Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Koolasuchus and girl rework by dewlap Koolasuchus and girl rework by dewlap
I'm so bad at painting on computer (or just painting in general). I know this is just a rework of a drawing that I did ages ago (can't really remember when I did it...), but I think this could be a good practice for myself.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconpaleop:
Paleop Featured By Owner Jul 31, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
if you don't mind my asking,
 do you know  where I can find a dorsal view picture of a koolasuchus skeleton, or any references you used?
thank you for your time :) 
Reply
:icondewlap:
dewlap Featured By Owner Aug 18, 2016
Sorry for the late reply, here is the paper that has diagrams of dorsal views of the specimen (www.researchgate.net/publicati…).
Reply
:iconpaleop:
Paleop Featured By Owner Aug 18, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
thank you :) 
and the late reply is fine ;) 
Reply
:iconthedubstepaddict:
TheDubstepAddict Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Cool, but I liked the other colour much more
Reply
:icontrilobitecannibal:
TrilobiteCannibal Featured By Owner Aug 3, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
KOOLasuchus
Reply
:iconthedubstepaddict:
TheDubstepAddict Featured By Owner Aug 4, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Ok
Reply
:iconbealmeister:
Bealmeister Featured By Owner Jul 30, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
That is one big Amphibian! 0_0
Reply
:iconnixkat:
NixKat Featured By Owner May 4, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Kool
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
130cm tall girl o,e 
Reply
:icondewlap:
dewlap Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2014
She is about 160cm... I've answered this a few times before but if you are interested then just read some of the messages above.
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Made some calculations from measuring, apparently gets it to less than 140 cm compared to the  1m scale bar, actually.
Reply
:icondewlap:
dewlap Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2014
if you say so; I'm not going to argue about it since I've explained it earlier if you don't agree with it that is fine. Some people can see the logic some just can't :-)
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I've read the lower argument to see what that ''logic'' would be, and I hadn't counted the foot. Apparently if the part of her leg that is ''hidden'' is as long or longer than the ''visible'' part, that stretches her height up to 150cm. It's still pretty small for a human, that is. :o
Reply
:iconfragillimus335:
Fragillimus335 Featured By Owner May 3, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Just imagine she's 13 years old, then it's perfect.
Reply
:iconrandomdinos:
randomdinos Featured By Owner May 3, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Kind of. Sweating a little... 
Reply
:icondewlap:
dewlap Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2014
Not necessarily, if you stretch out the legs the whole figure would be approx. 20% (a little less) taller (see postimg.org/image/gt96shoa7/, though it is just a figure but you see what I mean...). If your estimate was a little less than 140cm before then adding another 20% (approx.) would make it slightly more than 160cm. Definitely not too short for some adult females. This would be my last respond because I've answered this for so many time now :-)
Reply
:iconfragillimus335:
Fragillimus335 Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
That girl is freaking tiny! Her chest is ~9 inches wide! Scale that poor doll up!
Reply
:icondewlap:
dewlap Featured By Owner May 1, 2013
I've answered this before so please go back to my comment on March 11th 2010. You're not the only one that gets confused :-)
Reply
:iconfragillimus335:
Fragillimus335 Featured By Owner May 1, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
That doesn't change the fact that her entire head and torso is less than 1.8 feet long...Even with her legs extended she wouldn't be more than 1.45 meters tall.
Reply
:icondewlap:
dewlap Featured By Owner May 2, 2013
No, I think you are wrong on this one. She should be about 160cm when the legs are extended. The lower leg on the left could be measured since it doesn't have much tilt on it (about 40 something cm; around knee to heel) then adding the thigh (roughly the length of the lower leg) then you should get roughly 160cm which I think it's not so bad for a female height.
Reply
:iconamnioticoef:
AmnioticOef Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2011
I love this piece, it's got waves of ancientness radiating off of it :D .

How much of this would you say is speculative?
Reply
:icondewlap:
dewlap Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2011
Thanks for your compliment. I'm glad you like it.

As for your query, here is what I wrote earlier to someone who asked a similar question (please see below):

"...As far as the overall shape of the animal (Koolasuchus)goes... it was constructed from other more complete primitive amphibians... hence the size was roughly approximated. All I have known and seen are its jaw fragments, and nothing else..." At the time the drawing was done or perhaps even now, unfortunately...

