A year ago, I wrote a guest post for the Scientific American guest blog, called "How to Name a Dinosaur." Still kind of tickles me that I have my name associated with SciAm, even if it's such a minor way. So, here it is again.
You had no reason to expect a good weekend as you began a long-dreaded yard project. Come Monday morning’s office discussions of sporting events and parties, you would be nursing an aching back. But with a single strike of your shovel, your yard gave you a story to top any tale of drunken debauchery recounted over cubicle partitions: waiting less than 20 inches under the sod was a fossilized femur that hadn’t seen the sun in 120 million years.
Since plausibility has already been pretty well throttled, let’s say that in the kind of radically simplified form of paleontology children’s books employ, scientists from a local museum immediately recognize the bone as belonging to a dinosaur that is brand new to science. In a savvy move thought up by the museum’s public relations office, you will be given the honor of naming the beast. It’s a heavy burden, and you recognize quickly that it’s going to require careful deliberation. You don’t want your dinosaur to be laughed off of the paleontological stage, after all.
The name a dinosaur is given is subjected to the same scrutiny as the description of its skeletal remains. It’s a minefield, and there are many ways the unwary can go astray. A shaky grasp of latin might result in incorrect pluralization or an awkward suffix. Noble dedications to local culture and language can be misspelled. Worse yet, it might just sound silly. Avoid all of these, and your name still might be brushed off because you were too conservative.
As a first step, you might narrow down your choices depending on the kind of dinosaur you're naming. No matter what kind you've got on your hands, there is likely an informal signifier in the form of a suffix to its generic name. For an ostrich-mimic, you might choose -mimus. A herbivore with a beaked, horned, frilled skull receives a -ceratops. For a dromaeosaur, -raptor works nicely. To get across the tenacity of a predatory theropod, -venator sounds really cool. A relative of Baryonyx or Spinosaurus might pay tribute to the crocodiles its snout resembles with -suchus. Sauropods work well with -titan. To play it safe, choose the truly classic dinosaurian suffix, -saurus.
Generous fellow that I am, I’ll provide further guidance in the form of three broad categories which apply to most dinosaur names. Individual examples can bleed between them, of course. Since we’re about to turn the corner into 2011, I’ll also use the opportunity to employ some of my favorite dinosaur names of 2010 as examples. One note before I start: for brevity’s sake, I'm only giving advice for the generic half of the Linnaean binomial, in other words, the Tyrannosaurus but not the rex. You're on your own when deciding on a specific name. If you're stuck, name it for your mom, and you'll do alright.
Stick with Tradition
The 19th century scientists who founded the discipline of paleontology as we know it often stuck to simple anatomical descriptions of the fossilized creatures they examined. Gideon Mantell kept it basic with his Iguanodon, “iguana tooth.” Since he only had teeth to go on, we can’t fault him for lack of imagination. 1838’s Poekilopleuron simply means “varied ribs.” Joseph Leidy, the founder of American paleontology, chose Hadrosaurus as the name of the world’s first mountable dinosaur skeleton. It means “bulky lizard,” which is accurate, if not terribly evocative. 2010 saw the introduction of a few anatomically-named dinosaurs, such as the abelisaur Austrocheirus, the “southern claw.” Pneumatoraptor, from Hungary, was named for the tiny air pockets infusing its scapulocoracoid.
Considering the classical training of the early paleontologists, many of them had a firm grasp of mythology. Edward Drinker Cope’s Laelaps was named for a tenacious dog of Greek mythology - unfortunately, a mite had already been given the name, and it’s now the “tearing lizard,” Dryptosaurus. One of my favorite mythologically themed dinosaur names of recent years is the brachiosaur Abydosaurus, whose skull was found with four cervical vertebrae near the Green River at Dinosaur National Monument. Its name refers to the town of Abydos in ancient Egypt, where the god Osiris’ own head and neck were buried in the Nile. Instead of providing insight into the anatomy of the great beast it was given to, the name tells a story about its discovery millions of years after it walked.
