "must". Original paint is obviously first.  I will set up a better photo set-up in the future once I have several paints to display. The lighting in these shots do this paint no favors.  The eye was painted perfectly I thought, so I left it as is.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

nice repaint!

[earth108]

Nice coloration Great job!

[ceratopsian]

I like the sober colours.  The tones and the gradation between them are very well judged.

[Bucklander]

I take no issue with your talent as a painter, but with your language and the underlying assumptions.

To suggest that you are a "realist" implies you have a better knowledge of reality than those who suggest that dinosaur integument contained "crazy" colours.

Any evidence is circumstancial so no opinion is inherently more or less realistic than any other!

That being said, I was quite shocked a few years ago when I began to peruse some of the more modern interpretations of the fossil evidence and artistic reconstructions of dinosaur appearance. Aghast at the bright, almost psychadelic colours ("psychadelic" is a purely descriptive term, it is value free, as opposed to "crazy" which is a term of approbation) in modern dino books, I was forced to question if such colouration was at all possible.

The answer was, that although no certainty was ever going to be probable, it was MORE likely that dinos did have bright colours than that they did not.

Both birds (dinos themselves) and other diapsids (lizards, now (it turns out) probably chelonians - tortoises and turtles) did. In fact, when you think about it, even amphibians, and of course fishes, let alone invertebrates, usually are brightly, flamboyantly coloured. Mammals are the exception. And the reasons are well understood. Because for the 150 or so million years that dinos and other Archosaurs dominated the land and sky, mammals were forced to be nocturnal, so colour vision was of no value to them. Our ancestors lost their colour vision and to this day, most mammals are colour blind. Hence rhinos, elephants etc. In the course of primate evolution however, colour vision re - evolved because ability to detect ripe fruit became important. The science is fascinating and very well documented.

The other apparent exception is crocodilians which are, of course rather dull. But that is because they dwell in muddy environments where bright colours would interfere with their ability to ambush prey.

Most organisms have more colour sensitive receptor molecules in their retinal cells than mammals. Birds have four. The Mantis shrimp has 14!

So it seems if any assumption is crazy, it is that dinosaurs were as dull coloured as mammals. All the evidence suggests the opposite. I was forced to rethink my assumptions. And I am very glad I did. The Mesozoic now seems to be a much more wonderful, brightly coloured and psychadelic affair than I could ever have imagined, and I am so much the wealthier for that understanding.

[smashtoad]

I am a relatively new member of this forum...as are you...are we really going to do this?

I want my time here to be as cordial as possible, so I will say this as nicely as I can.  I am interested by your statement about "no opinion is inherently more or less realistic than any other!"...right before you begin to tell me why mine is wrong.

In my opinion, anyone who believes that a giant, herbivorous, pachydermous battle tank was adorned with the colors of a bird is not paying attention to the world around them.  Yes, it is fun to use the artistic license of time to say, "Hey...how do you know?", and then paint a Styracosaurus to look like an oriole.  Ornithomimus? Oviraptor?  Sure...no issues...go wild.  I see birds there all day long...

But a ceratopsian?  It, in my (and only my) opinion...is fanciful, wishful thinking.  Ceratopsians are not bird precursors.  Just because Therapods and other bipedals are, doesn't mean all dinosaurs were.  If you see birds when you look at ceratopsians, or ankylosaurids...your morphological eyes are crossed.

And saying the science is "very well documented".  On what?  Ceratopsians being brightly colored?  I know you're joking, right?  This assumption relies on these huge herbivores being bird pre-cursors.  Which, again, in my opinion, is wrong.  Obviously, and easily observably wrong.

So in my opinion...in this case...mine is undoubtedly more realistic.  Can I prove it?  No.  But I'll bet if you had to bet $500 on one or the other...you'd put the money on mine.  Yes?

[suspsy]

Ceratopsians were not merely "battle tanks." Combat, whether against predators or rivals, occupies a small fraction of any animal's time. Furthermore, current paleontology is angling further away from the idea that horns and frills were primarily for combat, and closer to the idea that they were for recognition, display, and courtship. As such, it is highly possible that ceratopsians possessed some measure of bright coloration on their bodies. The frill seems a likely location, but the tail or the flanks would work well too.

Unless one's dinosaur art includes fluorescent colours and artificial patterning such as plaid or geometric shapes, there's really no ground to claiming that one scheme is more realistic than the other. Dinosaurs occupied a different world from the one we live in today. They don't need to comply with the same rules that govern how modern megafauna looks.

[stargatedalek]

No assumption the about colour does not rely on dinosaurs being bird precursors, simply on their not being mammal precursors.

[smashtoad]

No assumption the about colour does not rely on dinosaurs being bird precursors, simply on their not being mammal precursors.

