Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Hadrosaur by Eurwentala Rudolph the Red-Nosed Hadrosaur by Eurwentala
Just in time for December: a pair of Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis, an Arctic hadrosaur from Northern Alaska.

Ugrunaaluk lived well north of the Arctic circle, in a region that experienced a four-month long polar night. During this time, temperatures probably stayed mostly around zero degrees Celsius with plenty of rain, sleet and occasional heavy snow. A permanent polar cloud cap suggested by British-Russian scientists would have made the long polar winters more than reasonably depressing.

Drawn for the Finnish daily newspaper Helsingin Sanomat.

I also wrote a Botany for paleoartists blog post about the vegetation of Ugrunaaluk's world. Check it out here: hummingdinosaur.wordpress.com/…
Add a Comment:
 
:iconevodolka:
Evodolka Featured By Owner Aug 20, 2016  Hobbyist Artist
this looks super cool i think you made them look really awesome and i love how warm they look
well done
Reply
:iconbdmckown:
BDMcKown Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2016  Professional Traditional Artist
love it. Love 
Reply
:iconpellchinnn:
Pellchinnn Featured By Owner Mar 23, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Highly doubt they had feathers though, I mean especially when we even have fossilized hadrosaur skin already. ;) (Wink) This "feather-on-all-dinosaurs" trend is really starting to bug me. -.-
Reply
:iconeurwentala:
Eurwentala Featured By Owner Mar 23, 2016  Professional
We do have protofeathers or feather-like structures on three different branches of ornithischians (Tianyulong, Kulindadromeus & Psittacosaurus), which highly likely makes these structures primitive for the whole group. It's unlikely they were lost completely in later, larger dinosaur groups - after all, whales still have hair too, and they have been aquatic for 50 million years.

The scale impressions do make it pretty clear that many ornithopods living in tropical climates were mostly scaly. Whether they were fully scaly or also had feather-like structures is unknown. The taphonomic conditions during their fossilization did not allow feathers to be preserved. They would very well have had some feather-derived structures, like eyelashes, vibrissae, or a sparse covering like modern elephants.

Cooler climates, on the other hand, would quite likely have caused a strong selective advantage to more feathery animals. It's not fun being naked in the snow, after all. This is why I thought it to be not only within artistic licence, but also sensible, to give this particular species a warming integument. It's a matter of taste, of course, as long as we don't have anything definite. :)
Reply
:iconbirdsona:
Birdsona Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I wonder how feathers would work though? To keep a cold-blooded animal warm? Modern birds are warm-blooded, so it's easier keeping a steady body temp, but feathers on a cold-blooded animal..I don't know if it would really be enough, unless they had very dense feathers and an extra layer close to the body, similar to penguins..
Reply
:iconeurwentala:
Eurwentala Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2016  Professional
Cold-blooded animals, or ectotherms, get the warmth they need to function from their environment - that is, either directly or indirectly, from the sun. Having an insulating layer between itself and the sun would be catastrophic. We can pretty safely assume no ectothermic animal had a feather covering. Putting feathers on non-avian dinosaurs assumes they were predominantly endothermic, which means they generated heat like modern mammals or birds. Otherwise it makes no sense at all.
Reply
:iconbirdsona:
Birdsona Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I see. I've always thought people putting feathers on dinosaurs in cold climates in order to "keep them warm" was a little confusing. In order for it to work they wouldn't have been completely cold-blooded. Nod 
Reply
:iconeurwentala:
Eurwentala Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2016  Professional
Yeah. :) There's accumulating evidence that dinosaurs were, indeed, different shades of warm-blooded instead of cold-blooded. Isotope analyses, biomechanical analyses, growth rates etc. point to this. Of course, there isn't a clear line between the two: there probably were intermediates among dinosaurs, just as there are intermediates among living animals.

