Scar
Super Freak
My sentiments exactly. I've become a fan of pieces about this size, since it's not hard to find a place for them, and they are still loaded with so much detail as to captivate you in perpetuity.
The Carnotaurus Maquette
- Thread starter Karma
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
My sentiments exactly. I've become a fan of pieces about this size, since it's not hard to find a place for them, and they are still loaded with so much detail as to captivate you in perpetuity.
Agent0028
Inebriated
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,758
- Reaction score
- 1
Of course not 1:1.........but a little bigger than what they are sure....I got all kinds of room...2 infact
Chris
*sigh* That must be nice.
Scar
Super Freak
Must be. I've moved my entire dvd and blu-ray collection into brief cases in my crawl space, using their old shelf space for collectibles. It's getting crowded.
Scar
Super Freak
Funny how you start fidning new places to put things. I've even started putting my 12" figures on my bookcases in front of the books. Something I never thought I would do.
What's sad is that I do the exact same thing. I try to stick with a theme, like the JP and dino collectibles with my paleo literature, Marvel and DC items with graphic novels, LotR statues with the books, bone clones merch with zoological books, etc. Now it's overlapping everywhere but I still try to keep things in their own sections where it makes sense. The last item I thought was a thoughtful placement was the HT Davy Jones by my piranha tank. Since then, I just try to make it appear organized. I know that when my girlfriend moves in with me I'm going to have to have ALL of my delightfully eccentric statues in our homes theater... except the paleontological and zoological which I'll want in my "study". (Bear in mind this is all theoretical; hell, I'm still trying to convince my girlfriend for us to have an armory in our house one day. We'll see how that goes.
)
Scar
Super Freak
There are going to be a lot of concessions at that time. I've made peace with that already.
I wonder now when we'll get a look at the next maquette. I would hate to have to wait until SDCC for the next preview... but now I may just be getting greedy.
Scar
Super Freak
Anyone check out the 360 for this yet? Scoped it out yesterday afternoon and so far I'm really, really happy. I've gotten a real appreciation for their attention to paleontological detail with this piece.
One thing that stood out for me was the horns. They are very, very well done. It's kind of difficult to tell on the exclusive skull whether or not the horns are bowed inwards, since we don't have a 360 for that, but on the maquette you can see the horns curve slightly in a u-shape, which is EXACTLY what we know the horns to do... not so much from the fossilized bone horns themselves, but because we know corneous layers were deposited over the bone similar to the hollow horns of bovids but with a bone basis. In this way, (again I'll come back to the bovids comparison), it's a crucial deduction because in bovids we know them to be used for purposes of head-butting, defense, and impaling in many cases. From analysis of the epaxial muscles we know there are regions both of the skeleton and musculature built to absorb impact; the skull could have absorbed a blow from another animal going between probably 5-6 mph head-on... which translates to the numbers we have for big-horned sheep and rhinos. But there's something else... The musculature was also reinforced for low, sweeping movements when a single block of muscle on either side of the body could have absorbed the shock. This means that the Carnotaurus is the only known animal, extant or extinct, believed to have used its horns for the purpose of impaling, raking, and killing prey! It's literally the "flesh-eating bull" as its name purports.
A few more interesting things I haven't mentioned about the care taken into this sculpt. With the Carnotaurus positioned low to the ground with its mouth agape, it is positioned in a way to capture its ideal prey. Using calculations grounded in the Carnortaurus femur and its proportion to the tibia and fibula, we can adequately demonstrate that it was capable of galloping, meaning that it was a medium-sized theropod which was extremely fast for its day and designed to bring down small, fast prey. The converse example with be Tyrannosaurus rex, whose femur, extremely large in proportion to the tibia and fibula, would have brought down slower prey and have speed more akin to an African elephant capable of only short bursts and ambling, rather than galloping.
But how do we know Carnotaurus brought down small animals? Just because it is fast doesn't mean its prey was small. True, but it has a relatively "weak" lower jaw. The reason I saw "weak" in quotes is because it ties into the design of the Carnotaurus skull as being highly kinetic. By kinetic, I mean that it has a large number of sutures, and unlike the sutures in the human skull which feature a minute range of motion, the Carnotaurus skull was capable of much, much more. It sacrifices strength for dynamism and speed.
Again, opposite T.rex, its jaws were very, very fast rather than very, very strong. T.rex would have had extremely quick-acting jaws as well, but due to its design and where muscles would have necessarily attached, Carnotaurus comes out on top. So what we have here is an animal capable of very decent speeds, with quick-acting jaws, and a highly kinetic skull... The kinetic skull is important for these reasons: the sutures between the premaxilla and nasal bones on the upper jaw would have allowed that portion of the muzzle to rotate upwards, and the sutures throughout the lower jaw would have allowed it to bow outwards to a staggering degree. Again, much like in snakes and lizards, the Carnotaurus would have been able to expand its jaw to eat small prey WHOLE. Another interesting thing, is that with the recurved teeth, regardless of whichever jaw were rotating at a particular time, the teeth were suited to hold onto the struggling prey until slain or engulfed alive.
If the muzzle rotated upwards, the mandible stayed rigid, if the muzzle depressed downwards, the mandible expanded. A hell of a lot of dynamism in a skull. Also, just something that's kind of cool, is that the skull was transversely depressed, meaning pressed inwards on either side and the area around the orbits is seemingly scant with sutures. We can deduce that the animal would have always been able to maintain visual contact with its prey, regardless of what its jaws were doing, and also, like T.rex, that it had binocular stereoscopic vision... though not nearly as advanced as T.rex.
