HOME | DD
Arbitran — RAPTOR RAPTORS
#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: 43515; 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
Ermm what about the feathered dinosaur tail in Myanmar???
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
news.nationalgeographic.com/20…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well, for Velociraptors, yes. Mine aren't Velociraptors. They're Deinonychus (possibly Acheroraptor).
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Still to big for Deinonychus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh, then I have no more questiones. ))
Oh wait, what about the second type of dinosaurs? (long necks, 4-legged) do you think they also had feathers? But they don't have a similar skeletons to birds.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, sauropods? Ornithischians (sauropods, ceratopsians, etc.) probably had similar structures to feathers (fuzz, quills, spines, etc.), but no, they didn't have bird-like feathers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, for a few:
Psittacosaurus (an early ceratopsid) had quills on it's tail that looked like a cross between porcupine quills and simple feathers.
Tianyulong had feathers
Kulindadromeus had feathers
For sauropods? no evidence aside from phylogentic bracketing
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The first three you mentioned are Ornitishias -bird bones.
The ones that probably didn't had feathers are Saurishias - lizard bones.
Hah, so many dinos that I knew suddenly have feathers and now look totally different. X_X
Psitacosaurus even has a beak. xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Birds are saurischians, as they are theropods.
Coelurosaurs, including birds have/had feathers.
So both Saurischians and Ornithischians had feathers.
(also, yes, indeed, paleontology advances fast...I'm just 15 and I can still remember that when I was a kid, I drew featherless raptors XD)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I got confused there a bit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, it IS very confusing XD
birds are, paradoxially, not ornithischians, but they are saurischians.
They just have highly modified hips compared to other saurischians.
This places them in the same branch as theropods (they are theropods) and sauropodomorphs.
Ornithischians, are less related to birds, but just got a very very confusing name.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
this is really cool!
I love how you used the idea of modern bird dna in their designs!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cool i like when people try to show scientific accuracy, good job! The first and last JW movie i saw it was the first Jurassic World movie, then i stopped because of its inaccuracies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is really cool! Now forgive my ignorance, because I know next to nothing about actual dinosaurs and what they would have looked like. Is this image as scientifically accurate and realistic as you could make it? Or did you take any artistic liberties when making this?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I tried to be as scientifically accurate as possible, although I'm sure a specialist in dromaeosaur anatomy would spot plenty of problems I didn't catch. The fact there are three of them allowed me to try out different ideas for how they might be reconstructed (different brows, eyes, and feather colors/patterns, etc.): but overall I think they're as accurate as I could achieve
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's really cool! I think they look awesome, way cooler than the fake dinosaurs in the movie <3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A bit bluebox-ish and especially the middle one looks like a much smaller animal (reminds me of Emily Willoughby's rawr Microraptor), but definitely cool
Maybe a bit of prejudice because I'm used to small birds these times.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The middle one was tricky, but I got it about as good as I think I can, haha 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I never understand why you guys always cover the face of Theropods with plumage as well, pretty much saying this there had to at least a few coelo-theropods that had a majority of the top featherless, the Vultures and most ratites are top proof of that.
