People Compare How Aliens Would Reconstruct Animals Based On Their Skulls Vs. What They Really Look Like (28 Pics)
About 500 million years ago, not a single creature had a skull. Over time, these bony plates evolved into the structural marvels that vertebrates—animals with spinal cords, aka you, me, and your pug, carry around today.
In fact, skulls are such complex wonders of nature that when viewed alone, they do look like they belonged to some distant, fabulous creatures. And that alone is enough to give the internet quite a rich source of memesy inspiration.
This time, people are imagining what aliens would reconstruct if they came across the skulls of some of the most loved residents on our planet, like cats, dogs, and wild cutie pies. Scroll down to see the hilarious results, but beware—it may reveal that your chonky catto is a Tyrannosaurus rex in disguise.
This post may include affiliate links.
Bored Panda reached out to Ashley Mason-Burns-Meerschaert, the director of education at Skeletons: Museum of Osteology, who told us more about these incredible bones. It turns out, the vertebrates with the most bones in their skulls are bony fish, which can have over 100 in their skulls.
Although skulls from different species might look similar, there will be slight differences. Ashley said that “some species of shrews and rodents can only be identified by looking at dental variations under a microscope.”
There is also some skull variation between individuals of the same species and also between males and females, which scientists refer to as “sexual dimorphism.”
Ashley said that animals' skulls can change over time for various reasons, like becoming more adapted to the environment, changing due to animals' diet, or because of injuries sustained over their lifetime.
Hippopotamuses are underrated in terms of how horrifyingly powerful they are.
That hole in the front could be the origin of the Cyclope myth : when ancient Greeks discovered elephant or mammuth skulls and didn't know what they were because these animales had disappeared from their lands, they imagined the skulls had belonged to one-eyed giants.
interestingly the myth of Polyfimos, the cyclops giant, could have started from an elephant skull
the ancient greeks thought cyclops were real because of elephant skulls
In fairness to the aliens, humans also mistook elephant skulls for cyclops skulls
I mean its understandable that greeks found skeletons of elephants and thought “CYCLOPS”
And that's (maybe) where the Greek myth of the Cyclope came from. http://deathelevated.blogspot.com/2018/04/was-cyclops-inspired-by-elephants.html
It’s incredible how much we can tell about an animal just by looking at these bony structures that support and protect soft tissues and organs.
For example, some particular skull features can indicate the nature of an animal. Wired suggests that “Big eye sockets point to a nocturnal lifestyle (big eyes harvest more light).”
Meanwhile, “giant canine teeth indicate a taste for flesh” and “lightweight bone riddled with air pockets is an adaptation for life on the wing.”
why is everything supposed to be ferocious but actually so ADORABLE
No, it would just be displayed in a museum- "look what those mad scientists did to the majestic wolf!"
Another incredible aspect of skulls is just how complex they truly are. Imagine—a human skull has 22 bones. According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, it features 8 cranial bones and 14 facial bones. When a baby is born, the forehead, or frontal, bone is separated in two, but it fuses while growing.
And now let’s take an alligator. This reptilian has around 53 skull bones, which is more than twice what we have. But it's far from the most skull bones found in an animal.
Dogma: "...remember: even God has a sense of humor. Just look at the Platypus. Thank you and enjoy the show. P.S. We sincerely apologize to all Platypus enthusiasts out there who are offended by that thoughtless comment about the Platypi. We at View Askew respect the noble Platypus, and it is not our intention to slight these stupid creatures in any way."
For those who don't know, the reconstruction is of a Psittacosaurus, also known as that one dinosaur that will friggin tear you limb from limb and eat your fingers if you get near it's young
Why are the reconstructions big and ugly? Why are creatures from other planets almost always ugly in films? We have no idea what they would look like so why could they not be attractive or at least presentable.
I agree. This is why Star Trek and Star Wars are so good. They value the diversity. Also, in Japanese cartoons they often look cute and fluffy. Or just like us Earthlings.
Load More Replies...
from the leopard gecko to a titan like in the King kong movies? i'll say it's thousands time bigger
Load More Replies...
But why? Under what sort of conclusions would they re-create them that way?
In other reconstructions like these that I've seen, the assumptions are basically the same as those that are usually when reconstructing what a dinosaur or other fossil animal looked like--basically, that the outline of the body conforms to the outline of the skeleton, that any prominent and mysterious structure was probably defensive/offensive, and that they were dull in color and lacked coverings like feathers or fur.
Load More Replies...
In other words dinosaurs must have been fluffy cuties based on their skeletons
Putting the "alien" bit aside, it's pretty cool to see that the cuter the animal, the more killy teeth it often has!
The person who came up with this must have flunked biology and assumes everyone else did too. Wow. Incredibly bad job
Turns out.... they were all just a bunch of huge chickens! ♡
Load More Replies...
As several others have mentioned, this is why I question the reconstruction of an entire dinosaur based on a handful of fragments- wildly speculative imho.
images of t-rex n raptor probably having wide ears n round cheeks kept popping in my head now
This was fun but in most cases they must have been really, really small aliens.
In the past, terribly wrong. Now, not 100% accurate, but probably reasonably close. We know a lot more about dinosaur lifestyles and physiology now than we did in the past, and that can give us clues as to how they looked.
Load More Replies...
This begs the question - how many of the long extinct animals were reconstructed incorrectly, based only on their skeletons, by OUR scientists? Maybe T-Rex was just a big fluffy misunderstood bunny?
I wouldn't have been able to guess very many of these animals based on the photos of the skulls. Very amazing.
It's supposed to be funny not taken literally and a satirical message on how we have no idea what dinosaurs look like from their skulls. However people that study this have given their best very educated guess so I'm not downplaying the experts in my comment.
