HOME | DD
Scheffy11 — Dromaeosaurs Alebertensis
Published: 2015-08-13 14:48:56 +0000 UTC; Views: 219; Favourites: 7; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Barnum Brown's (Mr Dinosaur) classic Dromaosaurs mixed in with a pillated Woodpecker look good no?Related content
Comments: 17
Un-pronate the hands and cover them with primaries, and it'll be perfect.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
to me that makes little sense. The hands of this animal was used for gripping animals so that the animal could slash at it with it's feet; feathers especially long ones would get in the way of this process. Plus this means that the feathers close to the hands wold get covered in blood from a kill and feathers are hard to clean
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
This may make little sense to you, but there is no Dinosaur with pronated hands (at least bipebal ones, but animals like Ornithopods or Marginocephalians didn't have pronated hands either), they couldn't even pronate their hands like the one on your picture without breaking 3 articulations.
Also, Dromaeosaurids didn't use their feet to slash their preys since the talons couldn't even do this, instead, they used their feet like modern raptor birds to pin down their preys and prevent them to escape.
And long remiges on the forearm and the second finger (whether you like it or not, they were present in Paravians) helped these dinos to gain stability while they were on their preys, eating them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmm okay I'll admit i don't know enough to say either way. I will say that if thats the case my local museum exhibit is out dated (which is quite common). Although i'm a little perplexed about you're comments about the raptors feet: i thought raptors had the killer claw with which to slash with on their feet. Also i thought raptors hunted animals bigger then themselves how exactly did the feet help pinning down the animal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, a lot of exhibits and book are outdated (I even have a 2013 book with featherless Ornithomimids), that's a pretty common thing.
The Dromaeosaurid's sickle claws can pierce through skin, if the skin is not too thick, of course. But they don't have the required shape to slash into flesh. Instead of imagining Dromies' feet as swords, imagine them as hands , that can grab their preys and imobilizing them while the predator eats them, modern raptor birds are actually a really good analogy when you want to compare Dromaeosaurids with a living animal.
Also, the "Dromaeosaurid hunted animals way bigger than themselves" is some kind of myth without any evidences, the Deinonychus' remains around a Tenontosaurus only prove they ate the animal, not that they killed it. And about the Velociraptor dying while fighting a Protoceratops, well a Protoceratops isn't very much bigger than a Velociraptor, in this case, the Velociraptor probably used its sickle claw to pierce the carotid artery, and something says me that a Velociraptor hunting a Protoceratops wasn't that common (just an opinion though).
Also, I saw your answer about the hand pronation and the primary feathers on the second finger and about the evolution of birds, and I think some things might be confuse for you (don't worry, you're not the only one, it can be tricky to understand).
First, about primary remiges on the second fingers, we found fossils of Dromaeosaurids with vaned feathers attached to the finger, other Eumaniraptorans with these primary remiges, and even more basal Maniraptorans with feathers only on the second finger, that may imply remiges might evolved on the second finger first, and then, on the forearm, and in more basal taxa than birds. So, it's a fact graved in rock, not a theory.
Then, about pronation. Well, it's also a fact, there is no Theropod with pronated hands, it's in the fossils, and also in the skeleton of any birds. Actually, give a Theropod pronated hands is just like to bend a human wirst like a bird's wing (try to do it, it's impossible unless you broke your wirst).
The fact that birds existed in Mesozoic does actually tend to prove that they evolved from Theropod Dinosaurs and not the contrary, evolution is not linear you know, when a lifeform evolves from a certain lineage, this lineage doesn't necessarily disappear (it's actually not the case in most of the case) it's just a population that happens to differentiate from its ancestor.
If get it right, you think that birds evolved from Dromaeosaurids, it's actually not the case, birds and Dromaeosaurids have a common ancestor and evolved from this Dinosaur particular, it's just like chimpanzees and us. Chimps are not our ancestors, they are our cousins, and we share a common ancestor with them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"The hands of this animal was used for gripping animals so that the animal could slash"
Well, THERE IS NO DINOSAURS WITH PRONATED HAND. Even Therizinosaurus or Utahraptor.
" feathers especially long ones would get in the way of this process."
That's why they had powerful legs with big claw on it, because they couldn't use their arms.
"wold get covered in blood from a kill and feathers are hard to clean"
If i follow your logic, raptor would not have feathers on their head because it's hard to clean.
But, a lot of meat-eating birds can have the whole head and neck covered with blood, like here: www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Kids/… or here: s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/2…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the basic question i had when designing the animal was this is this "does having feathers on the arm actually help in any way?" and the answer was no. Think about other then for flight (which the raptor can't do) it makes little sense for the animal to have something that actively impedes motion of the wrist. Some scientist have suggested this was for matting rituals and that makes some senses I personally prefer plumage on the tail (as you can see).
there is something I think you misunderstand you continually bring up modern raptor behaviour when talking about this animal; i while my own knowledge is to limited in this filed to be sure I believe this is wrong. Raptor dinosaurs behave nothing like like these birds of prey. Birds of prey attack small to medium sized animals diving on them from above and gripping them in their talons before finishing them of with their beak. Raptors on their other hand attacked large animals slashing at them with their killer claw and with large packs in order to secure a kill. My point is although they share many similarities i don't think it's smart to compare birds with raptors because these animals were in actuality world apart form each other.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, we don't have any proof that raptors attacked big dinosaurs. It's a just a, not really credible, theory (except for Achillobator or Utahraptor, maybe).