Instead of just drawing the coelo-theropods always covered entirely with a down of feathers maybe you and some other paleo-accurates should try drawing some theropods with a scaly/leathery neck?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have, and will continue to. I will also continue to show plumaged heads and necks. Because as we see in birds, BOTH patterns exist. Important point: vultures have reduced integument on their heads and necks because of their dietary practices, while are primarily carrion-scavenging. Predatory vultures, such as lammergeiers, have fully plumaged heads and necks. All non-vulture modern raptors have fully plumaged heads and necks. Ratites have distinctly different dietary practices from raptors, ergo it would be unexpected to see a significant similarity in this area. I maintain full plumage on dromaeosaur heads is far and away the most tenable reconstruction.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
However despite the different pattern in dietary practice, Ratites trait some of the integument around their upper region which stops at the collar, which we all know the body excess full plumage. I find most irregular by the decision most paleo-artists decide by illustrating most theropods with a full integument rather than it most of it being on the body and less of it be on the neck. It's a more accurate portrayal on bird-like dinosaurs and likely within bird-like Ornithoschians like the Hypsilophodonts; and I'm glad to see you kind of agree with that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well yeah, I have no doubt some dinosaurs had ratite-like integument patterns. I think it does have a lot to do with diet though. Dromaeosaurs are most likely to have had full plumage, imo
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I'd still say it be safe to reconstruct some Dromaeosaurus with a balding upper region of a body, it makes perfect sense to think so, and this isn't just going out to the Dromaeosaurs, but other coelurosaurians that did have feathers. And besides what diet with the plumage patterns of birds anyway?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What exactly makes so much sense about it that you think it should be so pervasive? Yes, we have birds with that pattern, and undoubtedly there were dinosaurs with that pattern, but as with any animal dinosaurs' integument must have correlated in large part to their diet. Ratites are mostly herbivorous/frugivorous with supplementary small animals and insects. Vultures are almost all carrion scavengers (except, again, the lammergeier). All predatory birds have full head and neck plumage, sometimes even excessively (harpy eagle). I see no reason to think a fully predatory dinosaur should have reduced plumage in that area; on the contrary, I may have given them too little for all we know, they could have sported crests.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because it's pretty true, you wanna talk pervasive; is the number of times I've seen so many paleo-artists draw a full-fledged predatory Coelurosaurian theropods with a few coat of feathers it's not really expanding in accuracy in my eyes. Besides apart from the Ratites and Vultures revolving around a different eating pattern some herbivores like Parrots and Finches have this full-coated set of feathers. Dinosaurs had a little bit of difference in their ecosystem compared to ours, mainly all the predatory theropods suited for hunting and scavenging; so what would make someone think that something like a Deinonychus didn't have a scaly-head with a feathered bodied. So far I've only seen on artists take it upon themselves to enforce this concept in Austroraptor, plus another artists Swordlord3d try something similar for a project. With the little addition of either feathered fuzz or a downed coat-with a scaly neck under it, the concept is still enforced a number of times compared to the more exceeded full integument coverage.
www.deviantart.com/art/Austror…
www.deviantart.com/art/Austror…
www.deviantart.com/art/Austror…
www.deviantart.com/art/Austror…
Most of these birds are also a lot smaller compared to something human-sized like a Coelophysis or Dakotaraptor; to evaluate...size has to involve some role in the arrangement of the feathers, if you look at most birds the size of a human all of them have bald-heads; the condors are the best example and they hunt lots of creatures bigger or around the same size than them. I mean take a look at Argentavis now that is a large bird that would lived a predatory life-style (apart from the lack of aerodynamic proportions) and it's also a condor so that is one reason as to why it would make some more sense to draw at least a portion of theropods with an integument line ending at the chest; it's the best hypothesis. It also has to involve the environment the animal resides in, as you know many animals settle their integument patterns to coincide with their environmental ecology they live such as Foxes who change the color of their fur or Bears who adjust to a streamline coat for swimming better, for some scrub and savannah birds they abide in just a full coat of feathers near the chest and naked head, while others living in colder or aquatic environments with have something streamlined or thick and layered. This was obviously something theropods adjusted to, as it occurred to me it may also revolved down the line of the evolution of feathers as it would possibly settle like this...
Triassic - Most dinosaurs or dinosaur-like animals were likely covered in scales, with a small portion had feathers
Jurassic - The climate is just as hot compared to the Triassic; feathers start to become more apparent in the lifestyle of smaller dinosaurs with a few involving the capability of flight while medium-large sized dinosaurs remained scaly with minimum few sporting quills.
