This is sort of a WIP, but I'm happy with it for the most part. It was done for the North American Museum of Ancient Life. I based it off of a Ceratosaurus specimen on display there. And yes, the fangs really are that big in the fossil.
Thanks, ferahgo. I'm still working out the kinks in that technique, though. I need to pay more attention to my light source, I think. We'll see if I can fix that in my next drawing, which should be ready in roughly a week, universe permitting.
Wonderful picture. And I won't tell you the teeth look too big LOL. I can't see a problem with them, though I can't really tell much from the size of the photo of this little brat. I've certainly seen similar sized rows of fangs on other creatures. I would question how he *used* them, but I don't think I'd question the size.
My guess is that it was an ambush predator that avoided prolonged struggles with prey (the teeth were very thin). It might inflict a few very deep bites, and allow the victim to bleed out. This might explain why the teeth seem relatively bigger in juveniles. They needed to accomplish the same task with a smaller overall body size. Just a guess, until I get the time machine working again (cracked head gasket).
to me it rather look that the teeth have dropped down on their sockets and the tooth root part is visible. So I'm not that sure that it had such a long teeth although ceratosaurus had BIG teeth.
Cool stuff again!
Yes, the teeth do look abnormally large, but that's how the skull has been restored at Western Paleo Labs. I have a bunch of reference photos of the skull if you or anyone else would like them. The nasal horn is especially weird. I held the original fossil in my hand, just to make sure...and it seems to bulge a bit near the top, as if the horn became a boss instead of a blade. That must change during ontogeny, because the adults definitely have a more blade-like horn. Or, maybe it's simply a new species of Ceratosaurus (it hasn't been assigned yet, though). Dan Chure or Brooks Britt will be describing it soon I'm told.
Very nicely done. I'm tempted to add this to my favorites. That is one large fanged Ceratosaur. Wow. I don't think anything wants to be prey to this guy. I think you did a good job not adding any furry integument to this gentleman here, as now most theropod drawing are being filled with integument. I don't know which stance to take, though. Just because some had it, doesn't mean they all had it, and I think bigger carnivores have enough heat in their bodies to not need integument either...so...good job.
Ah, thank you very much. As you can tell, I'm not a fan of fuzziness. If I do draw coelurosaurs in the future, they'll be few and far between. The idea of a Ceratosaurus having protofeathers is (to me) completely and utterly ludicrous. We have scutes from another specimen showing that armor was present, and it was closely related to Carnotaurus, which also had scutes and scales. What more can you ask for? Personally, I think fluff originated in basal coelurosauria, and should be limited to that clade. We have preserved integument for 'Ceratosaurs' and 'Allosaurs', both of which have scales. Until we find evidence to the contrary in primitive theropods, I'll play it safe. I shall put an end to this featheriferous heresy...by bringing scaly back. Hehe
Good job. Good good job. I say their babies might have had them, but once they're full grown, gigantic adults, they would not possess these feathers due to whatever thermodynamics they posess. The bigger, the warmer=less need for feather. 'Sides, most of these dinos evolved these protofeathers as a mean of insulation, coz I honestly don't see any of those generally short armed theropods using these to levitate or whatever...except for the usual suspects=the sinornithoidids, or however you spell that.. Besides, there's still no proof that these "carnosaurs" posessed the feathers...its all BS.