[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Irritator image for review



My reconstruction is based on the photograph here http://www.zoo.utoronto.ca/sues/pict-page.htm. The snout, on the other hand, is based on descriptions of the Angaturama specimen rather than photos, so the crest at the tip of the snout might not even exist. I'm probably going to remove the crest and use the typical spinosaurid snout for the reconstruction. But you can be sure that most of the skull is based on hard evidence.  :-)   
 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jordan Mallon" <j_mallon@hotmail.com>
> To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Irritator image for review
>
>
> With all due credit and respect to HP Michael Hanson, whose attempt at such
> a rendering is brilliant in its own regards, I don't think any
> reconstructions of the skull of _Irritator_ can be trusted right now.  Not
> until, at least, Hans-Dieter Sues et al. release their paper on the subject.
> And on the same topic, unless it's for personal gain or whatnot, I
> definitely wouldn't recommend executing any sort of skeletal reconstructions
> based on circulating rumors, etc.  I'm sure much of this is hardly worth
> saying, even, but I've seen many dinosaur restorations (my own included)
> based on unverified skeletal reconstructions.
> Just a heads up, of sorts, I suppose. :)
>
> Jordan Mallon
>
>
http://www.geocities.com/paleoportfolio/
>
> >From: "Michael Hanson" <mhanson54@attbi.com>
> >Reply-To:
mhanson54@attbi.com
> >To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> >Subject: Re: Irritator image for review
> >Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 20:01:06 -0500
> >
> > I used the snout of Angaturama. I don't know much about the specimen, but
> > from what I've heard in various descriptions of the snout, it seems to have
> > to have an unusual ridge at the tip. I also believe Irritator and
> > Angaturama to be one and the same species (individual??). I also realized
> > that some features in my reconstruction may still be slightly exaggerated
> > such as the crest, even though it has been reduced to the normal
> > spinosaurid crest.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Daniel Bensen" <
dbensen@gotnet.net>
> >To: <
mhanson54@attbi.com>
> >Cc: <
dinosaur@usc.edu>
> >Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:20 PM
> >Subject: Re: Irritator image for review
> >
> >
> > > So this is what Irritator looks like, now?  I had lost track of this
> > > genus back when plastic surgery was still hot (It's so pretty by itself,
> > > it should realize that artificial enhansements only make it look
> > > trashy).
> > > Seems like a pretty standard spinosaur now, except for that oddly square
> > > nose.  Is that a nasal crest or is the snout actually square in
> > > cross-section?
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >

"Dinosaurs were not boring, and one can only make them so via ignorance"
—Gregory S. Paul, 1988

Michael Hanson

Website: Dinosaurworld

Email: mhanson54@attbi.com