So pretty much the whole animal apart from the curvature and size of the jaw of course. Sorry to disappoint...
Reply
:iconamnioticoef:
AmnioticOef Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2011
It's still cool, and probably not all that far off.
Reply
:iconmarsu305:
marsu305 Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2011  Student General Artist
ooo Koolasuchus is kool! :lol:
Reply
:icondewlap:
dewlap Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2011
I think so too.
Reply
:iconpristichampsus:
Pristichampsus Featured By Owner Oct 4, 2010  Professional General Artist
I object to this style of labyrinthodont portrayal. It is well known that these animals had a covering of scales.
Reply
:icondewlap:
dewlap Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2010
It is good to hear from someone who knows the object. Could you please show me a reference about this because I would love to read it (since I'm just a layperson on the subject... :) )
Reply
:iconpristichampsus:
Pristichampsus Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2010  Professional General Artist
Firstly, in the Paleontology volume (volume 4) of "Amphibian Biology" by Surry Beatty and sons. It is said that temnospondyls were too large to respire by cutaneous respiration, and thus did not have slimy porous skin. Also, the amount of slime that the skin would secrete would be wasteful of moisture in such large animals.

Also, impressions of dermal scutes have been found in many temnospondyls. Including dissorophids. Here is a reference that mentions it:

[link]

Dissorophis, Peltobatrachus, cacops, and platyhystrix all have dermal armor.

Plaigosaurs had dermal scutes also.

[link]

Brachyopids, including koolahsuchus, are related to plaigosaurs, so one could assume they had scales too.

While more derived temnospondyls usually only have belly scutes, it is still likely that they had a covering of horny scales like reptiles. Although it is possible that the scales were embedded in the skin.

Also, I am a layperson too.
Reply
:icondewlap:
dewlap Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2010
Sorry I'm a slow reader... hence the late reply.

It is quite true that there are scutes found on these animals. I've read (more like skimming through...) them but somehow I just couldn't see any solid proof (an impression of some kind) that their bodies is fully covered with scales. Some large scutes on certain areas (like laterally or ventrally...)yes, there are impressions of them but body covering scales... no. Your links implied some ornate scutes rather than the whole body covered with scales. It seems odd that the scutes are preserved to be found while we didn't find any scales for them (maybe it is in the Surry Beatty and sons' paper which I don't have access to at the moment).

[link]

...The thickness of the epidermis is unknown and therefore cannot be dismissed as 'too thick' (e.g., Ultsch 1997). In the case of heavily ornamented dermal bone the epidermis may have followed
the ornament pattern quite closely, and where the ornament was reduced, skin folds may have hung from it, as suggested for Crassigyrinus (Clack 1998)... [link]

In any case I might just add scutes to it but probably no to cover the whole animal with scales. It might be fully aquatic when the animal mature perhaps they don't need full body scales to prevent dehydration. It is hard to say since I'm more of a layperson than you are...
Reply
:iconpristichampsus:
Pristichampsus Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2010  Professional General Artist
Just so long as you dont give them glandular frog skin, because that would make no sense.
Reply
:icondewlap:
dewlap Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2010
I wasn't intentionally going for the granular frog skin (don't think there is any granules on my drawing...) but I was trying to have the skin for the Koolasuchus like the giant salamanders (kind of leathery). So basically what you are saying is that it is pretty much no change but adding some scutes... (although I'm not sure how big or the shape of them) I'll just have to wait and see if there are more materials (such as scutes) turn up before I make any changes...
Reply
:iconpristichampsus:
Pristichampsus Featured By Owner Oct 7, 2010  Professional General Artist
I meant *glandular* as in slimy, with pores.