Cretaceous - The climate dramatically changes and world grows colder, the widespread of dinosaur species evolve different integument patterns to adjust in their new ecosystems, feathers ranging from thick-tufted, to streamline, down, quills, filoplume, and more developed flight feathers are more common; only a continuing set of dinosaurs stay scaly; with a clutch of the medium-sized dinosaurs (namely Coelurosaurian theropods) now evolving feathers, possibility a small set of large sized theropods had feathers.
Now this seems likely to candidate despite sediments in rock have lesser imprints discovered in most from the mainly Jurassic, and Triassic, but also in the Cretaceous. This seems like the obviously turnabout in the evolutionary involvement for feathers in dinosaurs.
I'm not saying it's common, but it would make more sense to think that dinosaurs involved their integument arrangements differently compared to most animals living today.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
F*ck i like you alot, since i dont have a degree in paleontology i cant defend my arguments. And you are spot on with everything, i agree with you the over exaggerated some of these hobby paleontologist is up too makes me a bit confused " they also claim from time to time they are 100% accuerate haha" it makes me laugh. THanks for standing up for your opinion and probably the truth!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You can't really draw that inference so hastily. We've been talking about ratites and vultures because they are comparatively primitive birds. Both diet and habitat are factors in integument evolution, and both lean towards full head integument for dromaeosaurs: diet which is primarily predatory (which as we see in modem raptors seems universally to mean full feathers on the head and neck), and habitat which ranges from forest to savanna to desert depending on species (hence you might argue that a desert-dweller like Velociraptor might have a more vulture-like feather pattern, to avoid blood getting baked into its feathers by the sun; but as every example of a predatory forest- or savanna-dwelling bird shows, again, full head integument). My point: you can't just declare that because large birds today have featherless heads and necks, therefore we should expect that in most dromaeosaurs. You have to demonstrate a biological REASON for them to have that pattern (e.g., preventing blood accumulation in the feathers, like vultures; or some other plausible reason). And I'm not sure you can really argue basal dinosaurs were mostly scaly anymore: as Kulindadromeus shows, even some of the earliest ancestral dinosaur lineages had feathers and related integuments. I also think we're neglecting the mammalian parallels here: non-avian dinosaurs shared many analogous features with mammals -- and as we see universally in both mammals and birds, predator seems to pretty much equal a full coat of integument. Dromaeosaurs are quite a lot like eagles and wolves combined: I don't recall any wolf or eagle species that have naked heads though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hastily, for the record it's a thought to think about and I'm sure at least few scholars/paleontologists would agree with that statement.
Primitive or not this still gives some insight; a habitat does well expense on the integument evolution (as I mentioned before) as well as the diet like we've been negotiating back and forth about. But you size is also the formality as well; really haven't you noticed that more smaller birds have a full integument, but human-sized birds have some, but less near the head? Diet maybe one thing, but size also has to do with it…like I said Dinosaurs had a bit difference in their ecosystem. A good example of a dinosaur that is a bird are the Sauropods, not at least on them of experience a dread of plumage nor feathers (just try to stay in the loop with me) and some are as tall as a human, I will state that they're not theropods, but it could give a good example of that diversity in the evolution of feathers.
Yes though that is true, what if woodland/tropical Coelo-theropods had naked heads too? At least a small portion of them…now this could like because they wanted to stay clean…and were back to Argentavis it's a big predatory Condor and lived in the tropics; the Miocene forest were likely no different from the rainforests/plains we see today.
Okay I'm going to be firm with you on this; I never declared that just because of large-birds had featherless heads doesn't mean that all Coelo-theropods had them it's just a thought in theory not something I'm trying to proclaim and force out to be tyrannical and it shows your not entirely listening as this isn't about just Dromaeosaurs, but about other Coelo-theropods too and first off I did evaluate a biological reason if you had paid attention to my hypothesis, but the climate changes or the comparisons given from Condors and the Marabou Stork. And just once envision the Dromaeosaur like a Condor, a condor is almost like an Eagle and lives practically almost a similar lifestyle intact some Eagles and Hawks coexist near the same environment.
