| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Aurochs - Bos primigenius; ancestor of domestic cattle | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 3 2012, 01:08 AM (25,323 Views) | |
| phantom | May 17 2012, 02:30 AM Post #16 |
 
|
What is strange is that I'm pretty sure it's the same skull, but the spinous process is much shorter now. I always felt like the first one was way too tall. 
|
 |
 
|
| Dfoidl | May 17 2012, 10:16 PM Post #17 |
|
That's strange indeed. The old processi don't look sculped, I think that are real bone. Same for the new processi. They are not the only things that are different now, f.e. the older version includes more caudal bones than the new ones (why should they remove material from the mount if it is certainly part of the skeleton). The ribs of the ribcage are different. Also, the vertebrae in front of the pelvis look different. I'd say the entire spine was exchanged. Also, it appears to me that the neck is longer, even when considering that it was more flexioned in the old version. My only explanation why something like that should be done is that the Lund bull is a composite skeleton. Having that in mind, I realized that the skull on the old version looks darker and with less details than on the new version - maybe it is a cast. In this case, the old and new skeleton would represent two different individuals. The new one looks very female to me anyway. I think the only way to find an answer for that is to contact people from the museum itself. I think that there are some other aurochs skeletons which also display quite tall shoulder processi, f.e. the cambridge cow or the one with the small model beneath it (I can't find it in the web at the moment, sorry). |
|
|
|
| firefly | Jun 4 2012, 08:18 AM Post #18 |
|
Some aurochsen engravings art ( among others) in the open air Faia Brava pre-historic complex: http://www.arte-coa.pt/index.php?Language=en&Page=Gravuras&SubPage=GaleriaImagens&Sitio=12 http://www.arte-coa.pt/index.php?Language=en&Page=Gravuras&SubPage=GaleriaImagens&Sitio=24 http://www.arte-coa.pt/index.php?Language=en&Page=Gravuras&SubPage=GaleriaImagens&Sitio=369 
Edited by firefly, Jun 5 2012, 09:22 PM.
|
|
|
|
| phantom | Jun 16 2012, 10:53 PM Post #19 |
|
Drawing of aurochs, by people who had actually seen them, are always interesting. I found this one where the artist seemed to have a bit of talent for drawing. Copied this from the Yale News: Using a new technology known as optically stimulated luminescence (OSL), a team of Belgian scientists and Professor John Coleman Darnell of Yale have determined that Egyptian petroglyphs found at the east bank of the Nile are about 15,000 years old, making them the oldest rock art in Egypt and possibly the earliest known graphic record in North Africa.   Belgian archaeologist Wouter Claes poses with a panel with wild bovids (Bos primigenius or aurochs) at the Qurta II site. Edited by phantom, Jun 16 2012, 10:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
| phantom | Jun 16 2012, 11:03 PM Post #20 |
|
Also on another note, I hate when people try to modify my artwork. This one is pretty ill advised. Just lengthening the nose, without regard for the position of the head, is just silly.  |
|
|
|
| Dfoidl | Jun 19 2012, 12:40 AM Post #21 |
|
Thanks for the interesting engravings! They aren't as athletic and slim-waisted as I usually assume, interesting to see that and also from a different subspecies. As you know, I love your bull painting. It is incredibly detailed and amazes me each time I look at it. Its high quality likely is also the reason why it spread so fast on the internet. I can understand that such modification attempts can be annoying. The person who did the modification you presented here obviously tried to infer that he believes the hump should be bigger and the snout more elongated. However, I think that the hump size in your drawing is fine. Personally, I think the head should be a bit bigger overall, since aurochs usually had big heads, especially bulls. The horns might have been a bit thicker at the base, I think. Regarding colour, the only things I'd make different (apart from the saddle, which likely is accurate when we say it is the north african subspecies), would be that I'd make the eel stripe and mealy mouth more grayish instead of beige, and maybe the scrotum was lightly coloured with a dark tip (we see that in many primitive bulls); however, those two points concerning colour are just a matter of opinion since we can't access them directly. But, those are only minor aspects, it's certainly one of the best aurochs artworks I have ever seen. By the way, when I have time for it the next weeks, I'll post a bit on the Indian Aurochs including a new restoration, but it will take its time. Edited by Dfoidl, Jun 19 2012, 01:00 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Dfoidl | Jun 19 2012, 08:23 AM Post #22 |
|
Skull bones of a heck bull:   Actually, it does not need to be commented since it confirms everything we know from looking at living heck bulls. But very nice to have the insufficiency of that breed confirmed on an osteological level. |
|
|
|
| phantom | Jun 23 2012, 02:18 PM Post #23 |
|
Did another attempt at a restoration, but decided to do a photo paste together to create a white aurochs. I know a white aurochs would have been very rare, and a result of albinism, but the reason I chose to do it in white is that I think it shows the form better. 
|
|
|
|
| Dfoidl | Jun 23 2012, 04:54 PM Post #24 |
|
Wow, great work! Very realistic. Which skeleton is it based on? |
|
|
|
| phantom | Jun 23 2012, 07:51 PM Post #25 |
|
Thank you. It's based on this skeleton. http://www.aueroxen.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/PICT0012.jpg Oddly enough when I compared your drawing (Dfoidl) to mine, they line up quite well. 
Edited by phantom, Jun 23 2012, 09:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Dfoidl | Jun 23 2012, 10:04 PM Post #26 |
|
Ah the Sassenberg bull, very interesting. I used to think the Sassenberg bull has a longish trunk, but that's apparently not the case, it seems to have normal aurochs bull proportions. But I am not so sure if the spine of that skeleton is correctly assigned, maybe it should have more of a shallow S-curvature but I am not sure. Yes, it's interesting that both restorations fit well, the only differences that I see is that mine has a bigger hump but that's how the skeletons differ, so we have natural aurochs variation here, and I gave my bull a too long nose. I should change that, I realized that too late. |
|
|
|
| firefly | Jul 7 2012, 10:48 AM Post #27 |
|
Phantom: That albino aurochs, look great! Very realistic. Very good work you too, Dfoidl! |
|
|
|
| Dfoidl | Jul 22 2012, 04:50 AM Post #28 |
|
Thanks very much, firefly! I recently did an update of the aurochs restoration of Wikipedia, because the snout was too long, the horns pointed too much forwards and the cow was a bit too big in relation to the bull: 
|
|
|
|
| firefly | Aug 1 2012, 11:29 AM Post #29 |
|
 Uploaded with ImageShack.us This cow reminds me of an aurochs cow. Maybe the coat just should be a bit lighter to match the average aurochs cow coat color (however the darkness of the place may also turn her darker than she really is). |
|
|
|
| Dfoidl | Aug 2 2012, 05:26 AM Post #30 |
|
Yes, it's certainly aurochs-like, especially the body shape. I also like the horn shape, although I think the tips curve a bit too much outwards; of course, we can't tell exactly, since the horn sheaths are only rarely preserved among the bony core, but I think in this individual it is a bit exaggerated. But, overall, I think its a really good cow. I also found this interesting bull on ImageShack:  Good body shape, although a bit too bulky overall, and good horns. What do you think which breed is it? Barrosa? Looks a bit dark for Barrosa, but the horns remind me strongly of that breed. |
|
|
|
| 3 users reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals · Next Topic » |
11:23 AM May 19