A third subset of traditional names is to pay tribute to another researcher, fossil hunter, or someone else who was instrumental in the discovery of the dinosaur or the field in general. This is normally done in the specific name, but entire genera are occasionally dedicated to one person, as in the ornithischians Othnelia and Drinker, honoring the prolific rivals of the Bone Wars. Just this month, a North American troodontid named Geminiraptor saurezorum was announced, and both halves of the binomial are dedicated to a pair of scientist sisters named Suarez. If you’re familiar with matters astrological, you might correctly guess that they’re twins.
Go Native
If you want to be cutting edge, jump on to the growing trend of paying tribute to local places, culture, and history. It’s a heartening trend, as paleontologists often rely on locals for support of their work, and it counteracts the old stereotype of paleontologists ripping fossils from the ground for the enrichment of far-off institutions. And it engages cultures in ways that sticking stubbornly to Latin and Greek can’t. While the names of new dinosaurs coming out of China may confound the tongue of someone from Helsinki, Buenos Aires, or Des Moines, Chinese kids probably appreciate having dinosaurs of their own, such as Mei long, the “sleeping dragon.” On the other hand, local tributes can result in clunkers like this year’s dynamic duo Koreanosaurus or Koreaceratops, which recieved a fair amount of web snark.
This year has seen plenty of good newcomers in this category, though. A few of them paid tribute to the cultures who first inhabited the American West. Two of these derive from the Navajo language. Seitaad is named for a mythological beast that swallowed its prey in sand dunes, which also alludes to the manner of the small sauropodomorph's death. Bistahieversor’s name is derived from a Navajo description of local geography. The Zuni people have their own dinosaur as well, a duckbill named Jeyawati, which means “grinding tooth” in their language.
One of the most inspired members of this class of dinosaur names comes from Romania. When I first read about it, it sounded like some beast out of Tolkein’s Middle-Earth. But the island-dwelling theropod Balaur bondoc refers to actual mythology with a decidedly local flavor. It’s standard for descriptions of dinosaurs to include sections on the etymology of their names, but Balaur’s is exceptional, exploring the twisting roots of the word’s various meanings that approach the evolutionary tree of life for richness and complexity. Lead author Zoltan Csiki writes that Balaur’s name is “motivated both by the classical association between dinosaurs (especially theropods) and dragon-like creatures, as well as by the fact that balaur is a mythological creature with links to both reptiles (snakes) and birds (wings)...” Who knew that reading the description of a dinosaur could also be a lesson in Romanian mythology?
Make a Splash
It’s part of a paleontologist’s job to focus on the deep past, but some also think forward to the public impact of their discoveries. Lately, University of Chicago’s Paul Sereno has seemed especially focused on the public-relations side of paleontology; in 2009, he unveiled the controversial Raptorex, which might be mistaken for the name of a Pokemon character, as well as a slew of Mesozoic crocodilians with nicknames like BoarCroc, DogCroc, RatCroc, and the unfortunate PancakeCroc.
This year, even a mild-mannered iguanodont received an impactful name in Iguanacolossus. But 2010 will truly be remembered as the Year of Ceratopsians, and some of the catchiest new names come from the beak-and-horns set, including Medusaceratops, Kosmoceratops, and Mojoceratops.
One of my favorite dinosaur names of this year or any other is Diabloceratops, which describes the fierce twin horns protruding from the back of its frill and is just plain fun to say. If he was writing Jurassic Park today, I imagine that Michael Crichton would be strongly tempted to include a Diabloceratops paddock on the island.
A Final Word of Advice
Go bold. Shoot for a word that will make some emotional impact. A dinosaur’s name is often the first impression it will present to the public. Though the standard pantheon of the most popular dinosaurs - you know, the ones even my grandmother can name - has been in place for a century, it’s always susceptible to invasion by a charismatic newcomer, as was proven by Velociraptor’s leap into the public consciousness in the 1990’s. If a novelist, comic artist, or screenwriter latches onto the name of your dinosaur, it could very well be fast-tracked for celebrity.
Above all, remember that the name you choose for your backyard discovery will say as much about you as it does about the bones in the museum.