I'm not trying to say that all Coelo-theropods were all feathered or not, but it given the statement and evolutionary patterns due to the ecosystem changing and relatively enough some change in size I don't see why not at least one Coelo-theropod wouldn't express a fashion of a bald head or cross-between both scales and feathers. It's a possibility as a few non-coelurosaurian dinosaurs express this fashion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well which is it? Did non-avian dinosaurs have completely different integumentary patterns from modern animals, or do you want to compare them with modern animals? As I've said, I agree some theropods in general undoubtedly had bald heads: I don't think that terribly likely for the species I have here portrayed, which is of course why I keep referring to dromaeosaurs specifically.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I choose both, because on one hand there are distinctive traits that dinosaurs and their descendants shared in common and on the other hand some dinosaurs adapted their integument patters differently than modern animals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"...scaly...face..."
*Irks*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you're starting beef then tough luck pal…that is likely how some dinosaur would look; you look at a Condor then your looking at a dinosaur which in turn could tell that dinosaurs had naked heads with feathers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You don't understand.
Scaly. Face.
cutecritters07.weebly.com/uplo…
IIRC I'm pretty sure there are no birds with scaly faces (Not the diesease. I mean actualy scales now.) and stem-dromeosaurs were all floof.
"If you're starting beef then tough luck pal…"
U wot m8 (No seriously. What does this mean?)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No I don't think you understand, though evolved a skin texture that lacks scales, dinosaurs on the other had this texture. They were a combination of both reptiles and birds combined and the ones that evolved into birds decided to just remove the scaly texture with a soft leathery texture.
And if your so sure all Dromaeosaurs or at least the population of Coelo-theropods were all covered in fluff; then why are there birds living today with naked heads? It's obvious you being one-minded about the theory and it's not it wouldn't make any sense, there would've been at least a few Coelo-theropods with a lack of feathers near the torso region.
And dude I would say to work on your writing grammar cause it's "fluff" not "floof" and it's surprising to see that you know how to use text lingo, but don't know the terming slang for "beef". It means your starting a fight dude…and all that "IRK" gave it away.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bald heads in vultures are for thermoregulatory purposes that evolved secondarily, plus they don't have hands free for cleaning their face. (That second bit doesn't really matter since birds are REALLY REALLY messy eaters. They also preen a lot and whatnot.) It's kind of hard to determine plumage in dinosaurs when you have few bits of evidence scattered here and there. Even though there are occassional discoveries that can also give you clues on what its relatives are like. Dinosaurs are weird man. You get a basal fluffy ornithischian and derived scaly ornithischians and ornithischian integument is still confusing. Other theropods are neutral on the plumage discussion (Abelisaurs and Megalosaurs), since we have fluffy baby megalosaurs(?) and tiny bits of incomplete skin impressions from abelisaurs. Even though a lot of dinosaurs have scaly/"integument-less" tails.
Stem Dromeosaurs are floofy though. Just look at them. LOOK AT THEM.
"then why are there birds living today with naked heads?"
They're not exactly bald... They're usually covered in a small amount of down. So they're not exactly naked. They're usually secondarily evolved by the way.
Dromeosaurs are pretty plumed, so it's safe to assume they're covered in feathers from head to toe. Literally, since scaly legs have secondarily evolved from feathers condensing into "avian scales". There are certain bird species that have bald spots/areas under the wings, why does everyone forget that? So scaly feet in dromeosaurs is a bit iffy. I never said anything about coelurosaurs, except dromeosaurs and avians.
I'm no paleontologist so go ask other people about this if you want help. I'm just saying what I know about them.
Floof. It's just slang that is used by a lot of people for fluff or plumage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So what? That doesn't mean they don't, Marabou Storks evolved bald heads for such reasons as those and not just for thermoregularities. That makes it sounds so one minded that underestimate evolutionary construct in animals; that's like saying when a person losing their limbs they will never a mount to anything yet you got some limbless people out doing the unthinkable. And besides surely enough dinosaurs were messy eaters too every animal is messy eater now and then.
Though it's hard to determine what dinosaur plumage, modern days birds are pretty much to describe that to us, yeah sure big dinosaur like Yutyrannus and Dakotaraptor had lots of proto-feathers, but then take a look at Concavenator it's not even feathery and sports a few quills. That can explain how diverse it could possibly be.
First off it's spelt "Fluffy" and second I have looked at a number of dinosaurs to know which kinds are exposed to the evolutionary trait of feathers, but I'm talking just Dromaeosaurs goddammit. And furthermore I know bald-headed birds have strands of plumage on their head, but still technically they're bald, Condors are the best example. You say Dromaeosaurs are "pretty plumed", but what makes you so sure about that? Because of Velociraptor and Microraptor and some other Coelo-theropods; that's pretty much one minding the conclusion that just because a few dinosaurs are fully-feathered doesn't mean others of its kind are. A Platypus is duck-billed yet don't see many other mammals with a duck-bill nor with a toxic barb hidden in your head. Honestly your jumbling your words my friend and completely misunderstanding my statement across "I never said anything about coelurosaurs, except dromaeosaurs and avians" that is still talking on topic about Coelurosaurs. And yes so if diversity of Ornithoschians had had scaly and feathery then why not Coelo-theropods and by that I mean some having naked-heads? It would seem to your knowledge is a bit off with a few things for starters is that baby Megalosaur is called a Scuirimimus and is now being debated as a Tyrannosaur. Second there is no evident proof of larger Dromaeosaurs having fluff underneath their feet and plus I was never aware there were some birds species who had bald-spots under their wing. Clearly since most people missed that memo so now you know why?
And to make it anatomically correct scales came first so feathers had evolved from scales.
I've looked up DinosaurGeorge a couple of times and mainly is opinion is it is hard to tell. For the record because Utahraptor is such a big and powerful creature his theory is that it had less feathers than most people think.
Uh yeah I don't know what kinda of people your talking about, but the majority of people I've never used that slang or for that matter never even heard of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What have I gotten myself into this time...
"Though it's hard to determine what dinosaur plumage, modern days birds are pretty much to describe that to us, yeah sure big dinosaur like Yutyrannus and Dakotaraptor had lots of ***proto-feathers***, but then take a look at Concavenator it's not even feathery and sports a few quills. That can explain how diverse it could possibly be."
U wot m8. U doo dis wit dromeos???
We're not even really sure what those bumps really ARE. They could be "muscle anchors" or quill knobs, I need to research the accepted theory about Concavenator. Hold on.
"Uh yeah I don't know what kinda of people your talking about, but the majority of people I've never used that slang or for that matter never even heard of it."
Shitloads of peple in the paleo-community.
"but the majority of people I've never used that slang or for that matter never heard of it"
What.
"First off it's spelt "Fluffy"
You don't say?
"First off it's spelt "Fluffy" and second I have looked at a number of dinosaurs to know which kinds are exposed to the evolutionary trait of feathers, but I'm talking just Dromaeosaurs goddammit. And furthermore I know bald-headed birds have strands of plumage on their head, but still technically they're bald, Condors are the best example. You say Dromaeosaurs are "pretty plumed", but what makes you so sure about that? Because of Velociraptor and Microraptor and some other Coelo-theropods; that's pretty much one minding the conclusion that just because a few dinosaurs are fully-feathered doesn't mean others of its kind are. A Platypus is duck-billed yet don't see many other mammals with a duck-bill nor with a toxic barb hidden in your head. Honestly your jumbling your words my friend and completely misunderstanding my statement across "I never said anything about coelurosaurs, except dromaeosaurs and avians" that is still talking on topic about Coelurosaurs. And yes so if diversity of Ornithoschians had had scaly and feathery then why not Coelo-theropods and by that I mean some having naked-heads? It would seem to your knowledge is a bit off with a few things for starters is that baby Megalosaur is called a Scuirimimus and is now being debated as a Tyrannosaur. Second there is no evident proof of larger Dromaeosaurs having fluff underneath their feet and plus I was never aware there were some birds species who had bald-spots under their wing. Clearly since most people missed that memo so now you know why?"
It's really, really, really, really, REALLY safe to assume Dromeosaurs were floofy.
First: They came from plumed ancestors that needed their plumes for reasons that you MIGHT know. (I don't know... Not freezing to death? Maintaining heat? Being sexy? That last one though. Ha ha. Survival of the sexiest.)
Second: Why lose something absurdly useful to your survival?
Third: Phylogenetic bracketing?
Fourth: Big Raptor got the fluff man/Tiny Raptors got the fluff man.
Why do you have to use platypus as an example? They're really specialized AND basal, it's kind of unfair to use them as an example. If it ain't a placental, give it a pouch. (Wait. Platypus don't have pouches, but they use their tails as "baby holders")
Shit. I alway get ornithischians wrong. I need to remember how to spell that word right. Lets finish dromeosaurs and coelurosaurs before we go to the clusterfuck that is Ornithischian integument. We have mummies with scales, we have fluffy basal ones, scaly basal ones, scaly derived one, plumed derived ones and other crazy whatnot.
"I was never aware there were some birds species who had bald-spots under their wing."
It happens. Some species of ibis have bald areas under the wing for some reason. Only birds I'm aware of that have bald under winged areas
www.ms-starship.com/journal/oc…
www.brendanbody.co.uk/flight_t…
Meh.
"Scuirimimus"
I need to get that name right.
Naked headed theropods? Depends on what theropod you want it on. In this case dromeosaurs. TELL ME WHAT DROMEOSAUR YOU WANT BALD HEADED.
"And to make it anatomically correct scales came first so feathers had evolved from scales."
This is some OLD knowledge man. Like one, two or EVEN THREE decades old. Wait. Got to check that.
"It would seem to your knowledge is a bit off with a few things for starters is that baby Megalosaur is called a Scuirimimus and is now being debated as a Tyrannosaur. Second there is no evident proof of larger Dromaeosaurs having fluff underneath their feet and plus I was never aware there were some birds species who had bald-spots under their wing. Clearly since most people missed that memo so now you know why?"
I must ask Faa, H-bomber and other people about this Scuirimimus.
Tarsal scales are pretty new. They probably evolved from feathers. Ask people. Plenty of dinosaurs have fluffy legs. Look at birds and the seemingly infinite amount of small coelurosaur and maniraptoriform fossils from Asia. So many dinosaurs. Sinosauropteryx, Microraptor, *Zhenyuanlong, Caudipteryx, Jinfengopteryx... True, there is no evident proof of fluffy legs on large dromeosaurs. Nothing is stopping it though, more likely than bald legs though.
*Wait... Scratch this guy off. I just remembered that this guy has seemingly bald legs in the fossil. Weird.
**** it. It's late and I'm tired. I'll finish responding later. So tired.... I need to read this message later to see if I said angry/unfinished stuff because of lack of sleep due to studying and researching dinosaurs and other animals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
m.youtube.com/watch?v=aDT5_vZP…
I really think you will like the video above!
1. I really like what you did here. Very nice placement of the ornaments and you kept the overall body shape almost the same.
though the feathers are a tad on the modern downy fluff side, and less on the quill like proto feathers that covered the animal. Modern feathers are found on arms as you have placed them, and on some dinosaurs, most raptors excluded, have tail fans.
2. They are actually Deinonychus. A paleontologist, who gave Micheal Crichton his information for his books, around the time Deinonychus was still relatively unknown classified Deinonychus Antirrhopus as Velociraptor Antirrhopus due to a lack of fossil evendence and his own idea that the two might be in the same genus. Crichton then used this name in his book. Movies followed suite and had to keep the Flashier velociraptor name because of continually.
3. Delta in Jurassic World actually does have bird Dna already in her in cannon. But Dino's are birds is really just a theory. Not fact.
especially since the bridge when Dino's turned from raptor into bird, existed before either of the other two. Example Archaeopteryx.
it is the go to for the birds are dinosaurs theory. It existed in the late Jurassic. The very very very earliest known dinosaur of the raptor family is thought to maybe have been in that time period. It's quite debated. And birds existed well into the early Jurassic and late Triassic. So how does a small maniraptor from the late creatatous, evolve into the transitional form archaeopteryx that existed 150 million years before it, and then into a bird that was already around before archaeopteryx xD
i hope I didn't come off as rude or a know it all. But again it really is Just a Theory, and keep up the good art!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Actually sir, I'm pretty sure that the one in JW is actually Achillobator, just like the ones in the novel cannon and unlike the previous JP movies
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The raptors in previous novel cannon are Velociraptor antirrhopus.
the author used information that, at the time, some scientists thought deinonychus was close enough to be classified as a velociraptor family member. More of a cousin than direct family though, and this was later found out. But the book had been written and the author decided not to break continuality and the name was flashier.
thats why they are still called velociraptors in the movies.
they are however, and have always been, based directly off of Deinonychus Antirrhopus.
even though modern studies have raptors closer in size to Jurassic parks raptors (ex. Achillobator) they still technically are Deinonychus.
considering Achillobator had yet to be found when the books and majority of the movies were made. If they didn't break continuality then, they more than likely won't do it now. It's to far ingrained. I believe we will have incorrectly named Velociraptors for as long as the franchise has life in it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, achillobator has been discovered at the time when Crichton write the novel, but its not yet to be named. If I remember correctly, it was only labelled as "some kind of a large velociraptor" which probably where Crichton got the inspiration of large ass raptors. There's a chance that it was achillobator that was showed instead of deinonychus, why ?
1. Despite Grant said that "deinonychus has been considered as velociraptor" in the novel, that doesn't really mean the raptors are deinonychus. Dr. Wu stated that they found the raptor DNA from Mongolia. And the only man-sized raptor in Mongolia are achillobator, not deinonychus.
2. The official JW website also stated the same thing, they found the DNA from mongolia. However, their raptors are still large. There's no freakin' way you can find a single deinonychus DNA from mongolia, so it was probably achillbator. Ironically, the skull that was showed came from a 2 meters long velociraptor.
And yeah, no matter what, it will always called velociraptors.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1.Because Critchon got most of his information from Gregory S Paul, who's 1988 book labeled deinonychus as a velociraptor. Achillobator had yet to be discovered until the following year. It would only be officially published and named in 1999. 9 full years after the first novel was written. It's possible Critchon couldn't even access information on the find because it was fragmentary and wouldn't be published for so long. The cannon would have already been set.
2. It's called Deinonychus "Antirrhopus"
The name shared by the Jurassic Park velociraptors.
as previously stated Velociraptor Antirrhopus. In JP franchise cannon I.e. Novels and movies the words velociraptor and deinonychus are interchangeable as long as it ends in Antirrhopus.
3. Even if they were based on Achillobator. They would have a doubly incorrect name. As there would be 3 raptors mashed into one. No other dinosaur in the novels has this kind of problem. And this problem is directly related to Gregory naming Deinonychus a velociraptor while other paleontologist did not. The rest is just keeping continuality within the cannon.
jurassic world also stated in movie that the dna was not pure, and that the animals would look much different if they were pure. They could have easily added a gene that made actual velociraptors larger and they could get away with it through this loophole. Same goes for why they aren't feathered.
though Achillobator is a decent stand in for deinonychus in these films, it's just not were the name and original concept came from. It came by just a little to late to be a part of Critchons books. He went with what was an already established dinosaur rather than bones he probably knew nothing about that would be unnamed for nearly a decade
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah you made a good point actually.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>