HOME | DD
Arbitran β 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: 43523; 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
I mean, I could continue with the sarcastic remarks indicating that I clearly haven't, and I'm not sure why you're trying to emphasize the possibility that you work with large birds as your argument that you know more about birds/dinos than me and that you feel it deems you more authority over the conversation. But no, I don't work with birds of prey just like a good 90% of the rest of america doesn't.
In any case, it doesn't matter. I don't imagine a large flying bird to be anything scary. Maybe the closest to scary could be a large swan but even then, birds are extremely light weight. In the event that I maybe attacked by a large flying bird (rooster, swan, eagle, vulture) there's simply no way a bird can win because I weigh 10x as much as they do I could grab any part of them and throw them around and beat them against the ground and there isn't much they could do about it at all.
Now obvious a dromaeosaurid is going to weigh a lot more and realistically they would be scary with feathers, that being said comparing them to an eagle is weak. Because comparing a 5ft heavy weight bird that eats meat to an eagle is weak. But still, in the end a scaly almost alien looking creature of a dinosaur is far more intimidating than a fluff ball.
But the main reason why they haven't changed how their raptors look is because the JP books have written about scaly dinosaurs and the first movie started with scaly dinosaurs and they really can't change this or go away from the books even if they wanted to.
π: 0 β©: 1
Sure, a naked wolf or bear or lion would probably be pretty freaky to look at: but I kinda doubt if you were being sized up by a normal, non-bald predator that you'd stop to say "it'd be scarier if it were hairless". Frankly, JP "dinos" look really goofy to me: like plucked turkeys with bunny hands. Then again, I don't really care about how "scary" something looks: if it's trying to take a bite out of me, what it looks like is close to the last thing on my mind. In fact an accurate raptor would probably be more readily scary than a tiger, for example: tigers don't show their claws, dinosaurs have big-ass talons like a hawk. As Crichton said in the original JP book: "A giant, quiet bird of prey."
π: 0 β©: 1
A furless animal does look funny, because their skin becomes swollen and wrinkly. A featherless bird does look funny, because under those feathers is soft, fleshy skin. JP dinos do not have soft, fleshy skin or wrinkly skin (save for the dying apatosaurus which did look funny to me) they have scales. Their skin is scaly and plated, reptilian textured. Scales are basically a smaller, tougher type of evolved feather which is why where birds don't have feathers, they have scales instead.
So technically speaking the dinosaurs did have feathers in a way, just not the fluffy kind.
π: 0 β©: 1
And non-avian dinosaurs had a variety of integument based on the scale template. But as for theropods: only the most basal groups (such as carnotaurs) are likely to have been significantly scaled on the entire body. Looking reptilian appears to have been the exception not the rule: most species had feathers or fuzz or quills or spines of various types. Certainly a featherless maniraptor would have been similar to a plucked bird: scales were only prominent on the legs.
π: 0 β©: 1
We have no evidence, that carnosauria, Megalosauroidea or Ceratosauria were feathered
π: 0 β©: 0
The clicker part is actually also related to his previous job at the navy: He used to train dolphins. Presumbly as part of this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sβ¦
And believe me: Birds can be scary!
π: 0 β©: 1
-deep sigh-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Prβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
I know.Β I was refering to the character he portrays.
Also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clicker_β¦
π: 0 β©: 0
looks like now I know where to find my kfc
π: 0 β©: 0
The irony is that the sources Crighton used for his depiction of the raptors (Gregory S. Paul's Predatory Dinosaurs of the WorldΒ and Robert Bakker's The Dinosaur Heresies) actually illustrate them with feathers (though admittedly without wings, which we now know they had).Β
Here are some examples from both books (which, I reiterate, were published before JP and were used as sources by Crighton):
Paul:Β i.imgur.com/oSkMOON.jpg
Bakker:Β 4.bp.blogspot.com/-tOVV_O-NGQ8β¦
Why Crighton omitted this is confusing, considering he clearly advocated for the raptor-bird link.
π: 0 β©: 1
Great stuff, thanks 
π: 0 β©: 0
Let's say that Archaeopteryx is not as unique as thought more than 20 decades ago.
π: 0 β©: 0
(sighs) Someday...
- Take Care, Beannacht De Duit
π: 0 β©: 0
How do you know the intelligence of an extinct animal? Brain size is not an indication.
Also, when it comes to predators, assume high reasoning and problem-solving skills. Every modern predator, regardless of brain size, can do it, so every extinct predator could do it. If crocs can use tools (and they do) a raptor is quite easy to train, actually.
π: 0 β©: 1
I was more accounting for intelligence by modern raptors; the point was just to have them not be "smarter than primates", lol
π: 0 β©: 1
...which are smart enough to be trained.
What you said here is, simply, far too stupid. No predator alive is THIS stupid.
