Duane Nash

Share your burning questions about Prehistoric Kingdom

Re: Duane Nash

Postby Merking » Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:45 am

Unkown Amniote wrote:@Merking what is far fetched to you?

@Velocichap can you link me the video?

@Judy Jones since when has a vulture headed look been common place? I see it once in a while, but for the most part the only thing I see on a daily basis is either a JP raptor, a Greg Paul-ian raptor with an accurate skull but shrink wrapped or I see something really beautiful and majesitc looking like what Emily Willoughby draws. The vulture "meme" is incredibly rare.

Like, the time when he suggested Dromaeosaurus would have vulture like heads?
Image
Because my old "avatar" got kind of old.
I like feathers.
Patience is key here, little grasshoper.
User avatar
Merking
Ankylosaurus
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:22 am
Location: Discord

Re: Duane Nash

Postby velocichap » Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:18 am

Hello, I'm Velocichap writer of the upcoming web book The Darwin Menagerie, a zoo for both extinct and endangered animals. message me if you want a link to my Discord server to find out more :) https://discord.gg/6NrgEZw
User avatar
velocichap
Ankylosaurus
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 11:27 am
Location: Ireland writing books and slaying haters

Re: Duane Nash

Postby Unkown Amniote » Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:04 am

@Acheroraptor Here's part 1:
http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2 ... -part.html
Here's part 2:
http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2 ... rt_24.html
And here's some slightly older stuff on the functionality of wattles in non avian Dinosaurs that has to do with this too:
http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2 ... uding.html

@Merking Did you even read the post or did you jsut shrug at it just because it's "odd" like so many other people do? Bother reading it and only then can you complain about it.

@Judy Jones Nash wasn't the first one to suggest it. I never said that, nor has he said it either. But he has been the most vocal on the matter in very recent times. And type up Velociraptor on Google and you'll see a vast sea of awesomebro JP raptors, Greg Paul shrink wrapped mummies and more elegant Hawk and Eagle like animals. Although don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the more elegant look. It's still completely possible (and is likely for many species), it's just that a vuture like head is equally possible if not more likely depending on the species.

*EDIT* Trey gave a bad explanation why they wouldn't have vulture heads. He basically says because some small sized species (that have a completely different behaviour and lifestyle than to the more hyper carnivorous and scavenging larger genera) are known to have feathery heads, that it's highly doubtful any Dromaeosaur had any bald heads...are you serious!? In all the 100 million years of Dromaeosaur evolution, from the dainty small games hunters and gliders to the massive, hyper carnivorous and scavenging brutes, that there were only feather headed Dromaeousaurs? And if anyone here bother to read Duane's post, he talks about how the smaller sized, small game hunters, i.e. the only Dromaeousaurs we know of with preserved feathers, probably wouldn't have wattles due to their behaviour and hunting method. So things like Microraptor definitely wouldn't have wattles like a vulture, Velociraptor is unlikely to have it but by the time you get to things like Deinonychus and Utahraptor then you most likely get these big, bald heads.

Has anyone here actually read his posts in depth, or did you just shrug it off because it's "different"? Because thats what a lot of people do yet they still complain about it. Why this happens it baffles me profoundly. If you're gonna argue against it, that's completely fine. Hell, I love when people argue for or against something in sciece. That's literally the point of science is to question everything, but when you don't even look at the evidence then complain about it then we have a problem. And no I'm not directing this towards anyone on the forums in particular, I'm just talking in general. Because I see what I just explained a lot on FaceBook...but it's FaceBook afterall so what do you expect ;) ?
User avatar
Unkown Amniote
Velociraptor
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 1:08 pm

Re: Duane Nash

Postby Acheroraptor » Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:27 am

Unkown Amniote wrote:@Acheroraptor Here's part 1:
http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2 ... -part.html
Here's part 2:
http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2 ... rt_24.html
And here's some slightly older stuff on the functionality of wattles in non avian Dinosaurs that has to do with this too:
http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2 ... uding.html


