|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 4, 2020 12:39:39 GMT 5
So we've all seen the popular reconstruction of Macrauchenia as a thin-furred llama with 3 toed feet and a tapir trunk: But looking at the skull and comparing it to tapirs, there is no bony process to support the trunk, and it's at too steep an angle and has no bony underhang to be built like an elephant's trunk: ^Macrauchenia's skull Vs. Malayan tapir skull. Note the long bony process over the upper jaw.
So, if the skull can't support a trunk or proboscis like on the tapir or the elephant, what the hell would the face look like? Not to mention the skeleton looks less elongate (stockier) and a whole lot bulkier than many depictions give it. What did this thing look like???
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 4, 2020 18:37:40 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 4, 2020 19:13:07 GMT 5
My post linked to above provides some reasons for a lack of a tapir-like proboscis. You also ask about its postcranial anatomy. I guess most reconstructions just don't get the bulkiness of this animal right. Here's what may be a good representation of its life appearance. No trunk, hefty body.  © @ Gabriel N.U.-> |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 4, 2020 23:56:48 GMT 5
My post linked to in the post above me provides some reasons for a lack of a tapir-like proboscis. You also ask about its postcranial anatomy. I guess most reconstructions just don't get the bulkiness of this animal right. Here's what may be a good representation of its life appearance. No trunk, hefty body. © @ Gabriel N.U.->That looks so odd, it's like a camel snaked wearing a beer barrel! |
|