π: 0 β©: 1
I've worked with hawks and owls quite a bit, the extent to which they can be trained isn't too impressive. I also don't think Owen is a very good trainer, so let's say they could be trained at more tasks, but he's just a crap trainer, haha
π: 0 β©: 2
I suspect that depends on what type of training we are talking about. I suspect Owens training of them was less to perform tricks and "show" hunt, as most bird handling is geared towards, and more about stopping them from attacking humans on sight or planning ways of breaking out their enclosures, while giving them enough intellectual stimulation that they didn't get bored, aggressive, or anti-social. In that I would say he was quite successful, and even then it was a tricky thing since they had no qualms about attacking when the right provocation was there.
Also bird rearing, dog training, cattle herding, even whale training have all had centuries (if not millennia) of domestication and training tactics behind them. Owen was probably making it all up on his own combined with his experience in dolphin handling during his navy days. In many ways he was on the leading edge of animal behavioral research (and right up at the sharp end given what could have happened to him if he got things wrong). Β Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Yeah.
The intellect of an animal has little bearing on training, however. Snakes are highly intelligent (to the point there's a sadly deceased python who had a habit of opening doors with handles) but they can't be trained at all.
π: 0 β©: 1
This looks atrocious and I'm a person who loves feathered dinosaurs all the same. Why is that all you accurate featherweights like to complain about so much accuracy when you already know it's never gonna happen. Just accept some fact that not all dinosaurs are gonna show feathered dinosaurs and Velociraptor. nublarensis isn't even a real species of dinosaur and is gene spliced with several animal DNA so it shouldn't matter.
π: 0 β©: 1
Maybe, but the description still shows your an accurate lover. I'm mean half-feathered dinosaurs or scaly dinosaurs are just as cool as feathered ones and I love all three.
π: 0 β©: 1
I admit scaly and inadequately-feathered theropods are kind of repulsive to me 
π: 0 β©: 1
Well it's an issue if you guys can't put up the grey bar. I mean scaly aren't so bad look Sauropods they're scaly and the best example of a scaly theropod is Allosaurus.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well yeah, my only issue is depictions of dinosaurs that had feathers as featherless. I'm sure a hairless Megatherium would be badass and terrifying as all hell, but I'd rather people also had an idea of what they actually looked like: with proper integument
π: 0 β©: 1
Well most of the majority of people know that dinosaurs or at least a majority of them were feathered, but most people just want the good old scaly dinosaurs. Cause think about and I mean think about it...if you were to watch the Land Before Time and say went on the accurate approach; how would you feel if you saw Cera with quills on her back or Littlefoot having an elongated face (And trust on that because I saw how it looked with Brontosaurs in the tv series and it was horrible) or Chomper having feathers?
π: 0 β©: 1
I really don't think so. I encounter very few people who are aware that any dinosaurs had feathers. And thinking scaly monsters are cool is one thing, but misleading people into thinking that's what an actual extinct species was like (and refusing to keep up-to-date on that) is quite another matter. Bringing Land Before Time into it isn't precisely fair, because that was a cartoon that wasn't even trying to be particularly accurate scientifically (that said, I'd love to see Cera with quills, or Petrie with fluffy pyncofibres 
π: 0 β©: 1
Well those are the people that really never put on they're thinking caps to study dinosaurs. But a number of people I know have some realization that dinosaurs had feathers and know that they're related to birds.
Besides it's not exactly hereditary a lot of dinosaurs were scaly, Sauropod and Carnosaurian dinosaurs were that example; even a few individuals in the Coelurosaurian may not have had feathers because of disorder or because of they're evolutionary adjustments. So T-rex may not have had feathers when it grew up...that counts for something.
And also it can be portrayed as precisely fair; the bottom line being that paleontologist have complained about that movie a few times and to see Cera with quills would look pretty weirder than ever, and plus Petrie does have pyncofibres, but they just don't animate his furry collar. And if you haven't heard the news it has its very first feathered dinosaur in the franchise; it's Yutyrannus. And no the realism of the dinosaurs is not the problem except for Jurassic World, but it was because people found the plot and environment of both movies most boring and not amazing; this being the consequence of people's taste for entertainment.
Some yes and though sometimes I want them, I think it still kinda ridiculous to put on mantle and flash out frequently like it must be a thing for everything.
π: 0 β©: 1
Most likely Tyrannosaurus was feathered as an adult. But as I said, a normally feathered dinosaur made featherless via deformity or some other cause would be fine, maybe even kind of cool: but as with pretty much any animal one portrays in an abnormal way, it's probably best to mention that it is in fact abnormal, so as not to confuse.