I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but can I just say he is definitely not the first guy to suggest a vulture look (not necessarily habits, but it's the looks that make the memes)

Image

Image
Image
User avatar
Acheroraptor
Wiki Team
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2014 2:19 pm

Re: Duane Nash

Postby Merking » Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:35 am

Unkown Amniote wrote:@Acheroraptor Here's part 1:
http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2 ... -part.html
Here's part 2:
http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2 ... rt_24.html
And here's some slightly older stuff on the functionality of wattles in non avian Dinosaurs that has to do with this too:
http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2 ... uding.html

@Merking are you seriously saying that's far fetched to you? Did you even read the post or did you jsut shrug at it just because it's "odd" like so many other people do? Bother reading it and only then can you complain about it.

@Judy Jones Nash wasn't the first one to suggest it. I never said that, nor has he said it either. But he has been the most vocal on the matter in very recent times. And type up Velociraptor on Google and you'll see a vast sea of awesomebro JP raptors, Greg Paul shrink wrapped mummies and more elegant Hawk and Eagle like animals. Although don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the more elegant look. It's still completely possible (and is likely for many species), it's just that a vuture like head is equally possible if not more likely depending on the species.

*EDIT* Trey gave a bad explanation why they wouldn't have vulture heads. He basically says because some small sized species (that have a completely different behaviour and lifestyle than to the more hyper carnivorous and scavenging larger genera) are known to have feathery heads, that it's highly doubtful any Dromaeosaur had any bald heads...are you serious!? In all the 100 million years of Dromaeosaur evolution, from the dainty small games hunters and gliders to the massive, hyper carnivorous and scavenging brutes, that there were only feather headed Dromaeousaurs? And if anyone here bother to read Duane's post, he talks about how the smaller sized, small game hunters, i.e. the only Dromaeousaurs we know of with preserved feathers, probably wouldn't have wattles due to their behaviour and hunting method. So things like Microraptor definitely wouldn't have wattles like a vulture, Velociraptor is unlikely to have it but by the time you get to things like Deinonychus and Utahraptor then you most likely get these big, bald heads.

Has anyone here actually read his posts in depth, or did you just shrug it off because it's "different"? Because thats what a lot of people do yet they still complain about it. Why this happens it baffles me profoundly. If you're gonna argue against it, that's completely fine. Hell, I love when people argue for or against something in sciece. That's literally the point of science is to question everything, but when you don't even look at the evidence then complain about it then we have a problem. And no I'm not directing this towards anyone on the forums in particular, I'm just talking in general. Because I see what I just explained a lot on FaceBook...but it's FaceBook afterall so what do you expect ;) ?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that his argument is "Vultures have naked faces too and it´s awesomebro", which is weird, because he often refers to other animals with feathered/furry faces among the post, who do similar things to the ones he focusses on? And his reconstructions don´t really look like vultures or even turkeys in terms of waddles, either, but more like something with a naked head with cancer? But then again, he did give his Smilodon the face of a Bulldog, so maybe we should just ignore the reconstructions. :/
I don´t know. But given his apparent bias towards ....odd looking.... reconstructions, I think I will take this with multiple grains of salt; at least untill we actually find a Theropod with a naked head and an otherwise feathered body. Given that we don´t even see this in animals like the comparingly huge Yutyrannus and the potentially big Sciurimimus, I would assume, for now, that featherless heads and necks are something that only happens rarelly, maybe even only amongst Avians.
(Note, that´s not to say I disagree with him entirelly, some of his other ideas, like omnivore Ankylosaurs and Smilodon with lips seem to make a lot of sense to me)
Image
Because my old "avatar" got kind of old.
I like feathers.
Patience is key here, little grasshoper.
User avatar
Merking
Ankylosaurus
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:22 am
Location: Discord

Re: Duane Nash

Postby Unkown Amniote » Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:55 am