And then there's the simple presence of polar dinosaurs. The Cretaceous high arctic was not quite as cold as today, but it had a cool temperate climate, occasional frosts, and a very cloudy climate. Crocodilians, lizards, turtles and other ectothermic reptiles weren't just rare, they were absent in most localities. Dinosaurs,on the other hand, were just as common and diverse as they were in warmer climates.
Reply
:iconbirdsona:
Birdsona Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
That's fascinating, to be honest I've never thought much about dinosaurs in cooler climates. I hope that we can find more info about them in the future. I guess everyone assumes all dinos were cold-blooded because they looked so reptilian, but if today's birds are warm-blooded, and their ancestors are dinosaurs, then it makes sense that there were warm-blooded dinosaurs. 
Reply
:iconpellchinnn:
Pellchinnn Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Either way, what it all comes down to is that this is all extremely speculative (to suggest or claim that all these groups of animals are even related, that the taphonomical conditions did not allow preservation of feathers while we still have preserved feathers, that ornithopods in tropical climates were mostly scaly, that a group such as whales had been aquatic and persisted for 50 mya, that these purported "proto-feathers" would still remain in species that arose later on, that they would have some feather-derived structures etc. etc. etc.), and unless we have definitive specimens of petrified hadrosaur feathers (but we do have definitive scales), I sure ain't gonna put any feathers on them (unless I intend to make fiction of course). I'm very keen on separating truth from fiction and taking things seriously and carefully, that's my issue, and I must note that it's always a matter of taste regardless. ;) (Wink) :D (Big Grin) 
Reply
:iconeurwentala:
Eurwentala Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2016  Professional
I do agree it's speculative, and it's a matter of taste how much speculation each of us prefers. :) The actual animals were undoubtedly much more weird and wonderful than we can ever speculate. Speculation is probably wrong, not speculating is surely wrong (I mean, we don't have any direct preserved fossil evidence that most dinosaur has eyes. It's all speculation based on phylogenetic bracketing, with different levels of plausibility. That's how paleoart is.

Feathers or not, I do have trouble imagining how a warm-blooded animal lived in a cool temperate climate without any sort of warming integument (not necessarily feathers). That would imply something far more speculative in their physiology. An adult hadrosaur the size of an elephant, yes, maybe, but how about their young, or smaller species of ornithischians?

"...to suggest or claim that all these groups of animals are even related..."
I do have to ask, are you implying that dinosaurs are paraphyletic?
Reply
:iconpellchinnn:
Pellchinnn Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
In terms of eyes, most animals do have eyes, and generally because it is an essentially crucial portion of their design that allows them to take their part in the reality of this realm that we all have the privilege to experience. And yes, speculation is surely a very important role of our being, but we must get a grip on how to separate reasonable speculation from that which is not or less.

Whether or not you have trouble with this "cool climate" concept essentially and definitely depends upon whether or not we are even speaking of a cool climate at all. And even if we are, like you said, feathers doesn't necessarily have to be the solution, but we could be speaking of something else of an organic or alternatively locomotive solution. But at this point, we again jump outside the safe fence of actuality and into speculation, so one must be extra careful and critical, yet relatively or reasonably open-minded.

As for your question, I'm merely demonstrating the proper respect that should be displayed towards the extremely speculative nature of phylogenetics (or the phylogenetic tree more precisely) overall and the very specific bias that it as a "hypothesis" proclaims. That being said, it should make it clear that at this point in life I no longer have that naive sense of or ability to seemingly wholeheartedly buy into the popular evolutionary dogma (as well as its respective implications) that is being spoon-fed into us all since early childhood, and I am able to honestly consider the alternative notion that different groups of organisms that stand definitely on the same tree have arisen independently of other groups. Essentially I'm speaking of the debate of common descent versus common design (also known as intelligent design or biblical creation), where I currently stand more in favor of the latter option (which is by nature less dependent upon such a low bias and instead open to greater possibilities, probabilities, and discoveries). Hence, I am considerably more careful with the assumptions and consequential speculations and implications that I choose to accept. ;) (Wink) Nod 
Reply
:iconeurwentala:
Eurwentala Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2016  Professional
Oh well, everyone chooses what to believe in. I'm not going to argue about creationism here. :)

In paleoart, I (and most others) go with the most reasonable hypothesis according to the best knowledge we have at the moment and a sprinkling of reasonable speculation and artistic licence. You or anyone else might disagree on what exactly is "reasonable speculation", and that's fine. It spurs good discussions.