100 years ago, the prevailing idea was to stick the bones together and make as sensational of a "thing" as possible. Now it's done based on actual physical markings on the bones plus CAD for confirmation that the organism would actually be able to move if constructed in such a fashion. Look at the redo of the spinosaurus for a good one.
Load More Replies...
So in my head, I'm just imagining the alien made ones are just as small as the skull or skeleton would allow.
get this shirt here>>>>https://diptostee.us/fuckyourfeelings mockup-2-6...4c05b4.jpg 
This has helped me realize two things: 1) Animals in reality are much more adorable than in fiction 2) Adorable animals are terrifying inside!
Give me a break. No alien intelligence that has the capabilities to travel here and look at these skulls, is going to be stupid enough to "reconstruct" ONLY the most popular human sci-fi creatures from them. Only a ditzy human with too much time on their hands and a ridiculous penchant for sci-fi would "reconstruct" them like that.
My zoology teacher used to say that if there were no elephants still alive today, but we found mammoth skulls, we'd wonder how on earth they ate. Would we have reconstructed a tentacle nose?
The “reconstructions” are just random internet monster/alien photos from movies and games, etc. There’s often very little resemblance at all. What would have been more interesting is discussion about how we likely very wrongly visualize extinct animals (like dinosaurs). In fact, that’s likely the real inspiration behind this “article’s” source material. This article is b******t, as usual.
These designs scream HUMAN CREATION all over them. Dark, destructive, demonic, etc. First of all, aliens aren’t one species. There are many, just as different from each other as they are to humans. Most of them are highly intelligent beings who would NEVER think in the dark and destructive way humans are thinking. NEVER!!
Apparently, fur is not a concept that any alien has ever discovered... Also, apparently humans are confused by fur.
Well, that’s 3 minutes of my life completely wasted. Did a 7 year old make this article? Very, very poor & disappointing.
Why are the reconstructions big and ugly? Why are creatures from other planets almost always ugly in films? We have no idea what they would look like so why could they not be attractive or at least presentable.
I agree. This is why Star Trek and Star Wars are so good. They value the diversity. Also, in Japanese cartoons they often look cute and fluffy. Or just like us Earthlings.
Load More Replies... from the leopard gecko to a titan like in the King kong movies? i'll say it's thousands time bigger
Load More Replies... But why? Under what sort of conclusions would they re-create them that way?
In other reconstructions like these that I've seen, the assumptions are basically the same as those that are usually when reconstructing what a dinosaur or other fossil animal looked like--basically, that the outline of the body conforms to the outline of the skeleton, that any prominent and mysterious structure was probably defensive/offensive, and that they were dull in color and lacked coverings like feathers or fur.
Load More Replies... In other words dinosaurs must have been fluffy cuties based on their skeletons
Putting the "alien" bit aside, it's pretty cool to see that the cuter the animal, the more killy teeth it often has!
The person who came up with this must have flunked biology and assumes everyone else did too. Wow. Incredibly bad job
Turns out.... they were all just a bunch of huge chickens! ♡
Load More Replies... As several others have mentioned, this is why I question the reconstruction of an entire dinosaur based on a handful of fragments- wildly speculative imho.
images of t-rex n raptor probably having wide ears n round cheeks kept popping in my head now
This was fun but in most cases they must have been really, really small aliens.
In the past, terribly wrong. Now, not 100% accurate, but probably reasonably close. We know a lot more about dinosaur lifestyles and physiology now than we did in the past, and that can give us clues as to how they looked.
Load More Replies... This begs the question - how many of the long extinct animals were reconstructed incorrectly, based only on their skeletons, by OUR scientists? Maybe T-Rex was just a big fluffy misunderstood bunny?
I wouldn't have been able to guess very many of these animals based on the photos of the skulls. Very amazing.
It's supposed to be funny not taken literally and a satirical message on how we have no idea what dinosaurs look like from their skulls. However people that study this have given their best very educated guess so I'm not downplaying the experts in my comment.
100 years ago, the prevailing idea was to stick the bones together and make as sensational of a "thing" as possible. Now it's done based on actual physical markings on the bones plus CAD for confirmation that the organism would actually be able to move if constructed in such a fashion. Look at the redo of the spinosaurus for a good one.
Load More Replies... So in my head, I'm just imagining the alien made ones are just as small as the skull or skeleton would allow.
get this shirt here>>>>https://diptostee.us/fuckyourfeelings mockup-2-6...4c05b4.jpg
This has helped me realize two things: 1) Animals in reality are much more adorable than in fiction 2) Adorable animals are terrifying inside!
Give me a break. No alien intelligence that has the capabilities to travel here and look at these skulls, is going to be stupid enough to "reconstruct" ONLY the most popular human sci-fi creatures from them. Only a ditzy human with too much time on their hands and a ridiculous penchant for sci-fi would "reconstruct" them like that.
My zoology teacher used to say that if there were no elephants still alive today, but we found mammoth skulls, we'd wonder how on earth they ate. Would we have reconstructed a tentacle nose?
The “reconstructions” are just random internet monster/alien photos from movies and games, etc. There’s often very little resemblance at all. What would have been more interesting is discussion about how we likely very wrongly visualize extinct animals (like dinosaurs). In fact, that’s likely the real inspiration behind this “article’s” source material. This article is b******t, as usual.
These designs scream HUMAN CREATION all over them. Dark, destructive, demonic, etc. First of all, aliens aren’t one species. There are many, just as different from each other as they are to humans. Most of them are highly intelligent beings who would NEVER think in the dark and destructive way humans are thinking. NEVER!!
Apparently, fur is not a concept that any alien has ever discovered... Also, apparently humans are confused by fur.
Well, that’s 3 minutes of my life completely wasted. Did a 7 year old make this article? Very, very poor & disappointing.