π: 0 β©: 1
And you don't consider a disorder abnormal? Besides T-rex as an adult was most likely not feathered to surge out all that energy in taking for hunting would wear out a T-rex when it's fully grown and being warmed blooded enough it probably didn't need feathers after it grew. The morphology in the skeletal structure could prove this insight since finding Sue they're was no signs of feather imprints or in fact grooves/knobs on the skeleton itself; which proves that as a Tyrannosaurus Rex grew older it sealed up those follicles and carried on the rest of it's life without the need for feathers.
π: 0 β©: 1
Of course a disorder is abnormal. And Yutyrannus pretty much proved Tyrannosaurus had some kind of integument; we just don't know how much. Maybe a lot, maybe very little, but it's improbable that a species would lose its basal integument without a really good reason: and size isn't a very good reason in this case. There aren't many paleontologists anymore who think T. rex was featherless.
π: 0 β©: 1
Just because the Tyrannosaurs like Nanuqsaurus and Yutyrannus had been proven to have feathers in doesn't mean that Tyrannosaurus had a plumage covering as an adult; to further support this these particular Tyrannosaurs were only seen in colder climates like the Arctic Circle while T.rex was found in warmer climates away from the colder hemispheres. And plus with our discovery of Sue no such integuments of feather traces were ever discovered...whether the case on the theory these two Tyrannosaurs also lived several years later than T-rex did. And it is possible for a dinosaur to be featherless as well like how some animals like a bear has short-hair or long-hair (or at least that is more for cats and dogs).
And they're aren't many paleontologist who agree with the theory basically because the moment they found dinosaurs having feathers the career basically labeled all dinosaurs with the exception of Stegosaurs and Ankylosaurs to be feathered. But it's not true Ceratosaurs like Abelisaurus were all armored and through all the complete finds and imprints they're hasn't been at least one feathered Ceratosaurid in history. So it's possible to not have feathers and if they did a number of them grew out of them when they reached full size.
π: 0 β©: 1
We barely have any tyrannosaur skin already, mate, needless to say feathers are even more difficult to preserve.
π: 0 β©: 1
Still doesn't excuse the fact that everybody just labels all the theropods being feathered, especially the coelurosaurs. Tyrannosaurus is just too big and drains too much energy to evolve having feathers for when it would grow to be an adult, of course it would have down as a infant, but for a fully-grown 40 foot long active hunting carnivore? Most likely not.
You don't see too many big Tyrannosaurs around T-rex size that would have feathers and the ones that did usually lived in colder climates, hence why Yutyrannus and Nanuqsaurus evolved these features. And besides in the right environment feathers can preserve well enough and since most of T. rex's environment was open woodlands located near the sources of water; the remains found of feathers possibly would've been preserved. If Microraptor and Archeopteryx and the smaller bird-like Dromaeosaurs and the Tyrannosaurs, Yutyrannus and Nanuqsaurus had well preserved feathers then the bigger carnivores like T. rex should've had them too.
π: 0 β©: 1
The requirements of fossilization are simple. The requirements of exceptional preservation, the kind that gives you skin and feathers, are relatively complicated. The Hell Creek Formation was not a lagerstatten, for example.
π: 0 β©: 1
From what I looked up the known US lagerstattens were Kansas and Nebraska and primarily since T-rex lived throughout the western and central outbacks of America (albeit American Tyrannosaurs being more located in the mountainous western regions and cold fronts up in the north), it still doesn't exclude the fact of Tyrannosaurus not having feathers as an adult, for the possibility that a T-rex was well preserved in something like limestone. A good example comes from Labocania or at least Bistahieversor being the few Tyrannosaurs that are located in places that are covered with limestone and even with a full preserves they may have not had any feathers either.
π: 0 β©: 1
You can't preserve feathers without also preserving other integument or soft tissue. That's not how it works. The Hell Creek Formation, the Javelina Formation, the Lance Formation, the Kirtland Formation, none of these are lagerstatten either, and we would not expect any sort of soft tissue from them. The Smoky Hill Chalk, which is the lagerstatte you're referring to, is marine; you can't just expect to find a Tyrannosaurus in marine deposits. Also, lagerstatten is the plural.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes which limestone tends to do. I'm just saying that there could be a Tyrannosaurus rex that lived on the coastlines around areas surrounded by limestone, lagerstatten or not at least Utah does have some forms of limestone in it's region and it's not like these species dinosaurs just stayed in one state. They had to move around that why were finding Acrocanthosaurus fossils in Maryland and Florida or why we found Tyrannosaur track marks in Massachusetts.
And I wasn't talking about The Smoky Hill Chalk formation either...those date back 80's of the Cretaceous, by the time of Maastrichian stage of the Cretaceous the land in that gap would've decreased. No no I'm talking about some other unknown limestone formations in Kansas and Nebraska cause obviously T-rex did tread on those lands. And also excuse me for not knowing for not knowing how lagerstatten goes by...it's not like I see that word often.
π: 0 β©: 1
Exceptional preservation has very little correlation with limestone and has more to do with taphonomic processes.