I admit that my assumptions are only my opinion.  I just see very little need for a large plains animal to have bright colors.

Ceratopsians were not merely "battle tanks." Combat, whether against predators or rivals, occupies a small fraction of any animal's time. Furthermore, current paleontology is angling further away from the idea that horns and frills were primarily for combat, and closer to the idea that they were for recognition, display, and courtship. As such, it is highly possible that ceratopsians possessed some measure of bright coloration on their bodies. The frill seems a likely location, but the tail or the flanks would work well too.

Unless one's dinosaur art includes fluorescent colours and artificial patterning such as plaid or geometric shapes, there's really no ground to claiming that one scheme is more realistic than the other. Dinosaurs occupied a different world from the one we live in today. They don't need to comply with the same rules that govern how modern megafauna looks.

Why not fluorescent colors?  Under the prescribed thinking they could regulate color like a cuttlefish.  At some point it just gets silly and is pure conjecture.  And the "current paleontology" has a very difficult time predicting anything like behavior from fossilized fragments.  Grand claims of "new evidence" to the contrary do one thing very, very well...continue the need for funding. 

Ceratopsians used their horns and frills for the same things elk and rhinos use horns and antlers for today, which is both combat and courtship.  The two are intrinsically linked, and I would argue that the need for battle and defense (especially defense) occupy much more time in an animal's life than courtship...which is most likely once every couple of years, depending on gestation. 

Although, by the proposed standards, gestation could have lasted one week, right?  It was a different world, after all.  Seriously though, we all have assumptions about aspects of these animal's lives.  Color is just a fun one that we can see and display.

I know this subject has most likely been hashed out a hundred times on this forum.  I did not mean to start an argument. I should not have used the word "realist".  For that I do apologize.

[Kayakasaurus]

Wow, I really like those colors! I hope this is a new hobby  . I like how the light color from the belly is seen in between/under the dark scales at the transition. That is something I look for when looking at reptile references, and it's usually a mix of dark to light, and light to dark. I also really like how the maroon blends with the black. I was never interested in this model before, but you really transformed it! Do you have the Nasutoceratops? I think its Doug Watsons best Ceratopsian for safari so far, I've got one coming in the mail.

[Bucklander]

My dear fellow, I am afraid you have entirely gotten the wrong end of the stick. You seem to have taken offense from my comments, none of which was intended. I couldn't agree more, I would like all of my interactions to be entirely cordial, not just on this forum, but in life in general. However, that doesn't mean that I should refrain from disagreeing with you (or anyone), when my opinion is at variance with yours.

The trouble is, there are actually two separate issues here. The first is whether dinos in general, or particular dinosaurian clades, were more or less likely to be brightly coloured. On this question there are of course 2 sides.

However, what I primarily took issue with, was the language you used to describe your position ("realistic") and the proposed view of those you disagree with ('crazy"). To say that you are realistic, is to suggest that those who disagree with you are unrealistic. You then compound this insult by dismissing their view of likely dinosaur integumentary colour as crazy. How can you not see this as confrontational. Had you instead said, "I am conservative in my beliefs about dinosaur skin (or feather) colour, I see (at least the larger genera) as having been drab, pachyderm like creatures", I would not have had any problem. To be sure, I would still have suggested you consider (or reconsider) the reasons why scientists and palaeoartists tend increasingly toward the opinion that all dinosaurs may have been brightly coloured.

When I said "the science is well documented" I was referring to the science of mammalian colour blindness (and subsequent primate re-evolution of colour vision), as a consequence of enforced nocturnalism (non contentious - brain casts show disproportionately large olfactory bulbs and auditory bullae, indicative of nocturnalism). As colour sensitive pigments are energetically expensive to maintain, and are of no use to nocturnal creatures, our synapsid ancestors lost them. Hence, the primitive condition for all mammals, is colour blindness. However primates did something remarkable. They (we) re- evolved colour vision. The genetics behind this are thoroughly understood.  So we (primates) have colour vision. Other mammals do not. Simple. Hence, colour plays no role in non primate, mammalian life except for camouflage.

The same is definitely NOT true of diapsids. There is no evidence at all to suggest that any single clade of diapsids ever lost colour vision. So although we cannot know for certain that dinosaurs were brightly coloured (and I DID make an effort to state such clearly, despite your claim to the contrary) it is considered most likely they would have been. If a bough of a tree has many lower shoots that all produce the same fruit, and upper shoots that likewise, produce the same fruit, it is more reasonable to expect that branches in the middle, that cannot be seen, will also produce the same fruit, than to suggest otherwise. Because lizards and snakes (the lower branches - Lepidosauria) are brightly coloured, and birds (the upper branches) are brightly coloured, it is more parsimonious to believe dinosaurs and pterosaurs to have been brightly coloured. If you wish to suggest they were not, it is laden on you, to provide a reason why you think they would not have been (in any scientific, philosophical or simply friendly dialogue).