Illustration copyright Matt Van Rooijen, used with his permission.
Showing posts with label matt van rooijen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label matt van rooijen. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
It's official: T. rex to be renamed
It's been looming in the background for some time, unbeknownst to the great unwashed masses. It's been an open secret among paleontologists and science enthusiasts, a dirty truth none would dare speak in public. That most famous of dinosaurs, a veritable symbol of nature's majesty and the wonders of the ancient world, was given the wrong name.
Tyrannosaurus rex is no more. Get used to saying Pseudodichotomasaurus inanis.
Just kidding. But it would be a fitting name for the tyrant king, with silly passages like this popping up in the media:
Anyway, this is actually a cool story. It doesn't deal with T. rex itself, but with its fellow pseudodichotomasaur from Asia, Tarbosaurus. Paleontologists Dave Hone and Mahito Watabe recently published a study in Acta Palaeontologica Polonica which analyzed bite marks on the humerus of a remarkably well preserved skeleton of a hadrosaur called Saurolophus. Based on the spacing of the teeth and the strength of some of the bites, it was clear that Tarbosaurus, was the most likely suspect, as it was the only large tyrannosaur known from the area and time. This is one of those rare fossils that has a a story to tell beyond the structure of the animal itself.
Based on the lack of damage to the rest of the skeleton, the scientists determined that what had probably happened was that the Saurolophus was quickly buried after death, and when our fortunate Tarbosaurus happened across the carcass, all that was accessible was the left arm. The distinct patterns of tooth marks indicate that the Tarbosaurus bit into the ends of the bone, as well as delicately scraping at whatever meat was left on the middle portion. This clearly indicates scavenging behavior, as this is hardly the choicest cut on the animal, and had it been a fresh kill, the legs, ribs, and other spots containing nice hunks of meat would certainly show evidence of predation.

Feeding strategy one: scraping. By Matt Van Rooijen, used with his permission.

Feeding strategy two: biting and dragging. By Matt Van Rooijen, used with his permission.
Especially interesting here is that a large tyrannosaur like Tarbosaurus was quite capable of delivering a bite that could crush bone, and tyrannosaurs have been found with substantial amounts of crushed bone in their guts. This Tarbosaurus, however, shows that the teeth of the front of the jaw could be used with some finesse, as a kind of comb to remove muscle from flat surfaces of bone. Combined with the deeper bites and drag marks at the bone's ends - which Hone and Watabe believe may have been used to remove cartilage or dissemble the bones at the joints - the overall picture is of a giant theropod with a surgeon's touch. Then as now, predators employ various methods to get the sustenance they need in varying conditions.
"The argument over ‘was Tyrannosaurus (or big tyrannosaurs) a predator or scavenger’ has been going on for far too long and is, I think, not only dull, but largely pointless. It rather assumes that they were one or the other, when pretty much no carnivore is, what they are, is both," Hone writes, setting things straight as usual at Archosaur Musings.
More: Matt Van Rooijen's post about his Tarbosaurus reconstructions, LiveScience.
UPDATE 7-14-10: Fixed some of the wording of the opening based on a comment left by Jay below. I love me some constructive criticism!
Tyrannosaurus rex is no more. Get used to saying Pseudodichotomasaurus inanis.
Just kidding. But it would be a fitting name for the tyrant king, with silly passages like this popping up in the media:
Tooth marks found on the humerus of a plant-eating dinosaur found in Mongolia have revealed that Tyrannosaurs were actually scavengers and not predators, as is widely believed [emphasis mine].Ugh, DNA India. Is this the only way to lead this story? Are stark black-and-white dichotomies the only way to make nature interesting? Another meme that will not die. It makes you wonder if griping on blogs may not be the best way to affect change in the world.
Anyway, this is actually a cool story. It doesn't deal with T. rex itself, but with its fellow pseudodichotomasaur from Asia, Tarbosaurus. Paleontologists Dave Hone and Mahito Watabe recently published a study in Acta Palaeontologica Polonica which analyzed bite marks on the humerus of a remarkably well preserved skeleton of a hadrosaur called Saurolophus. Based on the spacing of the teeth and the strength of some of the bites, it was clear that Tarbosaurus, was the most likely suspect, as it was the only large tyrannosaur known from the area and time. This is one of those rare fossils that has a a story to tell beyond the structure of the animal itself.
