HOME | DD

#accurate #au #birdlike #dromaeosaur #feathered #feathers #jp #jurassic #jw #park #raptor #realistic #world #deinonychus #velociraptor
Published: 2015-06-26 13:08:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 43513; Favourites: 504; Downloads: 140
Redirect to original
Description
Jurassic World really disappointed me, so I felt like I'd correct the wildly inaccurate "raptors" to the best of my abilities. Deinonychus (or Dakotaraptor), not Velociraptor. The middle one doesn't much like our friend Owen here: she's giving him the old threat display treatment (probably hissing too). The adult male on the left is probably the most tame, so he's pretty chill. Subadult on the right is a little irked; maybe hungry, actually.Let's say in this Alternate Universe Jurassic World, they use actual bird DNA in the cloned dinosaurs (as they should); the male has osprey genes, the female has bateleur in her, and the adolescent is part harpy eagle. Much as Owen would like to train them to do tricks for the park guests, these raptors are a bit... less than cooperative. He's gotten the older ones to fetch and do simple tricks in exchange for food; there are those who think they could be trained to hunt (as in falconry), but no official plans are made in that direction as of yet. Handlers have reported signs that they may possess intelligence similar to felids or birds of prey; though these claims have not been extensively investigated, as the matter is largely irrelevant to the purposes of a zoo like Jurassic Park.
The male is Charlie; the female is Delta; the subadult is Blue.
The "Raptor" paddock is located near the pterosaur aviary on Isla Nublar, though it is only accessible to park guests with premium passes. The paddock's simulated environment is woodland, though there is a metal mesh barrier overhead preventing the specimens from climbing trees to get over the walls. Though not genetically related, these three have formed a relationship resembling a family bond or ad hoc pack arrangement; until recently, the adults instinctively protected the junior from their handlers (2 recorded incidents). Moulting their feathers annually, the adolescent Blue has yet to grow into his adult plumage; the male Charlie has changed color slightly with successive moults (the introduction of the female Delta caused him to temporarily assume vibrant gold plumage; this has since dulled).
Delta has become increasingly reclusive and hostile toward her handlers; it is suspected she has laid a clutch of eggs and is nesting somewhere in the paddock.
Related content
Comments: 439
CrazyArt032 In reply to ??? [2016-07-14 19:47:56 +0000 UTC]
Finally somebody corrected their shitty dinosaurs. Well done.
π: 0 β©: 1
Corallianassa [2016-06-21 18:44:52 +0000 UTC]
You would know because of this:
Skin and feathers rarely fossilize, but literally EVERY example of fossilized skin shows us feathers on dromies, so.....there is no point in drawing a featherless one and calling it accurate
π: 0 β©: 1
Asuma17 In reply to Corallianassa [2017-01-08 06:32:09 +0000 UTC]
Unless it has the mange, but also with every fossilized skin we find it is usually on smaller dromies; not on something as big as Utahraptor so we don't know exactly the integument lies within bigger Dromaeosaurs for all we know it could've been just as been similar to a Tyrannosaurus speculated feather coating or something similar to a Marabou Stork (depending) or something simple as seen in Deer or a Kingfisher bird not something as exaggerate as this.
I could so many flaws to how these revised JW raptors would fail (mainly Blue).
π: 0 β©: 1
Sekley In reply to Asuma17 [2017-01-08 09:55:54 +0000 UTC]
We have quill knobs on Dakotaraptor's ulna which is a clear indication of wings. Also it makes sense for even big dromaeosaurs to be as fluffed up as eagles as some like Dakotaraptor lived in environments that could drop as low as 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Also your argument about Velociraptor having reduced plumage is flawed. Plenty of desert birds of prey are in a similar size range as it and still have thick plumage.
π: 0 β©: 1
Asuma17 In reply to Sekley [2017-01-08 16:37:41 +0000 UTC]
As I just said to Valia2305 , the accommodation to what the Dromies or any dinosaur eat is more or less irrelevant since you have birds today the exact same size as Hawks, and Eagles that share a lot more in common with dinosaurs in appearance. Overall it goes out more to study the theropods by their height, and environment plus temperature to study to conclude exactly where the integument patterning of theropod dinosaurs lay in answer; you have parrots and storks that lived in the same environments as Velociraptor and Dakotaraptor with the temperature qualities of Late Cretaceous maastrichtian differing way by our own, and some of them tend to live predatory lifestyles. And your argument in the second proves me more right as most of those birds are smaller to the size of Compsognathus and a baby Mei long, where Velociraptor stands at the size of Beagle.
There aren't many Owls and Hawks that live deserts, but Vultures are more common and they do tend to fancy predatory lifestyles if necessary. But regardless Velociraptor also lived in jungles and lush plains as well, so any of the pattering from a Vulture, Parrot and modern day Raptor can apply, but I would conclude that the pattern would be more like a Parrots, a full coat of feathers, but having exposed skin at the head and whether the case, maybe even resembling the Bald Parrot species.
By always thinking that all Dromaeosaurs like Dakotaraptor always looked like most birds (primarily raptors), covered in a full integument patterning like these pictures right here
Β
Β Β Β Β Β
Β
Β Β Β Β
It's trying to "Save Face" more than depicting these animals in the way of science; like how it is in Jurassic Park. Like my pal, and paleontologist, Mark P. Witton said there possible answer what the Dromaeosaurs looked like with their feathers arranged, some of them could looked mangy well others had clean coats like a swan; they aren't always meant to look pretty. If you guys always think of Dromies as these fabulous look eagles or hawks with large coatings of feathers etc. than you'll just be fooling the people you educate. By accommodating sizes and other things besides the diet you'll see that diversity in feathers is more complicated that is why I agree with some of these half-naked Dromaeosaurs for well know they could've had a similar patterning to how you all depict T.Rex into having.
π: 0 β©: 1
Sekley In reply to Asuma17 [2017-01-08 16:47:17 +0000 UTC]
Good point. I'd imagine definitely that the unenlagians, troodonts, and a few other dromaeosaurs could have had a feather pattern far from the standard. That said, an appearance like this image someone in the comment section linked isn't acceptable whatsoever. Feather patterns may vary, but all dromaeosaurs and troodonts had wings not pronated JP hands.
conceptartworld.com/wp-contentβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
Asuma17 In reply to Sekley [2017-01-08 18:01:02 +0000 UTC]
Glad to see you agree. But besides the pronated hands it still is mostly accurate.
π: 0 β©: 1
Sekley In reply to Asuma17 [2017-01-08 18:36:54 +0000 UTC]
Lack of wings though? Almost birds had wings and the ones that didn't, moas, didn't have wings because they had no arm bones to begin with.
π: 0 β©: 1
Asuma17 In reply to Sekley [2017-01-08 18:37:42 +0000 UTC]
Actually it doesn't it has the quills on it's arms if you haven't noticed.
π: 0 β©: 1
Sekley In reply to Asuma17 [2017-01-08 18:46:39 +0000 UTC]
I wouldn't call those avian wings though. Every bird and the skeletal structure of raptor "hands" suggests an arrangement of pennaceous feathers extending from the shoulder to the tip of the second digit.
π: 0 β©: 1
Asuma17 In reply to Sekley [2017-01-08 20:34:13 +0000 UTC]
With Velociraptor it is a little more unique in its hand structure, it has a hard structure similar to Utahraptor, Deinonychus and Dromaeosaurus all the Deinonychosaurid raptors, in the case it likely that only a few knobs were present in the ulna of a Velociraptor specimen might indicate that Velocirator lacked the feathers near the hands and were located at the middle to end of the arm (arranged appropriately at the elbow).
π: 0 β©: 1
Sekley In reply to Asuma17 [2017-01-08 23:35:44 +0000 UTC]
Keep in mind not every modern bird and dromaeosaur has obvious quill knobs and the former still has wings. Dromaeosaurs and triodonts were like only one step away from being considered full fledged avialan birds. Wings only make sense, there is no wiggle room about it.
π: 0 β©: 0
RMcreeps In reply to ??? [2016-06-21 07:26:12 +0000 UTC]
How would you know that the true raptor has feathers? :0
π: 0 β©: 1
Arbitran In reply to RMcreeps [2016-06-22 00:48:39 +0000 UTC]
All dromaeosaurs had feathers
π: 0 β©: 2
RMcreeps In reply to Arbitran [2020-02-20 23:45:04 +0000 UTC]
Oh good god I found this again. Gosh I was a moron back in 2016 good lord am I embarrassed
π: 0 β©: 0
RMcreeps In reply to Arbitran [2016-06-22 00:50:59 +0000 UTC]
I understand but I'm curious as to why scientists think that. I mean, the feathers wouldn't show up in the found skeletons....would they?