Arguing that the science of paleontology is too "speculative" to use as a base for paleoart is a different matter. It's the best thing we have, and saying it's speculation implies ignorance on the scientific method. We generally don't dismiss current scientific studies because they might be shown to be wrong in the future: if they are, we'll just have to update our dinosaurs accordingly. It's not a matter of life and death. It's just art. :)
Reply
:iconpellchinnn:
Pellchinnn Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
I can't say I didn't expect what was to come as a response from you, but you are right in that everyone chooses what they put more faith and acceptance into, and surely good discussions are needed. I understand fully well that paleo-art is produced only through such a "the best of what we have" principle, I would never suggest anything different, and so I ain't disagreeing with that. But one thing that I attempt to bring forth is that our basic assumptions of what we are attempting to depict will be what ultimately decides how the artwork will turn out (e.g. what conditions were present in the locale where a specific creature died and petrified, and what organic remains were preserved during petrification, and what the family tree of this creature actually looks like, and what timeframe are we actually talking about etc.), and that could lead to the wrong conclusions. As my sister use to say, "assumption is the mother of all f*ck-ups!" But again, you're right, we'll simply have to update our future works the more we understand of the lost world of the rocks and the marvelous creatures that forever crawl within. ;) (Wink) :D (Big Grin) 
Reply
:iconeurwentala:
Eurwentala Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2016  Professional
It is true that if our basic knowledge such as the timescale of geology or common descent of organisms turned out to be wrong, much of the evidence we have would be shown in an entirely new light. I have a Master's degree in evolutionary biology and know fairly well on exactly what kind of evidence these "assumptions" are based. It's a huge amount of individual lines of evidence. On that light, I find it fairly unlikely they would turn out to be significantly wrong. But it's okay, not everyone needs to agree with me. ;)
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconazureangel2ihrs:
AzureAngel2ihrs Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2016
When looking at this drawing one feels like being back in the past of our planet. Your hadrosaurs look so realistic. And your winter landscape leaves a chill on my skin for also being so real.
Reply
:iconxxdealwithitxx:
xxdealwithitxx Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2016
i only come for the weird titles <3 jk 
Reply
:iconthedubstepaddict:
TheDubstepAddict Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
...Had a fat n' sqeeking nose!
Reply
:iconlouisetheanimator:
Louisetheanimator Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2016  Student Filmographer
Good work on this. ^^
Reply
:icongrisador:
grisador Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2015
Brilliantly beautiful
Reply
:icontascalo:
tascalo Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2015  Hobbyist Photographer
Wonderful, Maija! Merry Christmas
Reply
:iconmisfit-a-saurus:
Misfit-a-saurus Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Amazing piece!
Reply
:iconmidiaou:
Midiaou Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Amazing
Reply
:iconrhoajo01:
rhoajo01 Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
Sinun taide on loistava!
Reply
:iconherofan135:
herofan135 Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
This is really cool, great work!
Reply
:iconjokercarnage5:
JokerCarnage5 Featured By Owner Edited Dec 3, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
It beutiful:D
Reply
:iconthepasthappened:
ThePastHappened Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Adorable!
Reply
:iconleahck:
LeahCK Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Clever, I like it! :)
Reply
:iconraishinl:
RaishinL Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
Looks awesome! I especially like the feathers on the back, it makes them look like the hair on zebras necks and backs, definitely suits Ornithopods.
Reply
:icondinobirdman:
DinoBirdMan Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2015  Student Artist
Fuzzy hadrosaur was awesome! :)
Reply
:iconhublerdon:
HUBLERDON Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Looks good! I wonder, should the intugement be thicker? I don't think scales are very good at trapping heat.....
Reply
:iconeurwentala:
Eurwentala Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2015  Professional
Thanks!
You are perhaps right. My reasoning was that Ugrunaaluk was more thickly feathered when young, and lost some of the integument when it reached elephant sizes. Large animals have surprisingly thin fur even in temperate climates (say, moose). But I'm still not sure if the scaly legs and necks make sense. :)
Reply
:iconacepredator:
acepredator Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2015
Feather isn't fur.
Reply
:iconeurwentala:
Eurwentala Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2015  Professional
Bird feather isn't fur. It's hard to say how the simple, quill-like protofeathers worked compared to fur or modern feathers. They did not have the layered structure of feathers: I suspect they might well have been more analogous to fur.

