This is wildly inaccurate to the point that I would consider asking for this list to be taken down.<p>We know a lot about how the muscles sits on bone, how different bone density and shapes affect strength and thus possible uses. We can also draw a lot from reptiles and living dinosaurs (birds) by looking at analogous structures that are widely present in existing animals.<p>This sort of news has been going around the Brazilian internet for quite a while to the point that a fairly well known paleontologist and science communication showed the process of how this reconstruction would be made (video, in portuguese: <a href="https://youtu.be/8TPPFcZpCbA" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/8TPPFcZpCbA</a>)
I know it’s the Daily Mail so it goes with the territory, but that website is truly obnoxious on mobile. It’s a masterclass in why having multiple content-covering boxes which are hard to dismiss is a stupid idea.
<i>> He believes Hollywood is to blame for giving dinosaurs their skeletal 'monster' image.</i><p>I don't think most dinosaurs are seen as monsters. When it comes to public relations "monsters", I think it's mostly T-Rex, and usually it isn't portrayed as skeletal. Depictions of most dinosaurs make them look cute.
One point that most illustration of the old dinosaurs probably get wrong is the lack of feathers. After all, all current dinosaurs have feathers (Yes birds are technically dinosaurs) and it seems reasonable to assume that some of their ancestors had them too. Unfortunately, unlike bones, feathers do not fossilize really well, so we cannot easily determine which species had them. The most likely reason dinosaurs developed feathers is thermal insulation, just like why mammals developed hair.
Related podcast/article.<p><a href="https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/welcome-to-jurassic-art-redux/" rel="nofollow">https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/welcome-to-jurassic-a...</a>
These images are from the book "All Yesterdays: Unique and Speculative Views of Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Animals"<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Yesterdays" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Yesterdays</a>
I didn't see the artist's website linked in the article, so here it is: <a href="http://cmkosemen.com/" rel="nofollow">http://cmkosemen.com/</a>
Can we just ban Daily Mail articles altogether from this site please? I’m all for discovering all sorts of curious things but this website and its content is just pure garbage.
Is this just meant to be silly for the fun of it? Or is it meant to suggest our real extrapolations are probably as ridiculous as these things are?<p>If we have even a single mud impression somehere, and we do, then this implication is DailyMail, I mean garbage.<p>Similarly, unless you take an artist who currently draws dinosaurs to the best of their ability with all current anatomical understanding, and THEY produce these drawings from a monkey etc, then again, DailyMail, I mean garbage.<p>"These drawings I made are stupid" on no way proves that "therefor those drawings you made are stupid."
Eons video about the history of how dinosaurs have been drawn, including the mistakes and why they were made:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDnQmBFxIfE" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDnQmBFxIfE</a>