The exploded diagram is a wonderful idea.

Also, I think that Allosaurus pose is perfectly realistic. It's just the last pose it'll ever make.

[exaggeration]The exploded diagram would be nothing but all plates & figures one would wish for combined into one, at the same scale - and no longer be a skeletal reconstruction. So you are effectively suggesting to do away with SR? [/exaggeration]

I didn't think so ;)

However, a middle ground, much like your example, wouldbe a good idea. Where we know exactly how the bones fit (tail, pelvis, sauropod dorsals with ribs) you put them together, where there are big unknowns (scapula position) you pull them apart. That way, you do not add info made up from thin air, but you do not loose the info that you have, and want to convey in the first place.

I like any skeletal reconstruction that is not the norm. Not only is it refreshing from the usual "Paul-esque" format but it allows you to make your own judgments regarding how the different elements may have worked together and helps you to think out of the box, so to speak, when it comes to life restoration.

There is definitely some mileage in an exploded skeletal diagram and Heinrich's mid-way suggestion could be a great place to start.

Fascinating post and hilarious breakdancing dino, Scott. I've never seen exploded diagrams for paleo - I'm only familiar with them in technical drawings. But why not? Great way to remove inferences about biomechanics. Nice call.

This comment has been removed by the author.

Something similar to an exploded diagram, except it's a photograph: < Ardipithecus remains

@Mike Keesey - You're right, the allosaur is a perfectly realistic pose (if one that would have tragic consequences). Yet I'd bet you the first night of drinks at SVP that it would be grounds for revision at a majority of journals.

@Heinrich - No, no, I don't want to get rid of skeletals, but if an author doesn't want to be bothered with worrying about poses or biomechanics then I think that an exploded diagram is a superior choice. People should realize that you aren't required to include a skeletal reconstruction, so if you're going to do it you should do it right. As for the unknowns... that's a future post ;)

I don't think I disagree with single point you have made so far. Now here's my thoughts on the issues you have pointed out. I doubt I will be bringing anything new to the table.

Schematic vs Realistic: If one is going to make a skeletal reconstruction one should do it well. if one isn't willing or able to put the time and effor behind good skeletal reconstruction then the preferred option in my mind should be the exploded diagram using photographs of the actual remains. Atleast in that way there's documentation of the actual shape of the bones and proportions.

Does the pose matter? Absolutely! I would be all for open standard pose simply because it would make comparison easier.

Does the pose matter? To a degree yes but to me it's ok just as long as it's realistic and something that animal could have done (more than once that is). To me more important thing is to document as much proportions and morphology as possible hence for example simple standing pose will not do as the inner side of the foot would not be clearly visible.

My comment got longer and longer, ached for illustration. Now at my blog:
http://www.drip.de/?p=1558

Thanks for launching this discussion Scott. Very helpful.

Thank you, Scott, for pointing out the importance of skeletal reconstructions and their effect on both the paleo community and the public at large. I am a big fan of schematics, since they often get the point across without suggesting that every bone in the skeleton was precisely doing such-and-such.

Is there perhaps a future hybrid where CT data, artistic reconstruction, and schematics all have a role? I think maybe, especially if technology costs drop.

Scott wrote: "The vertebral column in general is problematic; the flex in the base of the neck and the overly-straight back are positions that may be possible, but would not be terribly common for the animal."

Just a point of pedantry from your friendly neighbourhood neck-posture fanatic: the neck as illustrated is extended at the base, and flexed at the end.

(And this of course is the habitual posture of every tetrapod, as shown by Taylor et al. 2009 using other people's X-rays.)

Mike commented: "Something similar to an exploded diagram, except it's a photograph: < Ardipithecus remains"

Yes, Tidell et al. did essentially the same thing with Cedarosaurus.

@Matt - I think there are plenty of options for hybrids. And I agree with you that schematics are perfectly acceptable, they should just be labeled as such. I'll give some more thought to alternative and hybrid diagram solutions.