It also makes the comparison harder that today, we don't have feathered animals anywhere near the size range of these critters. Not even to the order of magnitude.
Reply
:iconacepredator:
acepredator Featured By Owner Edited Dec 3, 2015
Ratite feathers work like pennaceous feathers....

Then again, only theropods (...so far) had even ratite-like feathers.
Reply
:iconeurwentala:
Eurwentala Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2015  Professional
Even ratite feathers probably don't work exactly like the feathers of flying birds, though similarly. But yeah, there's a big difference (at least it looks like that) between a ratite feather and a simple quill. Hard to say anything for sure.
Reply
:iconhublerdon:
HUBLERDON Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
This probably happened for more basal hadrosaurs in warmer climates. :)
Reply
:iconthescipio:
TheScipio Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
There is so much beauty, elegance, scientific accuracy and originality in this piece that I can't even think of what to say. This is by far the best Hadrosaur I've ever seen. Please, PLEASE do more pieces like this (i.e. adding feathers to all of your non Coelurosaurian Dinosaurs). I will literally buy something like this from you for $20 or more!
Reply
:iconeurwentala:
Eurwentala Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2015  Professional
Thanks! That's nice to hear. :)
Unfortunately I can't sell prints on this one, as my agreement with the newspaper company forbids it, but the next time I do something proper with feathery non-coelurosaurians, I'll put it on sale.
Reply
:iconthescipio:
TheScipio Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Sweet ^^. It doesn't have to just be feathery non coelurosaurs. It can even be a Coelurosaur with strange/unique/speculative physical characteristics and/or behaviours. Something like adding turkey wattles to Tyrannosaurs, or having a large, flamboyant plume of feathers on an Alverezsaur. Then it can also be on behaviour, like a herbivore scavenging (as is prevelent in nature, but not in art about nature), or a strange mating ritual, etc.
Reply
:iconqueenserenity2012:
QueenSerenity2012 Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2015
Shaggy-feathered hadrosaurs? Yes please!
Reply
:icondontknowwhattodraw94:
Dontknowwhattodraw94 Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Beautiful work, fluffy ornithopods are always nice. Also very interesting article, your herbarium is very useful.

Makes me think of something: is there anything known about the Antarctic climate during the Mesozoic and had Australia back then comparable temperatures? Or would those vary across the land?
Reply
:iconeurwentala:
Eurwentala Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2015  Professional
Thanks!

I had a quick chat about Antarctic Mesozoic climates with a paleontologist when preparing this newspaper piece. He told me it was not quite as cold as in Alaska, but more of the temperate laurisilva forest type, with southern beeches. This forest type still exists in Tasmania, New Zealand and some areas of Chile. That would also make an interesting article, I'll have to look into that. :)

But he also mentioned there are some signs of sea ice in the same areas as marine reptiles, which sounds interesting.
Reply
:iconacepredator:
acepredator Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2015
Leopard seal Kronosaurus?
Reply
:icondontknowwhattodraw94:
Dontknowwhattodraw94 Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
That's what I was thinking too. Also Elasmosaurs with long, fatty necks.
Reply
:iconacepredator:
acepredator Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2015
...now I'm trying to imagine a Kronosaurus bursting through ice to catch prey.
Reply
:icondontknowwhattodraw94:
Dontknowwhattodraw94 Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Reply
:iconacepredator:
acepredator Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2015
That's through a hole in the ice (and can a pliosaur even move on a solid surface?)

I mean actually smashing through the ice.
Reply
:icondontknowwhattodraw94:
Dontknowwhattodraw94 Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Don't know, I guess more like an orca when it breaches to catch seals.
Reply
:icondontknowwhattodraw94:
Dontknowwhattodraw94 Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
You're welcome :)

Ah, I see, so sort of like the Walking With Dinosaurs episode about polar dinosaurs to compare it with, right? 

That sounds indeed interesting. They must've been quite fat then.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×





Details

Submitted on
December 1, 2015
Image Size
437 KB
Resolution
800×480
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
5,068
Favourites
283 (who?)
Comments
57
Downloads
53
×