![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Day 15: A dinosaur that needs more love. Kryptops palaios was found in the same rocks as Eocarcharia dinops (see day one), and consequently also came from Niger, c. 110 million years ago. A (probably) carnivorous theropod, it was roughly the height of a tall man. Very few fossils are known for Kryptops, with what there is making it possible to project the shape, and make a few educated guesses about diet and lifestyle. It's not especially glamorous, but there it was, nonetheless, strutting about West Africa in the early Cretaceous. Hopefully some more of it will be found some day.
The name means "old covered face", because the single specimen currently known appears to have had some sort of face covering, possibly of keratin. This might have served the same purpose as a vulture's bald head (easier to keep clean than feathers when you're sticking your head into entrails - although it's also been suggested that it might play a role in thermoregulation), or it may have been something to do with display. It's also been suggested that it might be some sort of mutation or chimera, and that Kryptops might actually be another Eocarcharia. Given the tremendous unlikelihood of a: being decently fossilised, and b: your fossil surviving 110 million years in order to be found, it's seems unlikely that a chance mutation would make it into the fossil record; but of course, it's by no means impossible.
The name means "old covered face", because the single specimen currently known appears to have had some sort of face covering, possibly of keratin. This might have served the same purpose as a vulture's bald head (easier to keep clean than feathers when you're sticking your head into entrails - although it's also been suggested that it might play a role in thermoregulation), or it may have been something to do with display. It's also been suggested that it might be some sort of mutation or chimera, and that Kryptops might actually be another Eocarcharia. Given the tremendous unlikelihood of a: being decently fossilised, and b: your fossil surviving 110 million years in order to be found, it's seems unlikely that a chance mutation would make it into the fossil record; but of course, it's by no means impossible.
Tags:
From:
no subject
But one that looks like it might be difficult to love, face to face! ;-)
(I'm still amused that when I go to look these things up on the images, the artists are so grudging about the feathers. Yes, okay, we will stick like a tiny patch here that looks like hair, are you sure we can't have any scales?)
From:
no subject
Some fossils have skin imprints, which are scaly. They may have been scaly all over, or they may have had a mix of scales and feathers (or some kind of feather-like integument). A few specimens appear to have been mostly scaly with feathers in a few places, suggesting that they may have had them purely for display, probably for attracting a mate (so it might only have been the males that had them, although sometimes females display for mates too. Or the females may have had them to aid in incubating eggs, although sometimes males brood too. Or...) So artists weigh up the evidence, and go with what seems likely. Some palaeoartists are real experts in their field, so if they don't draw feathers there's probably good reason.
Although admittedly there's still a lot of refusal to accept feathery dinosaurs!
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
*optional feathers keep everyone happy*
Missing the point as usual...
From:
no subject
(Even if they have got the dinosaur's hands wrong.)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
<3 And 110 million years later, Kryptops palaios is remembered and thought about and debated over.
I can't help thinking the Kryptops palaios up in dino heaven has to be a little bit pleased about that.
From:
no subject