@Mike (Taylor) - You are right, but I was using the colloquial use of "flex" meaning "bend". I realize I switch back and forth sometimes in the blog between technical terms and more general terms...I'll have to work on a more rigorous terminological style.

As for the habbitual position...no, not in this case. The posterio neck extension would be well past the normal range, more akin to you staring at the ceiling. I agree with your findings that vertebrates habitually hold their necks erect, but that's relative to actual range of motion of the vertebrae, and in Silesaurus that much neck extension is waaaay past a normal amount of zygapophyseal overlap.

"The right humerus (the upper arm bone) is so far forward it would be completely dislocated from the shoulder socket."

Why not? Couldn't it "shrug" one shoulder independently from the other? Somewhat as if the whole shoulder was a rigid structure, like the hips? The problem is that the respective scapula is not shown moved accordingly, right?

I'm not trying to be some sort of smart ass or anything, if it sounds sarcastic.

Incidentally, I've always thought that a semi-exploded schematic with just the limbs drawn separately would be preferable to the running pose. But I never really gave much thought to it, I just find the running pose a bit exaggerated, and this alternative would be more assumption-free regarding the likelyhood of a certain gait.


dsc

The idea of just the limbs separated (in my case) is sort of borrowed from animation model sheets, by the way.


dsc

@Anon - You are right that a major problem is that the right scap is not drawn, although how much mobility was in the pectoral girdle of dinosauromorphs is not really understood, so whether the scapulae could pivot that much independent of one another isn't known for sure (although it seems reasonable). Regardless, even with the scapula in that position the arm can't swing that far forward - if the humerus swings up past about vertical it disarticulates from the glenoid fossa.

Why not just forget showing artists anything at all? The hand standing allosaur is a hoot. The silesaur pose not being habitual means nothing, actually. If the animal could have done it, why not show it that way? I know, I know, art is less important to some people than perceived accuracy. I know this is a news flash to a lot of people, but many of us artists need to sell our work to make money.

That means, make the picture interesting. That does not mean make it badly or make it inaccurate, but make it interesting. What is the normal pose for a cat, big, little, in between, whatever? Sleeping! They do it a lot. Sleeping cats can look cute, so the problem does not arise with them.

What about horses? Seen a lot of photos of horses. Seen them in books, seen them on the net, and so on. Seen pics of them galloping, jumping, racing around barrels, walking, cantering, trotting, etc.. Pics of them rearing are plentiful. Pics of them doing what they do normally, as defined by how great a percentage of their time they do it, are comparatively rare.

I've been around horses a fair deal, used to live on a farm with one. I've studied them with an artist's eye. What is the normal position for a horse? Standing still, one foot ahead of the other, its tail flicking flies away from its butt, with its head down, stuffing its face with grass. You glance at a horse ten times at random, and nine out of ten times, it will be eating.
Not exceedingly interesting, which is why most pics show them doing something else.

"Normal" poses are part of what I paint. Action poses also figure in. I do not reject either one, though some style police want me to do that.

The exploded diagram is a cool idea. I'll never look at it more than once, unless I'm painting a corpse, and I certainly will not be interested in it otherwise, but it is a cool idea. If I receive a commission to paint or draw a skeletal, I'll use other means to get my information, and those means will not include anyone's drawn skeletals, your, Paul's, anyone's art at all. I use skeletals for basic information. Very useful, yes, and many times quite beautiful, when the boney architecture is shown well.

A standard pose for skeletals is a good idea, but old GSP wants to make an issue out of it for artists like you, who use something very similar to his left-leg-thrusting-out-to-sea-and-who-knows-where-else pose. Frankly, I like your work better, but that's my taste. And, frankly, if I drew skeletals, which I am lousy at, I'd avoid GSP's standard pose like the plague. Why on earth would I want someone to think he might have drawn my skeletal?

What pose to choose? Walking or standing still, with the near leg transparentized so detail on the pelvis can be seen, without shorting information on the leg. An artist like me can interpret the positions we want from that. That's my thoughts, anyway.