sloppjockey · 2 days
Tumblr media
a few of my favorites from this year/ graphite and oils
274 notes · View notes
colinarcartperson · 2 days
Tumblr media
Here’s that part 2 from the commission for the wonderful Lilith!
178 notes · View notes
notpikaman · 19 hours
Tumblr media
761 notes · View notes
Tumblr media
~ Black and Gold ~
27 notes · View notes
prokopetz · 3 months
Fact: There are surviving skin impressions of every part of a tyrannosaurus’ body apart from the back between the shoulders and the top of the head, and feathers are nowhere in evidence.
Reasonable conclusion: It’s unlikely that tyrannosauruses had feathers exclusively on the specific parts of their bodies for which no skin impressions happen to have survived, so they were probably non-feathered.
Conclusion I choose to draw: Mullet.
7K notes · View notes
funnytwittertweets · 1 year
Tumblr media
113K notes · View notes
tinylongwing · 2 months
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Feather illustration for non-biologists! It occurred to me that some of you might find this useful. It starts with a necessary biology lesson, because I find that understanding the structure and function of feathers will greatly improve accurate rendering of those feathers.
A lot of this is general - obviously you can find all kinds of exceptions in the  natural world (penguins, ratites, I’m looking at you guys). But it should cover the bulk of the illustration needs if you’re not comfortable drawing feathers and want some ideas on how to improve.
For photo references, I highly recommend birdpixel (a very generous online art reference created by Leena and Vivek Khanzode), Cornell’s Macaulay Library, and Piranga, which is mostly aimed at North American bird banders but shows excellent close-ups of a variety of species.
3K notes · View notes
ilikeit-art · 7 days
Density of penguin feathers to protect from the cold.
Emperor penguins reputedly have the highest feather density of any bird, with around 100 feathers per square inch of skin (15 per square centimeter).
692 notes · View notes
katriadoodles · 6 days
Tumblr media
Birder’s inventory 🐦 Prints are here!
577 notes · View notes
bebemoon · 2 months
Tumblr media Tumblr media
"leda and the swan", created by travis banton and worn by marlene dietrich at a costume party for the countess di frasso, c. 1935 .
924 notes · View notes
maxyvert · 1 month
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Bird girl.. 🦅 
677 notes · View notes
sasharjones · 1 month
Tumblr media
oil on panel // store, patreon
642 notes · View notes
ostdrossel · 2 months
I see birds up close a lot,
and usually it is from the front. But their back is sometimes even more fascinating. The fold of the feathers, the patterns and textures. Here are a Starling and a Grackle.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
935 notes · View notes
itscolossal · 29 days
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Metamorphosis and History Merge in Meticulously Carved Sculptures by Andreas Senoner
508 notes · View notes
lacetulle · 13 days
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Teuta Matoshi | Fall/Winter 2022
496 notes · View notes
clawmarks · 3 months
Tumblr media
Vogelvlerk "ad vivum" - David Humbert de Superville - before 1849 - via Leiden University Libraries
699 notes · View notes
i-draws-dinosaurs · 7 months
are pycnofibers and feathers the same structure just diverged early on?
Short answer: Maybe, but really the question is kinda unanswerable currently
Long answer: The answer to this are built on not just one maybe, but multiple layers of maybes. To start with, in case anyone's unfamiliar, let's talk about analogous and homologous structures. In evolutionary biology, a physical feature is homologous if it is shared between two species, and the common ancestor of those two species also had that feature. A common example is that the arm of a human and the wing of a bird are homologous, because we share the same pattern of bones and our distant common ancestor had those same bones!
On the other hand, a physical feature is analogous if it has a shared function, and it may or may not share an evolutionary origin! So for example, a bat's wing and a bird's wing are both analogous (same function, powered flight) and homologous (same bone pattern shared with common ancestor). A bird's wing and a dragonfly's wing, however, are analogous, but are not homologous (they do not share an evolutionary origin).
Tumblr media
This table sums it up in a way that I find helpful, comparing analogous structures in insects and mammals. Via Wikimedia Commons.