I made the suggestion because a recent illustration of Koolahsuchus by Peter Trusler gave it a full coat of reptillian scales. I saw this as logical given that similar amphibians gave rise to reptiles. But a leathery skin is equally logical, as some reptiles such as turtles are scaleless with leathery skin.
Reply
:icondewlap:
dewlap Featured By Owner Oct 7, 2010
Ah... my bad (I've misread your post). Then again I didn't make it slimy, it was "just" out of water so it is kind of glossy (that was my intention, I'm sorry that you didn't see it that way...) just to indicate to the viewers that they are at least semi-aquatic and amphibian-like. You have reading into too much of my drawing, it wasn't suppose to be representing sliminess of the skin...

To be honest, I do doubt that they have a full coat of reptilian scales, the best that they would have developed are fish-like dermal scales (which are not homologous structures to the reptilian scales).

When you said "well known" (...that these animals had a covering of scales...) from your original message I thought you must have some kind of direct evidence to back your claim, however, on your last post you stated that you are basing this from a picture and your interpretation of this picture. Sorry from my ignorance and I'm sorry but only a picture (from your last post) doesn't make it a "well known" fact. It is just a theory.

This actually reminds me of the "biplane microraptor", I won't get into the details but basically you have one group of scientists saying that they (microraptors) sprayed their legs because it is more flight efficient and "logical", on the other hand you have another group of scientists saying that it would be structurally (hip socket and femur head joint) impossible for the microraptors to achieve such pose. I've seen some of the leg spraying illustrations of microraptor... so does it make it a irrefutable "well known" fact that they sprayed their legs during flight (because it is logical) or even have the ability to spread their legs to the side? It is a theory... yes but has it been proven as well known (proven fact), the answer is NO...

BTW when I said leathery skin, I was talking about perhaps something equivalent to some tree frog skin which has a waterproof layer (perhaps developed from keratin, similar to the keratin that you found on their hands and feet).
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconjason244555:
Jason244555 Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2010
I was always amazed at how big Koolasuchus's head is. The whole animal looks so much like a salamander, just so much bigger.
Reply
:icondewlap:
dewlap Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2010
As far as size goes for this animal, we don't have much of it. All we have I think are some fragmented jaws and bits of the skull. So the overall shape and size of this animal in this drawing is quite speculative. I just scaled up other primitive amphibian fossils to build this animal and it could be totally wrong...

Just like another famous Australian fossil Megalania (a giant lizard), it was originally estimated to be 6-7m when first discovered then this estimation has gone down to 4-5m (Wroe 2002), in addition recent studies suggested that it was approx. 7m again (Molnar 2004)... :-)

Hopefully someday we will find more of this animal, so we can construct a more accurate depiction of it.
Reply
:iconnemo-ramjet:
nemo-ramjet Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2010
She must be very short - like, 130cm tall?
Reply
:icondewlap:
dewlap Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2010
It is a top view. She is leaning down with her knees up (right knee supporting the left on top). I can't remember it now but I think she is about 165 or 170 cm. I didn't realize you would have a hard time seeing it, because if you look at the lower left leg then you would notice that the right lower leg should be proportionally longer (that is if you lay both legs flat). Unless her right leg is shorter than the left. Also light source is coming from roughly top left, since the front of the right lower leg is bending away from this light source, therefore it is in the shadow (you would definitely see more light on the right lower leg if it is parallel to the ground plane). I thought it was quite clear (but it wasn't for you...), sorry to cause you any confusion :-)
Reply
:iconnemo-ramjet:
nemo-ramjet Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2010
Aha, now I see it. Sorry I overlooked her bent knees. What an awesome animal... I wonder if its skin was frog-smooth, or if it had extensive wrinkles, or maybe even small scales...
Reply
:icondewlap:
dewlap Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2010
I was looking at some of the giant salamanders' photos, I think on the Japanese one they have quite smooth slimy skin but on the Chinese one their skins have some kind of knobs and bumps, also slimy.

I'm a lazy person so I took the easy way out which is the smooth skin version. I have kept the body quite straight so I don't have to do too many creases on the body (they do get bunched up quite a bit, the skin is very loose on these animals) . Beside I think people rather seeing the animal that way because it would make it easier to see the length of the animal.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
  • Photo
Download JPG 1000 × 1441





Details

Submitted on
March 10, 2010
Image Size
300 KB
Resolution
1000×1441
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
12,790 (1 today)
Favourites
121 (who?)
Comments
49
Downloads
401
×