Of course not all dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds. I never suggested anything so ridiculous. I pointed out, they are Diapsids. However, very many of the morphological and physiological (and doubtless ecological and behavioral) characters of birds were present not just in the earliest dinosaurs but in Ornithodirans, Archosaurs or more basal Diapsids. As I said earlier, it is actually the default condition of, not just non synapsid vertebrates (diapsids, "amphibians", "fishes") but animals (indeed of all non microscopic - plants, fungi - life) in general. It is the exception to the rule that requires explanation, which is why I say (in the friendliest manner possible) the onus is on you to justify your claim, especially when you arrogantly (and therefore with hostility) dismiss those who disagree with you as unrealistic and suggest that they are (by implication) CRAZY.

I very clearly stated that I too had initially been AGHAST at the bright, flamboyant almost psychadelic depictions of dinosaurs in modern books and documentaries, but I was willing to lay down my culturally inherited bias and examine the evidence objectively. And to my great (and joyful) surprise, I discovered it was very good and solid. Not everyone is agreed. There is room for debate. But how you can have mistaken my comments as suggesting that I want to "do this" is beyond me. I wish you the very best time here on this forum, my disagreement is NOT an attack. Seriously, just google the re-evolution of colour vision in primates, I promise you, the subject will fascinate you.

[Doug Watson]

Well, I like it, looks believable to me. Reminds me of some marine iguanas. One suggestion, the factory put a bit too much pink around the nostrils compared to my original paint so I would have blended your surrounding skin colour into the nostril colours more.
Here is my original to show what I mean. I hope you paint some more of mine, I love to see what people come up with.

[suspsy]

I don't think I could anything more to what Bucklander wrote.

[Dilopho]

I am a relatively new member of this forum...as are you...are we really going to do this?

I want my time here to be as cordial as possible, so I will say this as nicely as I can.  I am interested by your statement about "no opinion is inherently more or less realistic than any other!"...right before you begin to tell me why mine is wrong.

In my opinion, anyone who believes that a giant, herbivorous, pachydermous battle tank was adorned with the colors of a bird is not paying attention to the world around them.  Yes, it is fun to use the artistic license of time to say, "Hey...how do you know?", and then paint a Styracosaurus to look like an oriole.  Ornithomimus? Oviraptor?  Sure...no issues...go wild.  I see birds there all day long...

But a ceratopsian?  It, in my (and only my) opinion...is fanciful, wishful thinking.  Ceratopsians are not bird precursors.  Just because Therapods and other bipedals are, doesn't mean all dinosaurs were.  If you see birds when you look at ceratopsians, or ankylosaurids...your morphological eyes are crossed.

And saying the science is "very well documented".  On what?  Ceratopsians being brightly colored?  I know you're joking, right?  This assumption relies on these huge herbivores being bird pre-cursors.  Which, again, in my opinion, is wrong.  Obviously, and easily observably wrong.

So in my opinion...in this case...mine is undoubtedly more realistic.  Can I prove it?  No.  But I'll bet if you had to bet $500 on one or the other...you'd put the money on mine.  Yes?

Don't worry. This is a very friendly forum.
Hey, I'd agree that that ceratopsians were probably dull coloured, but i think they would have had fabulously coloured frills and spikes!

just like this statue here

[Megalosaurus]

[...]
The other apparent exception is crocodilians which are, of course rather dull. But that is because they dwell in muddy environments where bright colours would interfere with their ability to ambush prey.
[...]

-Agreed.
Even crocs may become colorful in the right circumstances:

Meet Snappy:


And also this alligator:

[Kovu]

I'm pretty sure that the alligator in the second picture is some melanistic mutation.

For what it's worth, I tend to visually prefer larger animals as having more muted coloration with perhaps certain areas displaying brighter pigmentation for display. I.E. A ceratopsian with browns/beiges/grays over the body with an intricate pattern and red/yellow/green designs on the frill. Even with birds and reptiles, the larger species do tend to have more neutral colors. Just look at Emus, Rheas, Ostriches, Crocodiles and Komodo Dragons. On the other hand, look at large mammals. Many are the same shades of browns and grays, but their patterning can be quite flamboyant. Look at Zebras, Giraffes, Okapis, Red River Hogs and Malay Tapirs. They've got some pretty bright designs going on.That being said, variation in dinosaur coloration must have existed. Who's to say that both sides of the argument aren't right? Perhaps it went like this, using the Morrison sauropods as an example:

Apatosaurus: Dull gray, darker on head and feet. Black and white banded tail.
Brachiosaurus: Chestnut with large white splotches like a giraffe and green wattles on face.
Diplodocus: Sandy-yellow with Blue and white banded neck.
Camarasaurus: Beige with lighter underside
Suuwassea: Black body with bright blue neck and red head and gray legs
Barosaurus: Elephant grey.
Haplocanthosaurus: Dark brown with white stripes on legs and underside of tail
Brontosaurus: Solid tan.