Just some things that popped into mind about the beauty of this animal and the care put into the SS sculpt. Such a cool dino, I'm thrilled it' going to be our first maquette.
One thing that stood out for me was the horns. They are very, very well done. It's kind of difficult to tell on the exclusive skull whether or not the horns are bowed inwards, since we don't have a 360 for that, but on the maquette you can see the horns curve slightly in a u-shape, which is EXACTLY what we know the horns to do... not so much from the fossilized bone horns themselves, but because we know corneous layers were deposited over the bone similar to the hollow horns of bovids but with a bone basis. In this way, (again I'll come back to the bovids comparison), it's a crucial deduction because in bovids we know them to be used for purposes of head-butting, defense, and impaling in many cases. From analysis of the epaxial muscles we know there are regions both of the skeleton and musculature built to absorb impact; the skull could have absorbed a blow from another animal going between probably 5-6 mph head-on... which translates to the numbers we have for big-horned sheep and rhinos. But there's something else... The musculature was also reinforced for low, sweeping movements when a single block of muscle on either side of the body could have absorbed the shock. This means that the Carnotaurus is the only known animal, extant or extinct, believed to have used its horns for the purpose of impaling, raking, and killing prey! It's literally the "flesh-eating bull" as its name purports.
A few more interesting things I haven't mentioned about the care taken into this sculpt. With the Carnotaurus positioned low to the ground with its mouth agape, it is positioned in a way to capture its ideal prey. Using calculations grounded in the Carnortaurus femur and its proportion to the tibia and fibula, we can adequately demonstrate that it was capable of galloping, meaning that it was a medium-sized theropod which was extremely fast for its day and designed to bring down small, fast prey. The converse example with be Tyrannosaurus rex, whose femur, extremely large in proportion to the tibia and fibula, would have brought down slower prey and have speed more akin to an African elephant capable of only short bursts and ambling, rather than galloping.
But how do we know Carnotaurus brought down small animals? Just because it is fast doesn't mean its prey was small. True, but it has a relatively "weak" lower jaw. The reason I saw "weak" in quotes is because it ties into the design of the Carnotaurus skull as being highly kinetic. By kinetic, I mean that it has a large number of sutures, and unlike the sutures in the human skull which feature a minute range of motion, the Carnotaurus skull was capable of much, much more. It sacrifices strength for dynamism and speed.
Again, opposite T.rex, its jaws were very, very fast rather than very, very strong. T.rex would have had extremely quick-acting jaws as well, but due to its design and where muscles would have necessarily attached, Carnotaurus comes out on top. So what we have here is an animal capable of very decent speeds, with quick-acting jaws, and a highly kinetic skull... The kinetic skull is important for these reasons: the sutures between the premaxilla and nasal bones on the upper jaw would have allowed that portion of the muzzle to rotate upwards, and the sutures throughout the lower jaw would have allowed it to bow outwards to a staggering degree. Again, much like in snakes and lizards, the Carnotaurus would have been able to expand its jaw to eat small prey WHOLE. Another interesting thing, is that with the recurved teeth, regardless of whichever jaw were rotating at a particular time, the teeth were suited to hold onto the struggling prey until slain or engulfed alive.
If the muzzle rotated upwards, the mandible stayed rigid, if the muzzle depressed downwards, the mandible expanded. A hell of a lot of dynamism in a skull. Also, just something that's kind of cool, is that the skull was transversely depressed, meaning pressed inwards on either side and the area around the orbits is seemingly scant with sutures. We can deduce that the animal would have always been able to maintain visual contact with its prey, regardless of what its jaws were doing, and also, like T.rex, that it had binocular stereoscopic vision... though not nearly as advanced as T.rex.
Just some things that popped into mind about the beauty of this animal and the care put into the SS sculpt. Such a cool dino, I'm thrilled it' going to be our first maquette.
Havok
Super Freak
Wow that was a very educational read Scar. Can't say that I understood all of it, but it was cool nonetheless.
Scar
Super Freak
Glad you liked it. Sorry if it was an overwhelming rant, but I was trying to think of all of the things that make this such an outrageously cool dino and such an excellent choice for a maquette! 
Scar
Super Freak
Refreshing to read some comprehensive takes like yours Scar. Great 'analysis' which hopefully demonstrates this line is off to a good start.
The line really is off to an excellent start with such an interesting carnivore. I'm wondering whether or not the upcoming Styracosaurus maquette will be as popular as the carnivores... I'll be snagging one, but I'm curious whether or not people will react as positively to the prehistoric herbivores as to the carnivores.
Havok
Super Freak
I have a feeling the Carnivores might be more popular, although there's a few Herbivores that I would really like to have as statues. I'm gonna have to be selective with this line though, cause I just don't have the space to get every single one that comes out.
Studio49
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2008
- Messages
- 946
- Reaction score
- 1
I would like to see multiple dino's on one piece that aren't trying to kill each other. I can't specifically say which beasts I would like to see together, but I imagine a large, lumbering dino with smaller creatures running around on the base, all in proper scale of course. What do you think of this idea?
samueljd
Super Freak
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 7,329
- Reaction score
- 1
I know I'll be picking up a Styracosaurus if it looks good.
Scar
Super Freak
You mean like a herd dynamic with herbivores, or with parental/pack behavior with carnivores? I would like that very much also. A few dios I have in my mind are the famous Velociraptor vs. Protoceratops, Allosaurus vs. Stegosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus vs. Argentinasaurus, and Utahraptor vs. Iguanodon or Gastonia. Any and all of those would be awesome.
