Would you view chameleons the same way?

[SilverWolf]

Please do not move this to general photography because that is NOT what this is about. It is a general discussion, and not focused on the photographs. The purpose of the photographs are simply to initiate the question, so that the readers have something to look at on this actual thread and not have to look them up themselves. That is all.

Suppose for a moment, that that all chameleons are extinct. Every creature in the Chamaeleonidae family is extinct, and all we have are fossilized remains. Here are some photographs of chameleon skulls:

I chose jacksonii because their horns to most people make them look prehistoric. Remember, you only know chameleons as extinct creatures for this hypothetical scenario. If all we had was the skeleton, especially the skull, would you see chameleons the same way? Do you think that paleontologists would eventually conclude that they had eyes giving them panoramic vision, as both eyes had the capability of moving independently? Do you think that artists (or anyone) would draw and imagine creatures based off the skeletal structures, in an accurate manner? Or do you think they'd look much different? Really try and think of that, as though you've never seen a living chameleon before, or any chameleon with skin, if you would.

On a side note, if anyone has any links to photographs or more information regarding Anqingosaurus brevicephalus, please let me know.

 

[Psychobunny]

Are you using this as an example to illustrate a point that paleontologists cant know what prehistoric creatures looked like simply based on their bone fossils ?

 

[Lathis]

I think we would be able to deduce that eyesight was critical to these creatures simply based on the size of the eye sockets. If the fossils were fine enough, there may be telltale marks from muscles and ligaments on the bone surface showing the significant amounts of fine muscle movement available to the eye structure. Without a modern corollary with stereoscopic eye movement to compare fossil structures to, would we be able to recreate the chameleon eye from fossil evidence alone? 60/40 yes/no in my humble and unprofessional opinion. But we would never know for certain without soft tissue evidence. That being said, bones can tell you a wealth of information, and scientists are smart people

 

[Devokid]

This does bring up some interesting thoughts and ones that I believe are currently being debated in the paleontology field right now. The color of the skin and the ability to change colors is impossible to tell from the bones alone. The length and use of the tongue would also be very hard to solve. I think that we would be able to recreate a very good idea as to what they look like, but we would probably miss a couple things.

 

[ridgebax1]

I have often wondered about the portrayal of dinosaur species such as velociraptors or T. Rex with feathers and the like and questioned if there was strong evidence to show these structures or were they making an educated guess. I also agree that scientists would conclude that eyesight and smell were important senses in this species but doubt there would be evidence to indicate the method by which chameleons obtained food.

To expand on the discussion, what do you think future anthropologists may conclude about our society if they had no knowledge about how we lived other than hints similar to those left by other societies such as the Egyptians. What would they conclude about our landfills. Would they interpret them as a garbage dump or some weird religious offerings to the Gods?

 

[leedragon]

that´s a cool subject, could one take all the 3 horned spicies as just one by just looking at the bones??

 

[SilverWolf]

Are you using this as an example to illustrate a point that paleontologists cant know what prehistoric creatures looked like simply based on their bone fossils ?

Actually I was just asking the question; if you kew these creatures as extinct and saw their fossils, would YOU envision them the same with skin? And next, do you think paleontologists would eventually conclude that their eyes could move independently.

 

[Bush baby]

I'm not a zoologist, but to me there is no way they could tell that a Cham has rotating eyes, simply by looking at it's skull (correct me if i'm wrong - maybe there is some sort of clue in the skull structure i am unfamiliar with); which makes you wonder what other extinct animals possibly had rotating eyes, i.e Dinosaurs, that we don't know about.

 

[foshizzle11]

This is an interesting question and I would have to speculate as the others have that we wouldn't know they had the eye structure that they do. I think because the eye socket is so huge and it looks like there are a lot of little muscle attachment points on these skulls that they would know vision is a major characteristic for chameleons.

Thanks for posting, this is an interesting topic. Who knows maybe the dinosaurs could all camouflage and could be any colour, or T-Rex had feathers or eyes like a cham. I think it is hard to know for certain. It is fun to think about though!

 

[BrucenBruce]

Some speculations that a student of paleontology might make, examining these intricate and beautiful skulls...

Looking at those eyesockets, I might guess them for nocturnal . . .

The teeth suggest carnivorous diet - could be insects, perhaps larger prey. Some of those back teeth look capable of shearing.

Though not pictured, the hyoid apparatus would indicate that chams are doing _something_ in thier throats - but is it for prey capture or are they singing complicated songs to their mates? There's strong dimorphism in Jacksons - if the "horned" skulls belong to males, then the horns might be used for jousting. If all skulls had large horns, as ceratopsian dinosaurs did, they might be used for either inter-or-intra-species conflicts. (Scars and holes in Triceratops skulls indicate that they may have gotten into it with one another from time to time...)

Large casque may have had a display function, as well as anchoring powerful jaw muscles. Perhaps the casque would have been brightly colored . . .

BTW - Feathers in coelurosauria (the dinosaur family that includes Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, and Gallus) is very well supported. They recently announced a 30-foot-long tyrannosaurid with a thick coat of feathery integument . . .