Based on the lack of damage to the rest of the skeleton, the scientists determined that what had probably happened was that the Saurolophus was quickly buried after death, and when our fortunate Tarbosaurus happened across the carcass, all that was accessible was the left arm. The distinct patterns of tooth marks indicate that the Tarbosaurus bit into the ends of the bone, as well as delicately scraping at whatever meat was left on the middle portion. This clearly indicates scavenging behavior, as this is hardly the choicest cut on the animal, and had it been a fresh kill, the legs, ribs, and other spots containing nice hunks of meat would certainly show evidence of predation.

Feeding strategy one: scraping. By Matt Van Rooijen, used with his permission.

Feeding strategy two: biting and dragging. By Matt Van Rooijen, used with his permission.
Especially interesting here is that a large tyrannosaur like Tarbosaurus was quite capable of delivering a bite that could crush bone, and tyrannosaurs have been found with substantial amounts of crushed bone in their guts. This Tarbosaurus, however, shows that the teeth of the front of the jaw could be used with some finesse, as a kind of comb to remove muscle from flat surfaces of bone. Combined with the deeper bites and drag marks at the bone's ends - which Hone and Watabe believe may have been used to remove cartilage or dissemble the bones at the joints - the overall picture is of a giant theropod with a surgeon's touch. Then as now, predators employ various methods to get the sustenance they need in varying conditions.
"The argument over ‘was Tyrannosaurus (or big tyrannosaurs) a predator or scavenger’ has been going on for far too long and is, I think, not only dull, but largely pointless. It rather assumes that they were one or the other, when pretty much no carnivore is, what they are, is both," Hone writes, setting things straight as usual at Archosaur Musings.
More: Matt Van Rooijen's post about his Tarbosaurus reconstructions, LiveScience.
UPDATE 7-14-10: Fixed some of the wording of the opening based on a comment left by Jay below. I love me some constructive criticism!
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
LITC Interview: Matt Van Rooijen

Chasmosaurus by Matt Van Rooijen, used with his permission.
The latest LITC interview subject is Matt Van Rooijen, an Australian artist introduced to the paleoart world by Dave Hone of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing. In the last couple months, Matt's reconstructions of Linheraptor and Xixianykus, two new Chinese theropods, were published with their initial descriptions. Readers of this blog have probably noticed my fascination with the intersection of art and science; paleontology has an especially deep relationship with the arts. Paleoart well done communicates science in a vital way, and serves as an entry point to further knowledge. Matt's pieces exemplify this, and as I've previously noted, I'm happy that his unique voice has been added to the mix. Please be sure to read his blog, Optimistic Painting, as well as Hone's Archosaur Musings, which contains plenty of information about these recent discoveries. Onward, then.
You write about a pretty diverse range of projects on your blog. Can you tell us a bit about your artistic background?
Studied Fine Art at Uni in South Australia, which was pretty diverse covering traditional painting, drawing, sculpture. Fine Art is (or was) all about "concept" and "interpretation," so I didn't quite fit in because I liked what they described as "Surrealism," which was really fantasy/sci-fi illustration.
Then I discovered the Commodore 64 computers in the film department, running 'Deluxe Paint 4'. They didn't really know what to do with them, they didn't teach us how to use software or anything (it was the late 80's/early 90's). There's an even longer back story here, but suffice to say it lead to me ditching most of the other classes and making animation pixel by pixel.
That lead to a career in animation, with a smattering of illustration and concept design thrown in. I've worked medical animation, online realities, short film, and animation for TV.
Illustration has been a recent revival for me, so I haven't done much and compared to a lot of the talent out there I'm pretty rough 'round the edges.
Did you have a favorite museum when you were growing up, or a similar place where your love of science began?
Unfortunately I grew up in country South Australia, closest museum was in Adelaide, 8hrs away by car. They did have a cool mount of Allosaurus and a tyrannosaur skull cast, as well as a cast of the Winton Stampede dinosaur tracks. I was made painfully aware of the lack of Australian dinosaurs looking at the case of tiny fragmentary bits that, until that time were the only discoveries.
How big a deal were the Wintonotitan, Australovenator, and Diamantinasaurus in Australia? Announcing three big dinosaurs at the same time is pretty significant.
The media did pick it up well, with pretty good coverage. There was also a great 3D animated reconstruction of Australovenator on TV by Travis Tischler, who also did their 2D stills. Some nice stuff of him working in Z-Brush, the tools for reconstruction are marching along with technology!
I was in the middle of a real life painting of some polar allosaurs taking on a muttaburrasaur. For years we'd had this tantalising astragalus (an ankle bone - ed.) which had been identified as [coming from] a 'dwarf' allosaur, so it was great to have such a complete find which described a more individual animal. Of course, now I have to change the painting.
Has natural history always been a big part of your art?
Thinking back it was there all the way. Much of school was spent making drawings of things that all had a suspiciously William Stout slant to them. My final painting at Uni was a 10 foot tall mural with the scientific name for humans interspersed with painted developmental stages of the human foetus ending in a human skull. I saw science as a way to bring perspective to our place in the world.
I also did a painting with a bag lady riding a T. rex through city streets. One of the first things I animated was a Hypsilophodon running (I think I was supposed to be animating a car at the time).

Linheraptor exquisitus by Matt Van Rooijen, used with his permission
Both of your Chinese dinosaur paintings are quite striking, and I love that they both capture a moment in an animal's life. Was it an early decision to depict moments of action rather than a "posed" creature?
Thanks! Yeah, both Dave Hone and I were keen to depict living animals. I looked around at wildlife photography a lot, living animals are the best place to start to get a feel for what seems natural. Linheraptor was going to be a bit more static, but I'd had an image of a lion locking onto it's prey from an old National Geographic or documentary from years ago in my head. What had struck me was the way a predator's body can be going berserk chasing something but the head would be completely focussed and level, like it was on a gimbal. Dave liked the sketch.
The thing I wanted not to do was have "side on" dinosaurs, which seem really common since artists like Greg Paul have been giving us such excellent skeletal reconstructions.
The alvarezsaurs are a bit more obscure than dromaeosaurs. Were you very familiar with the group when you started on Xixianykus?
I knew about the alvarezsaurs for quite a while, I try and keep track of new natural history discoveries and they stuck out because they were quite bizarre. There were some great photos and reconstructions around.
Did the processes for each of these first two pieces for the IVPP differ greatly?
Not really. I was given the paper (resulting in anatomy overload, I thought I had a reasonable grasp of anatomy, palaeontologists work at a much higher resolution) then had to research and ask lots of questions about anatomy, habitat etc. I guess the main difference was Linheraptor was "exquisitely" preserved while Xixianykus looked like a crushed roast chicken.
One of the things I've enjoyed as I've read more scientific papers are new, strange words for my vocabulary. Do you have any favorite words from the scientific jargon of anatomy?
Not really, but my 4 year old son has started measuring distances in "Klonkimeats."
Is the process much different, working with scientists rather than anyone else who might commission a piece?
Scientists, or at least Dave Hone, seemed to know what they're after a bit more clearly than other clients I've worked with. Revisions come about more because of accuracy issues or lack of (my) research rather than aesthetic considerations. For my process I wanted to know if there were specific features they wanted to depict, whether it be anatomical, physiological or behavioural.
Linheraptor went from having a couple of months to complete to a week as the paper was unexpectedly accepted early! So while that certainly wasn't the fault of the people who'd commissioned the piece, it seems like pretty standard stuff in the world of commercial art and animation!
Would you like to branch out from dinosaurs in future scientific reconstructions? What other ancient creatures interest you artistically?
I could give you a list but instead I'll just say: all of them. Seriously though, I think I'm a science junkie. I love the thrill of discovery.