Yeah his reconstructions are't actually that good looking. His Smilodon for instance is utterly atrocious. He's right in that it had lips, but his personal reconstruction is a huge no no. There are far better interpretations elsewhere. In fact, in his part two of it, he linked various other reconstructions from various paleoartists online showing their own interpretations. As I've read more and more of his stuff, I tend to completely ignore most of his artwork. His overall message/point is said, but he just doesn't do a good job at actually making it's appearance. So yeah I jsut ignore his drawings for the most part...
Although...the thing about his "cancerous" looking Dromaeousaurs isn't a problem. Look at how cancerous these birds are:
http://imagess3.enature.com.s3.amazonaw ... 225-px.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/56 ... a124c2.jpg
http://www.animals-planet.eu/images/tie ... rlhuhn.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... body-8.jpg
http://www.gobirding.eu/Images/Ducks/Mu ... r-12%20(B2)%20L.JPG
All these birds look like they have some form of tumor or unnatural growth, yet that's just their real world appearance. So his Dromaeousar wattles for the most part aren't really bad. They're actually pretty good...besides his latest one with a quill tailed Dakotaraptor...that's a big no...

And just because something looks odd doesn't mean you should rule it off. Have you even seen all the weird, goofy, awesomebro looking stuff in nature? Birds of paradise, hooded seals, muscovy ducks, anglerfish, Aye ayes, naked mole rats, Tamarin monkeys, proboscis monkeys, potoos, Babirusas aka the Suids that literally kill themselves by gouging their tusks into their brains, etc. All of this would be deemed awesomebro and laughable if they didn't live today and they were reconstructed like this in paleoart, yet that's what they actually look like. Nature isn't beautiful and elegant. It does whatever the hell it can do/wants to for an animal to survive. And if that means having a barbed penis, or a cancerous looking neck wattle, or a bulbous nose, or fricking tusks that grow through your skull then it does it if it's beneficial*.

And keep in mind that Duane never said that every medium to large sized Theropod should have cancerous wattles. He jsut said that it's kind of the norm for medium sized, average Theropods (although he focuses more on Dromaeousars). As in carnivorous Theropods that are in the "hyper carnivorous/scavenging" threshold. If you have read his posts and several studies by professionals, you'll understand what I mean by this "scavenging" size range.

*that whole "Nautre does what it wants thing" is a metapor btw. I don't want anyone calling me out for saying something odd sounding meant to be a metaphor.
User avatar
Unkown Amniote
Velociraptor
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 1:08 pm

Re: Duane Nash

Postby Merking » Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:12 pm

Unkown Amniote wrote:Yeah his reconstructions are't actually that good looking. His Smilodon for instance is utterly atrocious. He's right in that it had lips, but his personal reconstruction is a huge no no. There are far better interpretations elsewhere. In fact, in his part two of it, he linked various other reconstructions from various paleoartists online showing their own interpretations. As I've read more and more of his stuff, I tend to completely ignore most of his artwork. His overall message/point is said, but he just doesn't do a good job at actually making it's appearance. So yeah I jsut ignore his drawings for the most part...
Although...the thing about his "cancerous" looking Dromaeousaurs isn't a problem. Look at how cancerous these birds are:
http://imagess3.enature.com.s3.amazonaw ... 225-px.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/56 ... a124c2.jpg
http://www.animals-planet.eu/images/tie ... rlhuhn.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... body-8.jpg
http://www.gobirding.eu/Images/Ducks/Mu ... r-12%20(B2)%20L.JPG
All these birds look like they have some form of tumor or unnatural growth, yet that's just their real world appearance. So his Dromaeousar wattles for the most part aren't really bad. They're actually pretty good...besides his latest one with a quill tailed Dakotaraptor...that's a big no...

And just because something looks odd doesn't mean you should rule it off. Have you even seen all the weird, goofy, awesomebro looking stuff in nature? Birds of paradise, hooded seals, muscovy ducks, anglerfish, Aye ayes, naked mole rats, Tamarin monkeys, proboscis monkeys, potoos, Babirusas aka the Suids that literally kill themselves by gouging their tusks into their brains, etc. All of this would be deemed awesomebro and laughable if they didn't live today and they were reconstructed like this in paleoart, yet that's what they actually look like. Nature isn't beautiful and elegant. It does whatever the hell it can do/wants to for an animal to survive. And if that means having a barbed penis, or a cancerous looking neck wattle, or a bulbous nose, or fricking tusks that grow through your skull then it does it if it's beneficial*.

