A 2024 study disproved the notion (present since the 1970s) that griffins were inspired by the fossils of protoceratops.
My biggest problem with the theory? Griffins lack frills and protoceratops lack wings. Some claim that these are the same feature: frills were deformed/damaged by geological processes, making them look like wings. But no protoceratops frill looks like a wing, so this idea lacks credence.
Besides, the ancients butchered animals and thus would've seen the bone structure of bird wings. It's utterly different from the bone structure of protoceratops frills. So the idea that the ancients mistook the frills for wings is nonsense.
Plus, a griffin would need large wings. Even two the size of a protoceratops frill would be far too small to support something the size of the rest of the fossil. Yet they only have one frill each. Therefore the frill-to-wings theory is untenable.
The shape, the bones and the numerical differences between the frill and the wings: none of it matches. Sure, frill and wings could share a similar outline, but that's hardly enough to conclude that the frills were wings.
It's clear: the frill clearly did not inspire griffin wings.
No comments:
Post a Comment