π: 0 β©: 2
RMcreeps In reply to FeatherNerd [2016-12-09 21:56:11 +0000 UTC]
But then that leaves the question, if you people believe in evolution, why couldn't dinos taper off into a smaller version? Most birds don't have teeth, they have beaks for heaven's sake. If you were to look at a raptor skeleton, then a chicken skeleton, WITHOUT knowing what a bird was, how would you know they had feathers? You wouldn't. Feathers aren't attached to the bones! They're attached to the skin! Even if you had one million percent of evidence that they had feathers, it wouldn't be fact. It would still be a theory because no human is that old to have lived in the dinosaur times. Even your precious scientists named Mr king of dinosaurs a name that means "lizard king". Is he supposed to be "bird king"?
I love science, don't get me wrong. And frankly, I would prefer a mature argument that eventually ends in a stalemate since we know no one will win, without insults being thrown around to make the other submit to what you are trying to force down my throat.
π: 0 β©: 0
RMcreeps In reply to FeatherNerd [2016-12-09 21:45:32 +0000 UTC]
aqualandpetsplus.com/Lizards,%β¦
π: 0 β©: 0
Midiaou In reply to RMcreeps [2016-06-26 02:26:11 +0000 UTC]
There are fossils with feathers indeed. Covering their bodies. Not only that. But some skin impressions look like a plucked turkey. And their are quill nobs on the arms, anchors for wimg feathers. We even have ornithopods with feathers. See Kulindadromaeus
π: 0 β©: 1
RMcreeps In reply to Midiaou [2016-06-26 02:29:05 +0000 UTC]
Ah...I still believe that reptiles would be reptiles
π: 0 β©: 1
Draco-Aroace-the-1st In reply to RMcreeps [2016-08-02 05:20:26 +0000 UTC]
birds are a offshoot of reptiles, feathers are just a different form of scale
π: 0 β©: 1
RMcreeps In reply to Draco-Aroace-the-1st [2016-08-02 05:21:19 +0000 UTC]
How? Sales are hard, feathers are light and feel nothing like that
π: 0 β©: 2
mikebrownsound In reply to RMcreeps [2017-01-06 15:16:14 +0000 UTC]
blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-bβ¦
Happy ? Β They found it Β
π: 0 β©: 0
RMcreeps In reply to Draco-Aroace-the-1st [2016-08-02 18:29:58 +0000 UTC]
And that proves?
π: 0 β©: 1
Draco-Aroace-the-1st In reply to RMcreeps [2016-08-02 18:59:43 +0000 UTC]
They are such thinks a feathered reptiles, as feathers are biology an evolution of the scale
π: 0 β©: 1
RMcreeps In reply to Draco-Aroace-the-1st [2016-08-02 19:08:05 +0000 UTC]
How? Birds are warm blooded and reptiles are cold blooded. If a reptile had feathers, it wouldn't be cold blooded at all due to the new way of warming itself up. Lizards need to be in the sun to heat.
I,however do believe that there were scaly birds, but I don't think they had feathers. Maybe something along the lines of bat wings. And of course there had to be just normal prehistoric birds but I don't think feathered reptiles could be possible
π: 0 β©: 1
Draco-Aroace-the-1st In reply to RMcreeps [2016-08-02 19:55:50 +0000 UTC]
Here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_oβ¦
www.scientificamerican.com/artβ¦
www.nhm.org/site/research-collβ¦
news.nationalgeographic.com/20β¦
www.sciencedaily.com/terms/feaβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
RMcreeps In reply to Draco-Aroace-the-1st [2016-08-02 20:02:09 +0000 UTC]
I am not one to follow science down to the arch and Wikipedia's can fabricate truth.
π: 0 β©: 2
JoeRB In reply to RMcreeps [2016-08-25 14:37:40 +0000 UTC]
So, basically, you don't give a damn about research. All you care about is feelings and nothing else. Rationalism has no place in your mind. Science is nothing to your mind. If you denounce even scientific evidence, then you are no different from delusional people who think that dinosaur bones were invented by the devil. There's no evidence supporting that the devil invented dinosaurs, but they believe it anyway because that's simply how they feel.