And keep in mind that Duane never said that every medium to large sized Theropod should have cancerous wattles. He jsut said that it's kind of the norm for medium sized, average Theropods (although he focuses more on Dromaeousars). As in carnivorous Theropods that are in the "hyper carnivorous/scavenging" threshold. If you have read his posts and several studies by professionals, you'll understand what I mean by this "scavenging" size range.

*that whole "Nautre does what it wants thing" is a metapor btw. I don't want anyone calling me out for saying something odd sounding meant to be a metaphor.

The thing is, if it was the norm, we would probably see more of it both in the the fossil record and among modern birds. Or anything at all, in the formers case.
Image
Because my old "avatar" got kind of old.
I like feathers.
Patience is key here, little grasshoper.
User avatar
Merking
Ankylosaurus
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:22 am
Location: Discord

Re: Duane Nash

Postby Monolophosaurus » Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:55 pm

velocichap wrote:I think Trey did a video explaining that vulture head dromeaosaurids are not accurate but I am still open to find out they did but Trey in that video got help from a lot of people including various paleontologists


I don't always side with Duane Nash (there is nothing wrong with him, but aside from his Smilodon lips thing [which I am still iffy about, but for the most part agree with], his proposals are basically somewhat substantiated speculation; I think I agree this time however), but are you referring to TreytheExplainer? Because I wouldn't trust a word out of that guy's mouth. He has been caught plagiarizing several times and couldn't even pronounce the word Deinonychus until like three months ago. I once corrected him on some minute detail (I think he was hating on Jurassic Park because the dinosaurs didn't have feathers, which we didn't know about at the time, so you can't say that it is truly inaccurate for its time period) and he literally responded with a series of random curse words and called me a "feather hating Jurassic Park fanboy" and then my comment was deleted.

Anyway, that's irrelevant, I apologize. I had to get that off my chest somewhere. Trey's not reliable and has no clue what he's talking about. End of.



Anyway, to actually do something productive. Just because we see that things are weird in nature doesn't automatically mean that dinosaurs looked weird. Otherwise, I see no reason why they wouldn't have bald heads. I would think Microraptor and crew would have feathered heads, and as you said Amniote, maybe Velociraptor and the gang (though I might make them bald as well), but otherwise, with the big ones, I'm almost intrigued to agree. I've been interested in Rey's idea for some time (Rey is one of my favorite paleoartists and is definitely one of the most innovative). I wouldn't label it a fact, certainly not. It is still speculation I think, but with some somewhat decent evidence. Though as has been said, don't look at Nash's honestly extremely ugly and sometimes very unrealistic images. I think Rey would be better to look at, and Rey's reconstruction looks great I think, though I would say that it probably needs more body feathers.

But all in all, we do have to remember that these animals aren't birds. They aren't gonna be identical. So they won't necessarily have all the traits in common to birds, and maybe at some point it would be best to keep it as ambiguous. But for now, I think I wouldn't mind more being illustrated this way. I think it makes more sense for the big raptors than for them to be as perfect and clean as what we see with Willoughby and Martyniuk and so on and so forth (those two are of course fantastic artists, regardless).