What paleoartists do you admire most?
William Stout, Greg Paul, James Gurney.
William Stout was probably the artistic influence on me growing up. His animals have personality and vigor, even when they're just standing still. I still love his stuff. He depicts things in such a bold way.
Greg Paul really started people thinking about actually fitting the bones in the flesh; reconstruction became a more serious business. His reconstructions are all about accuracy and anatomy. Paul's style is reproduced so much that I get a bit tired of seeing the knock offs, but then I look at his original stuff and it's just great.
I suspect James Gurney isn't taken all that seriously in paleoart circles? That's just a guess, as he's so well know for 'fantasy' portrayal of dinosaurs, but the man has such fantastic painting chops, and his animals live and breathe even if they're not portrayed behaving accurately.
There's so many people out there doing great things besides, your Luis Reys and Raul D. Martins are just fantastic.
Dinosaurs are a pretty diverse group of animals, but from an artist's point of view, do they seem to have some inherent quality that makes them so interesting? I guess what I'm getting at is, what makes them so fun to stare at?
They're quite grandiose as a group of animals, like nature putting on a show. "The biggest! The meanest! The scariest!" The idea that we shared the same world with these incredible, but quite scary creatures, is also appealing. Especially from the safety of 65 million years away.
Last, and maybe most important is the mystery. It seems every day we discover more, but we're likely never to discover everything about dinosaurs. So everyone has a take, or an interpretation. That said, that they've deduced colours for some species simply blew my mind. It was something that every book I ever read, since I was a child, said would never happen.
Studied Fine Art at Uni in South Australia, which was pretty diverse covering traditional painting, drawing, sculpture. Fine Art is (or was) all about "concept" and "interpretation," so I didn't quite fit in because I liked what they described as "Surrealism," which was really fantasy/sci-fi illustration.
Then I discovered the Commodore 64 computers in the film department, running 'Deluxe Paint 4'. They didn't really know what to do with them, they didn't teach us how to use software or anything (it was the late 80's/early 90's). There's an even longer back story here, but suffice to say it lead to me ditching most of the other classes and making animation pixel by pixel.
That lead to a career in animation, with a smattering of illustration and concept design thrown in. I've worked medical animation, online realities, short film, and animation for TV.
Illustration has been a recent revival for me, so I haven't done much and compared to a lot of the talent out there I'm pretty rough 'round the edges.
Did you have a favorite museum when you were growing up, or a similar place where your love of science began?
Unfortunately I grew up in country South Australia, closest museum was in Adelaide, 8hrs away by car. They did have a cool mount of Allosaurus and a tyrannosaur skull cast, as well as a cast of the Winton Stampede dinosaur tracks. I was made painfully aware of the lack of Australian dinosaurs looking at the case of tiny fragmentary bits that, until that time were the only discoveries.
How big a deal were the Wintonotitan, Australovenator, and Diamantinasaurus in Australia? Announcing three big dinosaurs at the same time is pretty significant.
The media did pick it up well, with pretty good coverage. There was also a great 3D animated reconstruction of Australovenator on TV by Travis Tischler, who also did their 2D stills. Some nice stuff of him working in Z-Brush, the tools for reconstruction are marching along with technology!
I was in the middle of a real life painting of some polar allosaurs taking on a muttaburrasaur. For years we'd had this tantalising astragalus (an ankle bone - ed.) which had been identified as [coming from] a 'dwarf' allosaur, so it was great to have such a complete find which described a more individual animal. Of course, now I have to change the painting.
Has natural history always been a big part of your art?
Thinking back it was there all the way. Much of school was spent making drawings of things that all had a suspiciously William Stout slant to them. My final painting at Uni was a 10 foot tall mural with the scientific name for humans interspersed with painted developmental stages of the human foetus ending in a human skull. I saw science as a way to bring perspective to our place in the world.
I also did a painting with a bag lady riding a T. rex through city streets. One of the first things I animated was a Hypsilophodon running (I think I was supposed to be animating a car at the time).

