Dunkle

Comments

• zikzak025@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  There is a book called All Yesterdays that highlights the mistakes made by earlier artistic interpretations of creatures based on their fossils. As a thought experiment, it also includes a section called “All Todays” where artists reinterpret today’s fauna based only on their skeletal structure using the same approaches that had been done to dinosaurs for decades.

  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Yesterdays

  Image

  source

  • antonim@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I find this sort of “reconstruction” kind of disingenuous. Dinosaurs were reptiles, so they’re reconstructed to look roughly like reptiles of today. Of course the approach gives wildly inaccurate results on mammals, but on modem reptiles it would be alright. This same approach isn’t taken to reconstructing prehistoric birds or mammals either.

    That’s not to say dinosaurs haven’t been portrayed as too bony for the coolness effect or that the Dunkleosteus wasn’t subject to the same exaggerated treatment, but why go into the other extreme?

    source

    • zikzak025@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Well, yes and no.

      The premise of the book itself is to highlight that much of what was assumed about dinosaurs, depicted through those artistic representations modeled after modern reptiles, is downright wrong. E.g. newer discoveries that several dinosaur species had feathers, classifying them closer to birds than reptiles (and that birds of today are just as much “dinosaurs” as, say, a crocodile).

      Compare the depictions of Deinonychus from the 90’s to today:

      Image

      Image

      The point of the All Todays section is just to make this concept more relatable, by highlighting the fact that many distinguishing features of modern animals would be completely invisible in fossil records. The large ears and trunks of elephants would never survive fossilization, and their feet may not be interpreted as thick, fleshy pads, so they instead drew the elephant more gaunt, with short ears and a bulbous nose to explain the shape of their skull. And certain keratinous features like horns and hooves would not survive either, so that explains the hornless rhino and toed zebra. Not to mention the single most distinguishing features of zebras, the black and white stripes, would never be known.

      And FWIW, the depictions aren’t even that far off in terms of skin texture, since the elephant and rhino are already mostly fur-less mammals. The elephant may have too much fur, if anything. Only the zebra seems off for its lack of fur.

      But the point is that it’s supposed to be ridiculous, because these styles have just as much grounding as the long-held depictions of dinosaurs as scary, giant lizards. Maybe some are closer to truth than not, but the majority are just artistic license. For all we know, the tyrannosaurus rex could have been covered in rainbow feathers like a giant macaw. It might seem ridiculous and improbable, but so could the stripes of a zebra.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Weren’t dinosaurs feathered and we now know all those modern reptile looking illustrations were completely wrong?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I guess the equivalent would be to make a really hairy rhino and elephant.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • StarvingMartist@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Just for completeness, here’s A PDF of one of my favorite books, all tomorrows. A speculative evolution science fiction that explores the future history of humanity if we were enslaved by a species of sadistic aliens who then proceed to bioengineer us into tools for every possible use

    source
• IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  most animals have skin over they bones, wonder why they saw a wierd skull and decided that this fish has no skin on its head

  source

  • Redjard@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    could be like turtle shells

    source

    • IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      still it isn’t the bone that’s on the outside

      Image

      but even if we had a vertebrate fossil that had parts of their endoskeleton exposed, it’s so rare that it’s safe to assume it wasn’t.

      imma bet the thagomiser was covered with tissues, hardened skin, ketarin, not just naked bone.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• rawsta@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Appropriate reaction

  source