The only way to confirm or deny this for certain is if we got some miraculously perfect mummy, which is basically near impossible, so we can do nothing but speculate for now, and probably forever.
Officially my avatar:
Image

An underrated theropod that deserves fame.
Monolophosaurus
Velociraptor
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:27 pm

Re: Duane Nash

Postby Unkown Amniote » Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:59 pm

@Merking Soft tissue preservation is incredibly rare already, and it's near non existent for medium sized carnivorous Theropod, so that's not really saying anything. We don't have any soft tissue from the neck or head from medium sized Theropods either, so it makes your point even more void. And it is common in modern birds to have wattles, caruncles and bald heads due to their behaviour. The main reason why birds have wattles is for face biting/fighting in general. Many species try to bite the face when fighting, so many bird species have evolved lose skin and carcuncles so that when they are bit, nothing serious is hurt since it's just useless bits of skin being picked at or torn off. It's highly effective since it makes the inflicted damage during combat not that serious since useless skin is being damaged. Most wattles and bald heads are also brightly colored so that it's essentially a beacon to be biten. By becoming a beacon, rivals try to bite at the useless wattle instead of important parts like the eyes. Wattles, caruncles, bald heads and other growths are common throughout old and new world vultures, various game birds, several ducks and a miriad of other not so closely related birds, from Guinea Fowl to Cassowaries. It's actually really common. The reason why such a feature is common and near essential for medium sized carnivorous Theropods is because they were excellent scavengers. Two studies have already been done by making an AI matrix of various sized Theropods into a simulated ecosystem. Long stoty short, small sized animals were small game hunters or jackal/coyote like hunters/scavengers, medium sized animals were primarily scavengers and large sized animals were big/medium game hunters. I won't go into detail as to why the medium sized animals were excellent hunters, but the primary reasons is because they are fast enough to get to a fresh kill on time, while also being large enough to defend their carcass. Small sized animals were fast enough, but for hte most part couldn't defend a carcass (although weak jackal/coyote like analogues were still present). Large sized animals could easily defend a carcass but were sually to slow to get their in the first place, and would require a large amount of energy to get their in the first place, so it's not benificial for them.

Now that we know medium sized Theropods were the ideal scavengers*, we come to why they needed wattles, bald heads, etc. The reason why most vultures have these features is because carcasses are a battle ground of rivalry and intimidation. If anyone here has watched trail cams of carcasses, you'll see how vultures utterly dominate a carcass. And while they do so, they constantly fight eachother for the right to get to the best spot possible. That's where the wattles come into play, by protecting them from major damage. It's a common misconception that bald heads are for keeping them clean. Various other scavenging birds like various eagles don't have bald heads and they do fine. Now I know what you're gonna say: "The scavenging eagles don't have bald heads so the wattle theory doesn't hold up". Well the reason why eagles don't have wattles is because they don't really face/neck bite. Instead they primarily use intimidation wiith their sheer size to scare off rivals. But if that doesn't work then they usually kick at eachother. Since they just kick eachother's feet and stomach, they don't need fleshy head and neck wattles.

Now I know you're gonna say "But we don't know if non avian Theropods used face biting techniques". Well that's where you're wrong. Various Theropod remains from Gorgosaurus, Albertosaurus, Daspletosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, Deinonychus, Dilophosaurus and (I think) Allosaurus show signs of massive face biting:
Image
It's suprsingly common throughout the whole of Theropoda when looking at well known remains. And these bite marks didn't come from animals eating bits of the face. The bite marks show it's clear that they bit the face without really scarping it like an animal trying to eat would. And I seriously doubt that most species would jsut kick like eagles seeing as how not only can they not fly (and the fact that most of them lack wings), but they are also incredibly heavy and, you know, they have a mouth full of knife like teeth to use:
Image
What kind of multi ton behemoth would try to gracefully kick like a flying bird when you can just use your cuttlery in your mouth?

So long story short, we have evidence of face biting in the fossil record and many real world examples to support this.

*They still hunted of course, but would have spent much more time scavenging since it's more energy efficient
User avatar
Unkown Amniote
Velociraptor
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 1:08 pm

Re: Duane Nash

Postby Merking » Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:13 pm

Hm. I see your point. I guess I´ll take it with less grains of salt then, but I will still wait till we start seeing evidence for it. :/
Image
Because my old "avatar" got kind of old.
I like feathers.
Patience is key here, little grasshoper.
User avatar
Merking
Ankylosaurus
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:22 am
Location: Discord

PreviousNext

Return to Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest