Re: SDCC Dinosauria: Dienosuchus vs. Parasaurolophus - Link in 1st Post
I'm going to finally find the appropriate time to post this review. My apologies not only for its lateness (though, as many of you know, that's not entirely my fault this go around
), but I have been kept quite busy lately with numerous obligations both business and personal. Digression aside, let's get to the diorama...
Dinosauria Review #5: Deinosuchus VS Parasaurolophus diorama
I'll start by saying this was one of my most highly anticipated collectible purchases this year. It's the Cretaceous equivalent of the extant Great White shark breaching whilst attacking a Fur seal, literally propelled from the water by the sheer force of the attack. Therein lay the intrinsic artistic merit for me, having spent so much time over the years studying both sharks and crocodilians. I've often sat and mused on what a Deinosuchus attack would be like. Extant crocodylians burst from just beneath the water to pluck their surprised victims from shorelines; and while taking prey in the water, often they don't reveal their presence by way of more than a slight ripple in their wake. To see the violence of the typical shoreline attack meshed quite efficaciously is very appealing to me. With a victim much smaller than the attacking predator, taken in water still quite shallow for the crocodylian, it's very plausible that the Deinosuchus could be rocketed from the water by the nature of the assault. I may have mentioned briefly in passing previously, but crocodylians are not mindless carnivores in the light the public typically conceives of them today. There's a reason these creatures have been deified by humans over millennia - their power; mystique (for such large creatures); ferocity; and, believe it or not, their cunning. I remember how startling it was when an Estuarine crocodile was first observed hauling a Bull shark from the water, simply holding the shark within its jaws until the shark asphyxiated before dismembering it. A minimum of effort on land for an attack which would have expended a great amount of energy and risked a great deal of injury in an aqueous environ. This behavior speaks to a fair degree of impressive adaptive behavior in hunting dangerous animals in the water. We're used to seeing crocodiles taking terrestrial animals off balance in the water in order to drown and rend them asunder... seeing them utilize and reverse the exact same tried and true tactic for aquatic creatures by removing them from the water is... at the very least... troubling, humbling, and awe-inspiring. This ostensibly may seem pleonasm, but I'm using this point to illustrate why I like the back story for the piece which at first was quite controversial due to the anthropomorphizing. Crocodylians are canny creatures, relying upon deception in order to obtain prey large enough to sustain them. Using a backstory which buttresses that crafty and adaptable nature is actually quite relevant.
The next point I'll hit on is the exclusive skull. It's very, very well done, and appears to have been largely based on the famous AMNH "Phobosuchus" reconstruction, though broadened posteriorly in the maxilla for a better eye to accuracy in the more recent Deinosuchus skull reconstructions. I'm pleased to see the inclusion of the large fenestrations in the anterodorsal surfaces of the premaxilla. This pair of cryptic openings is considered anomalous to Deinosuchus, and we only know of it from the initial reconstruction by Roland T. Bird, and admittedly when he unearthed the fossil he removed bone from the region at the tip of the snout when exhuming the remains. It's good that SS opted to include these features on the skull such that we're not certain whether or not these fenestrations would have existed in Deinosuchus, but they seem more likely due unto an error on the part of Bird as opposed to a distinct anomaly for the species. At any rate, I'm glad that SS didn't omit this small feature, which may appear obfuscating to many as to the location of the nares, though hopefully this may help clear up why those holes are present concurrent with the nares on the dorsal portion of the premaxilla.
As to the sculpt itself, it is truly, utterly breathtaking. Again, I'm very happy with how the skull is rendered. It is long like a crocodile's but retains the bulk and greater width of an alligator skull. This is exactly how we believe a Deinosuchus skull should appear. The both famous and infamous initial derivation, "Phobosuchus," had a skull which bowed outward far too much in the mandible posteriorly, and which tapered to great excess in the snout. In short, it was made to appear just as a giant crocodile would have, and that's simply not the case. The animal is actually plausibly more closely related to modern alligators phylogenetically than to crocodiles. Hence why we have characters of both retained in the fossil evidence. Characters of both, but again though I hate to use the " like _____ on steroids" platitude, that's precisely the case here. A true tank of an organism, and considering that it lived and shared its territory with a number of Cretaceous North American theropods, it's entirely likely that said theropods were also prey to Deinosuchus, as it certainly had the physical assets to dismantle most with relative ease. Also one thing to keep in consideration is that as the length of crocodylians increases, their weight also increases exponentially. To give an idea of bulk to relative total body length, a 40 foot long Deinosuchus would have weight about 8.5 tons, which is a ton and a half higher than the weight of a large T.rex. Again, an immense creature.
Extremely thick tooth composition with vertical striations on the tooth crowns, increasing the potential for greater enamel to be present, and overall a cumulatively much stronger tooth… teeth incredibly powerful even by the standards to which we hold crocodylians or other large carnivores. The osteoderms (“scutes”) along the back are deeply inserted into the dorsal muscle, acting as load-bearing mechanisms. Think of flying buttresses on gothic cathedrals, supporting the structure and yet being external to the central mass itself. The reason that crocodylians can efficiently move over land or cover large areas with such speed is precisely due unto the osteoderms studded across their backs. The crocoylians “high-walk” in which the animals lift themselves off the ground, potentially galloping, rather than dragging their bellies is one such result of this. With Deinosuchus, the osteoderms are staggeringly large, again even in comparison to other crocodylians both extant and extinct. Looking jointly at the teeth and the redistributed muscular tension in Deinosuchus, the inference at which we readily find ourselves is that this was a true powerhouse carnivore; an incredibly strong organism and the dominant carnivore along the Western Interior Seaway. Along southeastern portion of the continent (what we know today as Mississippi), Deinosuchus reached their densest population abundance, but around Montana would have been where the largest members of the species were found – creatures approaching 40 feet in length! This is where I’ll reach one of my criticisms of the diorama, and it lies not in the statue itself, but in the backstory to which I have already alluded. The brief narrative details the carnivores to be presumably an older, dominant female individual at a staggering size of 45 feet. Firstly, among crocodylians, males are predominantly quite a bit larger than females, and we have no reason to believe Deinosuchus differed in this regard. The male crocodylians are those individuals that are known to reach gargantuan proportions, and 45 feet would be considered gargantuan for Deinosuchus. It would have to be a male of advanced age to be so very massive. It’s persnickety, yes, but it’s an easy mental correction for me to reinvent my own narrative with the Deinosuchus as an elder male, somewhat akin to the “elder statesman” T.rex maquette. Same basic idea, but different species.
The base on this piece isawesome. Easily my favorite of any of the Dinosauria statues thus far. Not only for its dynamism, but because it genuinely appears to be a still capture of muddy water. For it to be disrupted so violently as the Deinosuchus bursts forth from the water in this manner, it’s an excellent accent to this piece. While the Parasaur appears to be a subadult based on the size of its crest and relative mass as compared to the predator, it’s an immense mouthful for the crocodylian. The real punishing teeth on a Deinosuchus are situated somewhat posteriorly on the maxilla, and those are the teeth being driven with such depth and power into the abdominal and thoracic cavities of the young hadrosaur. As to the paint application, I’ve been reading the comments and observing the pictures here in the thread, and the mottled coloring on the dorsal surface of the Deinosuchus’ skull serves as a fine compliment to the differentiated cryptic coloration on the torso, breaking up the body pattern on such an immense animal. The only think I might have changed on the Deinosuchus would have been the addition of sensory pores on the anterior-most portion of the premaxilla. These pores are present in extant crocodylians and there’s no reason to assume it didn’t also exist in Deinosuchus. Granted we can’t know for certain, but these are important sensory features on today’s crocodylians, allowing for the animal to detect the slightest vibrations in its surrounding aquatic environment and better home in on prey. A large part of Deinosuchus’ diet would have been comprised of large turtles, and considering the locomoting of turtles in water, the sensory pores would have been quite handy for detection. This feature could have been easily added whether in sculpt or paint application. Again, it’s a minor nitpick, but just a thought. The Parasaur’s color I find quite pleasing. The stripes on the flanks and tail aren’t as well defined, but are perhaps a much more aesthetically intriguing and plausible feature for it. Likewise the coloration of the nasal crest does have blue tinged with green, visible well in the correct lighting.
Most of you know by now that I like to include a lot of background for informative purposes in most of my reviews, and I endeavored to do as much here in the event that a lot of people may not be very familiar with this magnificent hunter. Overall this is one of my favorite statues in the line. I’m very reticent to ever say one statue is my favorite, though this is certainly a contender for the accuracy to present paleontological data in the sculpt, the pleasing paint application, and this beau ideal of a base. Again, my apologies for having taken so long to deliver the review, but for this piece it was certainly worth taking the extra time to do it justice.