Linheraptor exquisitus by Matt Van Rooijen, used with his permission
Both of your Chinese dinosaur paintings are quite striking, and I love that they both capture a moment in an animal's life. Was it an early decision to depict moments of action rather than a "posed" creature?
Thanks! Yeah, both Dave Hone and I were keen to depict living animals. I looked around at wildlife photography a lot, living animals are the best place to start to get a feel for what seems natural. Linheraptor was going to be a bit more static, but I'd had an image of a lion locking onto it's prey from an old National Geographic or documentary from years ago in my head. What had struck me was the way a predator's body can be going berserk chasing something but the head would be completely focussed and level, like it was on a gimbal. Dave liked the sketch.
The thing I wanted not to do was have "side on" dinosaurs, which seem really common since artists like Greg Paul have been giving us such excellent skeletal reconstructions.
The alvarezsaurs are a bit more obscure than dromaeosaurs. Were you very familiar with the group when you started on Xixianykus?
I knew about the alvarezsaurs for quite a while, I try and keep track of new natural history discoveries and they stuck out because they were quite bizarre. There were some great photos and reconstructions around.
Did the processes for each of these first two pieces for the IVPP differ greatly?
Not really. I was given the paper (resulting in anatomy overload, I thought I had a reasonable grasp of anatomy, palaeontologists work at a much higher resolution) then had to research and ask lots of questions about anatomy, habitat etc. I guess the main difference was Linheraptor was "exquisitely" preserved while Xixianykus looked like a crushed roast chicken.
One of the things I've enjoyed as I've read more scientific papers are new, strange words for my vocabulary. Do you have any favorite words from the scientific jargon of anatomy?
Not really, but my 4 year old son has started measuring distances in "Klonkimeats."
Is the process much different, working with scientists rather than anyone else who might commission a piece?
Scientists, or at least Dave Hone, seemed to know what they're after a bit more clearly than other clients I've worked with. Revisions come about more because of accuracy issues or lack of (my) research rather than aesthetic considerations. For my process I wanted to know if there were specific features they wanted to depict, whether it be anatomical, physiological or behavioural.
Linheraptor went from having a couple of months to complete to a week as the paper was unexpectedly accepted early! So while that certainly wasn't the fault of the people who'd commissioned the piece, it seems like pretty standard stuff in the world of commercial art and animation!
Would you like to branch out from dinosaurs in future scientific reconstructions? What other ancient creatures interest you artistically?
I could give you a list but instead I'll just say: all of them. Seriously though, I think I'm a science junkie. I love the thrill of discovery.
What paleoartists do you admire most?
William Stout, Greg Paul, James Gurney.
William Stout was probably the artistic influence on me growing up. His animals have personality and vigor, even when they're just standing still. I still love his stuff. He depicts things in such a bold way.
Greg Paul really started people thinking about actually fitting the bones in the flesh; reconstruction became a more serious business. His reconstructions are all about accuracy and anatomy. Paul's style is reproduced so much that I get a bit tired of seeing the knock offs, but then I look at his original stuff and it's just great.
I suspect James Gurney isn't taken all that seriously in paleoart circles? That's just a guess, as he's so well know for 'fantasy' portrayal of dinosaurs, but the man has such fantastic painting chops, and his animals live and breathe even if they're not portrayed behaving accurately.
There's so many people out there doing great things besides, your Luis Reys and Raul D. Martins are just fantastic.
Dinosaurs are a pretty diverse group of animals, but from an artist's point of view, do they seem to have some inherent quality that makes them so interesting? I guess what I'm getting at is, what makes them so fun to stare at?
They're quite grandiose as a group of animals, like nature putting on a show. "The biggest! The meanest! The scariest!" The idea that we shared the same world with these incredible, but quite scary creatures, is also appealing. Especially from the safety of 65 million years away.
Last, and maybe most important is the mystery. It seems every day we discover more, but we're likely never to discover everything about dinosaurs. So everyone has a take, or an interpretation. That said, that they've deduced colours for some species simply blew my mind. It was something that every book I ever read, since I was a child, said would never happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