π: 0 β©: 2
FeatherNerd In reply to RMcreeps [2016-12-09 20:01:13 +0000 UTC]
Satan doesn't exist
God never mentioned "Satan"
An idiot once did, like someone once mentioned Santa!!
π: 0 β©: 0
RMcreeps In reply to JoeRB [2016-08-25 14:40:28 +0000 UTC]
Who said I don't follow science at all? You're putting words in my mouth. "Down to the arch" means constantly devoting my life and every second of my mortal being to research. I feel that is stupid. I'm already done with this debate no need to start another one, and frankly, I'm tired. Good day
π: 0 β©: 1
JoeRB In reply to RMcreeps [2016-08-25 14:46:27 +0000 UTC]
Heheh. When people give up as you do, but still feel the need to comment about how they're so over it, it's usually a sign that they want to win the argument but have no capability to. Once again, a lack of research and evidence on your part. Good day.
π: 0 β©: 0
Draco-Aroace-the-1st In reply to RMcreeps [2016-08-02 20:51:21 +0000 UTC]
they you are just a idiot
π: 0 β©: 2
humble-abode In reply to Draco-Aroace-the-1st [2016-08-02 20:57:41 +0000 UTC]
*then
*an
I honestly don't think you should argue about bullshit if you can't even use proper grammar
π: 0 β©: 2
JoeRB In reply to humble-abode [2016-08-25 14:41:16 +0000 UTC]
I've seen several other dinosaur arguments like this in the past, and often times people who have no good arguments resort to things as petty as pointing out grammar or spelling mistakes in order to prove how supposedly wrong their opponent is. If you can't refute an argument through relevant evidence, then you have no place in an argument whatsoever.
π: 0 β©: 0
Draco-Aroace-the-1st In reply to humble-abode [2016-08-02 21:30:24 +0000 UTC]
My Lindquist problem are not a factor in this debate
π: 0 β©: 1
humble-abode In reply to Draco-Aroace-the-1st [2016-08-02 21:31:18 +0000 UTC]
But your stupidity sure is
π: 0 β©: 1
Draco-Aroace-the-1st In reply to humble-abode [2016-08-02 21:41:33 +0000 UTC]
my linguistic problems have to bearing on my intelligence, they come from a long history of dyslexic that I have mostly overcome. your are nothing more then a petty bully and troll.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
humble-abode In reply to Draco-Aroace-the-1st [2016-08-02 21:42:14 +0000 UTC]
And you're calling somebody stupid for explaining that science isn't everything
π: 0 β©: 1
Draco-Aroace-the-1st In reply to humble-abode [2016-08-02 21:55:55 +0000 UTC]
because he is wrong, at least in this case.
π: 0 β©: 1
humble-abode In reply to Draco-Aroace-the-1st [2016-08-02 21:58:20 +0000 UTC]
And how do you know that
π: 0 β©: 1
Draco-Aroace-the-1st In reply to humble-abode [2016-08-02 22:03:13 +0000 UTC]
Because that is the consonance of the scientists who study the subject and they know a lot more about it you or I do about the topic
π: 0 β©: 0
RMcreeps In reply to Draco-Aroace-the-1st [2016-08-02 20:52:49 +0000 UTC]
So are you for not being open to more than science. Science isn't everything
π: 0 β©: 1
Draco-Aroace-the-1st In reply to RMcreeps [2016-08-02 21:38:02 +0000 UTC]
What... yes it is! Science is the study of everything and this is a scientific topic. Your "opinion" does not change tested FACT. You can't make what you what true just by saying it is true. Reality does not work like that. People who have spent they whole live studying, learning, examining the topic say your wrong so YOU ARE WRONG!
π: 0 β©: 1
RMcreeps In reply to Draco-Aroace-the-1st [2016-08-02 21:39:53 +0000 UTC]
Hidden by Commenter
π: 0 β©: 1
Draco-Aroace-the-1st In reply to RMcreeps [2016-08-02 21:54:43 +0000 UTC]
O no, your a religious nut aren't you. NONE of the questions you just asked would change the fact many dinosaurs had feathers or that birds are a offshoot of reptilian dinosaurs.
Also:
1) yes
2) irreverent
3) irreverent
4) irreverent
Science is not a living thing, it an idea. A means of getting the most likely truth. A way of learning about the world, ourselves, and each other.
I have friends and family to talk to and love me, and in many cases it is thanks to science and the technology born from it that I have them.
π: 0 β©: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>