Those tracks are Appalachian. Laramidia and Appalachia were separated by the Western Interior Seaway.
The point I'm trying to make here is that there is nothing proving or disproving the existence of feathers in Tyrannosaurus because we don't have any good integumentary impressions from it. Without any of feathers, scales, or skin, which require extraordinary circumstances to be preserved (and none of the specimens so far has been found in an environment conducive to such preservation), it is impractical to conclude anything about whether or not Tyrannosaurus head feathers. Same goes for Nanuqsaurus - we have no feathers for it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Like I really know what taphonomy is...
Yeah I know that, but still proves that dinosaurs like T. rex got around and by the time T. rex started to appear Laramidia and Appalachia eventually did connect to some degree, the only to get Laramidia was to go around the remaining gap or at least head down south from the northern interior. That is my example of why Lythronax and certain other Tyrannosaurs during the Cretaceous may have crossover-ed to Appalachia.
And yes I'm fully aware...preservation of anatomy of a creature such as a T. rex would be hard without the proper requirements, but exceptional preservation does well with correlation in limestone since few creatures in lagerstatten have been found in limestone. But it's true other sediments like chalk have well preserved prehistoric animals too. But back to where I was going; what I was only trying to imply is that T. rex likely enough didn't have feathers as an adult (of course it had them as a teen and infant) the fossil records might be rare, but if T. rex at full growth carried around feathers it wouldn't be able to survive with so much draining its energy whether head feathers or full-bodied feathers. And plus it's most likely obvious for Nanuqsaurus it did have some feathers even if the preservation was rare; for such a Cretaceous Tyrannosaur that was the size of Yutyrannus it's possible. But when you get as big as T. rex it's mostly likely not possible, you don't see fossils of Allosaurus running around with feathers.
And also to put some note skin impressions of the Albertosaurian tyrannosaurs can shed some light that T. rex was more scaly as an adult since to note that both Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus as adults show no display of feathers according to the fossils imprints found.
π: 0 β©: 1
The skin we have for tyrannosaurs are tiny and woefully inconclusive patches.
Feathers don't just trap heat, they also can accelerate heat loss by increasing surface area. A light coat of feathers would do more good than harm.
Allosaurus has at least some phylogenetic bracketing implying that it was more or less scaly (Concavenator).
π: 0 β©: 1
Big whoop it's still some evidence.
And feathers would make things a littler harder for a large creature that is 40 feet long. If Spinosaurus had feathers that were like a Dromaeosaurs, do you realize how that would work for it? A light coat of feathers would probably still take a little more energy than what the T. rex offers itself and also the bigger you are the more body heat you drain. Ducks, Geese, Ratites, modern day Raptors, Toucans etc....these birds are all small compare to Tyrannosaurus; along with the a different metabolism compare to modern day birds, T. rex would have a difficult time.
Uh yeah...I already knew that, I was just pointing out an example. Just because Concavenator had feather quills doesn't mean Allosaurus or the majority of relatives had them.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, they're evidence, but they correspond to places on the body of Yutyrannus where we know there was an absence of integument.
Barrick & Showers (1999) found that Tyrannosaurus had a metabolic rate equivalent to an 800 kg mammal; overheating from a very thin coat of integument would not have been a hindrance.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's the question even if that was examined how do you really know? Such a large creature like T. rex would have probably waste some energy and heat from the thin coat even if equal to the metabolic rate of a mammal. It may have had a metabolism similar to probably a human's or in this case a narwhal's, but in return their still smaller in comparison to T. rex and one (the narwhal) lives in a colder climate than T. rex.
Does and cats tend to overheat from their thin layers of coating and for them to cool off is pant and lick themselves. Unless T. rex used this same procedure in cooling off (IF it had feathers as an adult) then I'd be willing to accept that case especially under the know how that birds have an excellent breathing anatomy. But since that was in 1999, who knows if that changed in theory so that should checked which I will do.
π: 0 β©: 1
Many African bounds, for example, around that weight get around just fine with fur. Tyrannosaurus wouldn't necessarily need to cool off by licking itself, it'd just need to avoid the heat.
π: 0 β©: 1
But those are mammals ten times smaller than T-rex so of course they would do well without it, but were talking a super-predator 65 million years in past that lived in a different ecosystem with oxygen in take and a world that primarily runned by reptile-like birds that were bipeds. And plus what if the summers hit, if T-rex did have feathers if a tree couldn't cool it off it would certainly have to groom itself to stay cool or at least pant to draw out the body heat.
π: 0 β©: 1
Common misconception. The oxygen levels of the Late Cretaceous were not significantly different than today and would not have impacted metabolism.
There you're making the a priori assumption that tyrannosaurs had the same thermoregulatory mechanisms as mammals.
π: 0 β©: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>