Post has attachment
We should really give the obscure more attention.

Post has shared content
They are long extinct
Compassion Helped Neanderthals Survive

They have an unwarranted image as brutish and uncaring, but new research has revealed just how knowledgeable and effective Neanderthal healthcare was.

The research is in World Archaeology. (full open access)

Post has attachment

Post has shared content

Post has shared content
Now I understand that I should probably go about the order of the poll results as suggested by +Saltie Croc, but this is just too much. I'll be real with you, I really hate this shitty design... maybe even more than the Utahraptor or Giganotosaurus. Ark: Survival evolved in its quest to completely abide to the public's expectations (I'm not kidding that's literally what the devs were going for) has easily produced one of the worst Pteranodon designs I have ever had the displeasure of looking at. That's why I have decided to disrupt the natural order of things and pick it apart.

1. The wings. Did the devs even try?
The Pteranodon's wings are so poorly designed that I honestly don't understand what the devs were thinking. Did one of them look at a kite, say "Hey, those things ride the wind passively, entirely at the mercy of the breeze. Let's put two on an actively flying animal and call them wings!" Seriously, these things don't work at all. It's basically the equivalent of jumping out of a plane with a trashbag claiming it to be a parachute. Why couldn't they go with some actually plausible (and more importantly sexy) designs like these ( I mean, at least it would look like some effort was put in. Also, please give it air sacs in its wings. We know they were essential for pterosaur respiration much like birds. So... put them on!

2. Everything about the head. It's just awful.
Now a screwed up set of wings might be forgivable, but we all know that Ark devs don't stop there. The head is easily the worst part of the thing. The first thing I'd like to pick apart is the skull. It barely resembles an actual Pteranodon skull at all. Here ( you have a pteranodon skull. Surely Ark didn't change it that much right? Well look down at the images below and you will see that they did. And it's entirely awful. I honestly wonder if they looked at piscivorous birds (my bet is puffins and seagulls) and just combined their skulls. That sure as hell isn't a Pteranodon skull. Another ugly feature is its crest. Why exactly does it have those extensions? They certainly don't do it any favors aesthetically. They're just eyesores really. Also, is it just me or does the crest look more like a spike growing out of its head than a proper crest? Idk, take this point with a pinch of salt if not.

3. Integumentary problems.
You see, I have no problems with excluding certain integument if it's not that vital to an animal's image. This is no such case. Pycnofibers are pretty much the bread and butter of pterosaur skin covering. Why doesn't this animal have them? It's not like they can't be stylized either. They can be made to look badass, a great example being Saurian's Quetzalcoatlus (the concept art anyway). Why not give it a zebra esque mane of them building up to the crest? That would definitely be unique and interesting to look at.

4. Last but not.... least.
I-I'm just gonna ask the question. WHY DID THEY GIVE IT TEETH!? "PTERANODON" LITERALLY MEANS "TOOTHLESS WING"! For fuck's sake, you have no idea how much this infuriates me. If they're doing this then they might as well omit Spinosaurus' extended vertebra, or Tricertops' three horns (oh, wait), or Stegosaurus' iconic plates and thagomizers. These kinds of depictions need to die, quit breathing life into them.

Overall the Pteranodon in Ark: Survival Evolved is a piss poor representation of the animal it's named after. Pteranodon is absolutely iconic. It is essentially the pterosaur to most people. That being said, why is almost always represented so poorly? I already know some people will bitch at me for being a "feather nazi", but here's the thing: I don't mind stylized fossil animals at all; so long as they're done well. A great example for the most part is the Isle's dinosaurs. Sure, they're not all Saurian or PK, but they're still generally well made animals that do their namesake justice, even with the artistic liberties (most of the time). Hell, even Jurassic World has taken a small step in this direction with its Carnotaurus. Ark doesn't do that. This model surely doesn't do that. I honestly think this just might be the worst design in the game.
3 Photos - View album

Post has shared content
Probably Tetraphoneus' best work yet.

Post has attachment
Thoughts on this?

(Ignore the clickbait aspect)

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Is there any definitive evidence that the dire wolf, Canis Dirus, lived in super packs of 30 or more animals as some sources claim? Because while thier bones reveal they did hunt ancient horses, camels and bison along with other prey, modern wolves can kill large prey with relatively few animals in comparison. If the smaller, less robust grey wolves could take down bull bison, moose or musk ox with perhaps a dozen or so members, why would the larger and more powerful dire wolf need such numbers? Could anyone answer this?
6 Photos - View album

Post has attachment
In all honesty, I had no idea about the definitive size of Allosaurus before reading this.
Wait while more posts are being loaded