Paleo Art Stumbled Upon The Internet

[Neosodon]

What an unusual, beautiful picture! It´s really possible Troodon looked like this!

Unlikely, the artist made it look to much like an owl. Troodon would of had a longer and skinnier head and neck and it didn't have wings.

[jooooo]

What an unusual, beautiful picture! It´s really possible Troodon looked like this!

Unlikely, the artist made it look to much like an owl. Troodon would of had a longer and skinnier head and neck and it didn't have wings.

Troodontids most likely had wings, both dromaeosaurs and basal birds have been found with wings and it's highly likely it did have wings. And at least some troodontids has asymmetrical ears like owls do, which is most likely what this picture is based on, it's mostly speculative though.

[Reptilia]

Don't know the name of the author but I find this Dimorphodon pretty nice and naturalistic, though a little bit stylized:

[Halichoeres]

I believe it is by Rachel Bohm: https://twitter.com/everypterosaur/status/796024217519190016

[Reptilia]

Oh, it's a Preondactylus actually, not a Dimorphodon. In fact the snout is quite different.

[sauroid]

i guess it's time to resurrect this thread
this is one of my most favorite Styracosaurus images but i forgot who made it

[Reptilia]

There's a Collecta Torosaurus look-alike in the background.

[sauroid]

haha yes esp. the paint/color

[sauroid]

[Nanuqsaurus]

Ah, we're doing mammals then?


''Woolly rhino'' by Renum63 on DeviantArt.

[Reptilia]

For once a Basilosaurus that's not a snake but has a proper cetacean look. Interesting Entelodon too.

[sauroid]

info about the artist would be great

[Halichoeres]

info about the artist would be great

Looks to be Felipe Elias: https://www.newdinosaurs.com/felipe-elias/

[sauroid]

cool. thanks.

[DinoToyForum]

That's the artwork from the front cover of The Evolution of Artiodactyls edited by Prothero and Ross.
Just checked my copy and the art is by Carl Buell.

[sauroid]

is it a lavishly illustrated book? i'd like to have one someday. thanks Dr. Admin.

[EarthboundEiniosaurus]

Interesting that the cover of such a recent and seemingly well researched book would include an illustration of the invalid genus "Afrochoerus". As far as I know Afrochoerus was a chimera of Stegotetrabelodon tusks and more typical Metridiochoerus remains. Does anyone with the book know if this is discussed at all? For reference i'm talking about the creature to the left of the Bison latifrons.

[DinoToyForum]

Interesting that the cover of such a recent and seemingly well researched book would include an illustration of the invalid genus "Afrochoerus". As far as I know Afrochoerus was a chimera of Stegotetrabelodon tusks and more typical Metridiochoerus remains. Does anyone with the book know if this is discussed at all? For reference i'm talking about the creature to the left of the Bison latifrons.

In the caption it is named Metridiochoerus. I had a quick flick through the section and there doesn't seem to be any discussion of "Afrochoerus". The name just appears in a table comparing old and new taxonomies, but otherwise, no mention.

It is moderately well illustrated but more of the technical kind than restorations (and no colour). It's a very academic volume - not light reading.

[Reptilia]

That book looks pretty cool if the cover image is indicative of the overall quality of the illustrations, but it's damn pricey!

[EarthboundEiniosaurus]

Interesting that the cover of such a recent and seemingly well researched book would include an illustration of the invalid genus "Afrochoerus". As far as I know Afrochoerus was a chimera of Stegotetrabelodon tusks and more typical Metridiochoerus remains. Does anyone with the book know if this is discussed at all? For reference i'm talking about the creature to the left of the Bison latifrons.

In the caption it is named Metridiochoerus. I had a quick flick through the section and there doesn't seem to be any discussion of "Afrochoerus". The name just appears in a table comparing old and new taxonomies, but otherwise, no mention.

It is moderately well illustrated but more of the technical kind than restorations (and no colour). It's a very academic volume - not light reading.

Interesting that the illustration still depicts it in with the erroneous tusk anatomy and with no rationale mentioned in the book. You would think an animal with that sort of prominence on the cover would be discussed more. Thanks for the reply dinotoyforum.