I think there were definitely large dinosaurs that were very neutral in coloration, not all of them were bright, flamboyant mardi-grasasaurs. But, at the same time, not all of them were dull colors and simply patterned. Some did look like mardi-gras. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see this issue as having to be all one way when both probably co-existed.

[stargatedalek]

Actually that alligator appears to simply be coated in mud, although some crocodilians are very bright indeed. Worth mentioning perentie too are brightly coloured, they may not be the largest but they are certainly large enough to warrant mention.

[smashtoad]

Doug...that Styraco is your sculpt?  It is very impressive.  Once I tapped on the gray base coat, the detail of this sculpt exploded. 

The top horns are so much more realistic in my view than the Papo Styraco...they appear to be useless, in my opinion, whereas yours would definitely provide protection to the corners of the upper frill...which would be a very opportune grab point for a big therapod.

I'd love to know which sculpts on the mass market are yours.  I want to see them all.

Bucklander...I respect your passion for research.  I really do.  Research is obviously very important.  The thing with me is that I am an older dude (48), and have been completely self-taught in our areas of passion...herpetology, zoology, etc.  Throughout my life the one thing I have seen time and time again is how often scientists rewrite their findings, theories, hypothesis, etc. 

"This undoes (or rewrites) all we thought we knew about (enter subject of study)" is a refrain I've heard again and again throughout my life.  I feel that I, as many of us do I'm sure, have a keen eye for morphology and evolutionary relation.  I trust it, probably to a fault.  I see the same animal when I look into the eyes of a goat, a camel, a llama, and a giraffe.  They're all goats to me...just as the Chihuahua and Irish wolfhound are both dogs.  When I was a kid the giant panda was thought more closely related to the raccoon than the bear...as a 9 year old I knew this was crap...but the scientists said it was true so it was true.

In Jurassic Park, when Alan Grant said, "They're moving in herds, they do move in herds."  I thought, of course they move in herds.  Who ever needed convincing?  When Horner started arguing that T-Rex was a scavenger first, and a predator second...it was a notoriety move to me...a silly thought.  Just something to get people talking about his work.  Of course they scavenged...all alpha predators scavenge.  One recent documentary had sauropods hatching in the forest and living singly until they grew up, and then herding.  Ridiculous.  Nature does not create a monster like T-Rex and fail to give him the power to kill other animals, and nature does not prevent a devastating mother like diplodocus from protecting her babies.  But again...my opinions.

When it comes to dinosaurs, considering the tiny amount of actual fossilized material they have, the amount of speculation used in the formation of theories is vast.  But without these passionate people we wouldn't even know of the existence of many of these species we all love so much...so I am very grateful for their efforts.

I believe that alligator is leucistic, and that is indeed a beautiful crocodile.

[Doug Watson]

Doug...that Styraco is your sculpt?  It is very impressive.  Once I tapped on the gray base coat, the detail of this sculpt exploded. 

The top horns are so much more realistic in my view than the Papo Styraco...they appear to be useless, in my opinion, whereas yours would definitely provide protection to the corners of the upper frill...which would be a very opportune grab point for a big therapod.

I'd love to know which sculpts on the mass market are yours.  I want to see them all.

I think you mean Pachyrhinosaurus, don't worry I have written one name when I mean another on here as well. Yes it is one of mine. I always base my pieces off of scientific papers so the skull for that one came from one of Phil Currie's studies.
If you go to this link http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3118.140 and scroll down to reply # 156 in my collection thread I have every one of my Safari Ltd prehistoric  pieces up to and including my 2015s. I also do contemporary animals for them. If you go to page one in that thread you can see the original sculpts for those pieces as well.

[smashtoad]

I think you mean Pachyrhinosaurus, don't worry I have written one name when I mean another on here as well. Yes it is one of mine. I always base my pieces off of scientific papers so the skull for that one came from one of Phil Currie's studies.
If you go to this link http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3118.140 and scroll down to reply # 156 in my collection thread I have every one of my Safari Ltd prehistoric  pieces up to and including my 2015s. I also do contemporary animals for them. If you go to page one in that thread you can see the original sculpts for those pieces as well.

Ha...my bad.  Point taken on those nostrils too...you're right.

Funny...I started painting your Kaprosuchus last night.  I'm a sucker for old crocodiles.  I'm painting it and the safari postosuchus...perhaps my favorite prehistoric critter.  I wish someone would do Erythrosuchus...that thing was straight from heII...ha.