[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Best skulls for artistic reference
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 7:43 AM
To: Christopher Srnka
Cc: The Dinosaur Mailing List
Subject: RE: Best skulls for artistic reference
* From: Christopher Srnka [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Recently I was comparing the various _T.rex_ mounts and skulls
> that I've been
> able to see and photograph in person, and of course there are some obvious
> distortions in some of them and variance in some aspects. From
> what I've read,
> "Stan" is probably the best skull from which to reference for
> drawing; would
> that be the consensus among the DML members?
> Also, what are some things that I might look for in skeletal
> mounts and skulls
> to determine and correct (in my drawings) distortion? Is it
> usually a matter of
> referencing as many samples as possible to find commonality?
One warning about the skull of "Stan", though: the teeth are almost always
mounted as if they are falling out of the jaws in the various casts I've
seen at different museums. Adult _T. rex_ teeth are about 1/3 crown and 2/3
root. On the good colored casts of the skull of Stan, the black area of the
tooth represents the crown, so if you could artistically shove the teeth
back into their sockets, it will look a lot better!<<
* Well, your incorrect about 'Stan'. I've talked extensively to both Peter
and Neal about this. Those teeth are as they were I life, they have not been
misplaced during fossilization. You need to look at the casts itself (as in
putting your head in it : >, I've done it several times) and you'll see
where the replacement teeth are pushing the teeth out. No question about it.
There is something strange going on with 'Stan'.
Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca 92074