So, the fuzz on dinosaurs and pterosaurs are pretty evidently analogous structures. They provide the same functions: temperature regulation, probably display, possibly smoothing the body's silhouette in flight? But the key question is, are they homologous? Did the common ancestor of pterosaurs and dinosaurs also have fuzzy structures?
Now, let's get to those multiple layers of maybes, starting with the issue of whether even dinosaurs had a fluffy common ancestor. We see evidence of filamentous structures in both theropods and ornithischians. These structures maybe come from the same evolutionary origin, and if they do, then the common ancestor of all dinosaurs right at the base of the tree also had filaments. As far as I'm aware, whether or not this is likely is a fairly subjective matter, but as you can probably tell from my palaeoart I lean towards the idea that dinosaurs were ancestrally fluffy.
Tumblr media
This little fellow, Lagerpeton, is one of the closest things to a dinosaur that isn't actually a dinosaur. If the ancestor of all dinosaurs was feathery, this guy probably was too!
If dinosaurs were ancestrally fluffy, then maybe the filaments of dinosaurs and pterosaurs come from the same evolutionary origin. If ancestral dinosaurs were fuzzy, that puts two very closely related lineages of fuzzy archosaurs very close together in time, some point in the Middle Triassic probably. If that's the case, then it makes sense that the common ancestor of these two groups was probably fuzzy.
However, you'll probably notice that this hypothetical scenario where ancestral fuzz is likely is constructed on top of the assumption that dinosaurs were ancestrally fuzzy, which is something that's still not fully proven. It's not even certain that all dinosaur fuzz is homologous, which makes pterosaurs tricky.
Tumblr media
Even whether the earliest pterosaurs, like Peteinosaurus, had pycnofibres is currently only a matter of hypothesis!
The reality is the evidence which would most easily resolve the mystery currently does not exist. If, say, a Triassic dinosaur and Triassic pterosaur were discovered with fuzzy filaments then that would basically confirm that these two very close groups we both ancestrally fuzzy. Even better still would be some basal avemetatarsalian from the Middle Triassic with preserved fluff. That's basically like asking for the Holy Grail though, a genuine common ancestor of pterosaurs and dinosaurs.
Unfortunately, the oldest records we do have for feathered dinosaurs and pycnofibred pterosaurs stop at about the Middle Jurassic. Any older than that, and we lose the sites with immaculately fine silt grains that preserve soft tissue like feathers. That's not to say a future beautiful Middle Triassic silt bed couldn't show up, and oh boy I really hope one does eventually, but for now there's simply nothing out there to offer concrete proof.
Tumblr media
Jeholopterus, an anurognathid pterosaur from the Middle to Late Jurassic of China, preserved with evidence of pycnofibres. Via Wikimedia Commons.
So in the absence of this proof, what do we do? I'd consider Occam's Razor a decent guiding principle here, although it's less reliable in some other areas of evolutionary biology. Occam's Razor basically states that the most reasonable explanation is one that doesn't unnecessarily multiply the entities of a problem.
To put it another way, it seems more reasonable, in an evolutionary sense, that three closely related groups (ornithischians, theropods, and pterosaurs) got their fuzziness from one fuzzy common ancestor. The alternate explanation is that two (or possibly three) very closely related groups all independently evolved remarkably similar feathery coats from being initially scaly.
Occam's Razor isn't foolproof, and there's a reason that we have the term convergent evolution, but in this case I think we should consider it a reasonable guess that the common ancestor of dinosaurs and pterosaurs had some sort of fluffy filaments, and that feathers and pycnofibres are indeed homologous.
But just to be clear, this is not the answer!! This is a best guess, a hypothesis based on available lines of evidence that disappear in the crucial stages of its evolutionary history, and the application of a logical rule of thumb to cap it off. Just because that's the side I lean towards, doesn't mean that the issue is settled or that I wouldn't change my perspective if new evidence came to light. That's the great thing about science after all!
So, I do hold to my original statement that right now, this question is not truly answerable (even though I've now spent almost 1000 words trying to answer it). We can guess and hypothesise, but for now the real answer remains out of reach.
1K notes · View notes