[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Jeffrey Martz wrote:
> Giving the laregly conjectural artistic interpretation of the animal
> the front seat to the evidence it is based on is exactly what you are
> advocating. There is still going to be a great deal more interpretation and
> subjectivity involved with a restoration then with showing the actual fossil
> bones. Look at Greg Paul, Mark Hallet, James Gurney, Brian Franzak, and
> Doug Henderson's Tyrannosaurus rex restorations. All are cutting edge, all
> are plausible and give a sense of how the living animal MAY have looked, but
> they all look different.
Actually, I take exception to this last remark. While the details
(coloration, ornamentation, etc.) will vary from illustration to
illustration, the morphology of the animal (the important issue) does
not; there is consensus about the animal's life appearance (horizontal
stance, positioning of legs beneath the body, etc.).