A Deinonychus attacking a Tenontosaurus is like a dog attacking a horse. Raptors weren't able to slash with their claw, because they are not sharp enough to cut anything.
There is a lot of non-flying bird that have feathers on their arms: Ostrich, Pinguin, Kakapo, that kind of bird.
And no dinosaurus could turn their wrist like human do. It's not a theory, it's a fact.
Why ? Because pronation is useless, except for digging, walking on all four (a thing that no theropod did) and staying on a prey, wich is useless if you have a big claw on your feet and a big mouth filled with sharp teeth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No credible proof that that raptors attacked in big animals? what about all those fossilized remains found with big prey animals around them?
Further more a single fossil "the fighting dinosaur" proves that the animals claws were used to slash at the prey items as clearly that is what the animal was trying to do. more over i question your logic if the animal claws were not sharp enough to slash at things then you need good hand mussel for gripping the animal as now the the animals jaw is the only thing to use to deliver the coup-d'ete.
I understand all flightless birds haver wings however as perviously mentioned i don't believe that raptors had them. My logic is simple as there was no evolutionary benefit for the dinosaur to have wings (unlike the penguin and ostrich that used them for cooling down and swimming) and having them might actually provide a determent (a perviously mentioned routine cleaning after the hunt.) Furthermore I believe although bird evolved from the subcategory of raptors Micro raptors birds evolved and not the main family. What this means is that the raptors like Velocoraptor could have had a less bird like appearance.
Lastly I would caution using the "it's a fact" line when discussing palaeontology simply stated this field changes so rapidly (with each knew fossil theories change) that the only "fact" is that dinosaurs no longer exist (and even that's on shaky ground).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"what about all those fossilized remains found with big prey animals around them? "
Actually, there is only some Deinonychus skeletons near a Tenontosaurus skeleton, its not a proof at all. Deinonychus could have fought for the carcass.
Raptors claw weren't sharp, they were harpoon, not knife. Just look at some fossilised claw: they don't have any grooves on it.
We've find remex print on Velociraptor skeleton, so...
" bird evolved from the subcategory of raptors Micro raptors"
First, Bird existed before raptors, or at least they appeared at the same time.
Then, Microraptor (and not Micro Raptor) didn't evole into a bird or something like that, because bird already exist, and not only in flying" form: Gargantuavis, a ostrich-like bird and Hesperornys, a pinguin-like bird, with teeth.
There's theory and fact in paleontology. Tyrannosaurus is a giant meat-eating animal, it's a fact.
Theropod are only suppinated, that's also a fact (did you have alreay saw a bird or a crocodile with pronated hand ?).
Sinosauropteryx was purple and white, it's still a fact.
The "we don't anything about dinosaurs" is actually quite stupid: there's a lot of thing that's theorized, but we know for sure a lot of things.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
actually what we Know is based soley on what we dig up. It's actually stupid to suggest we know anything about the animals that are dead and we have never, all we have are theories. What you suggest is we know something about a species based soley on how the animals died; remember when brontosaurs was not a dinosaur? My point is this never confuse facts with theories, facts can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Your T-rex theory can be considered fact for this reason your other theories can not:
Given the fact that most Raptor complete skeleton are compressed into limestone and the fact that most wrist bones are tiny it is still within reason to assume that some of the wrist bones were simples crushed we don't have a complete picture on exactly how raptor hand behaved.
Your point about birds existing around the time of Dinosaurs validates my argument if these animals didn't evolve into birds as why has't science simply not reclassified this group as birds? The reason is this group exhibits un bird like traits and Non feathered arms could be one.
I do admit my theory about them being pack animals is more a theory then fact.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"It's actually stupid to suggest we know anything about the animals that are dead"
Oh, so a furrless Smilodon is actually accurate ? A pink herbivorous T. rex is normal ?
" remember when brontosaurs was not a dinosaur?"
Brontosaurus was not a dinosaur ? It was a giant lolipop ? It was a chimera, but it's still a dinosaur.
I think that you don't get it: Theropod WEREN'T pronator, it's not a theory at all. Just check EVERY HAND FOSSIL EVER FOUND ON EVERY SPECIES, and no pronation will be found. Check every bird and crocodile that exist on this planet, and you will see that they're all supinator.
Saying that Raptor were bird is like saying that a seal is a whale. A animal can evolve without the disparition of his ancestor.
"we don't have a complete picture on exactly how raptor hand behaved. "
Say that to the paleontologist that published quite a lot of papers, files etc... about Raptor and the fact that they are supinator.
We actually have proof that Raptor had feathers on the arms and fingers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
okay i think you dont' get it. Are understanding of Dinosaurs is based on two things Zoology and the fossils we dig up; both of which are still incomplete. Look at how Iguinadon originally looked, wonder why it looked so weird? The answer is because we knew very little about how animals moved and behaved and there for based it on an animal we did know a lot about the iguana. as are understanding of animals deepens so to does are understanding of dinosaurs because we base what we understand about the dinosaurs on what we know about animals. Zoology is still being studied because there still is a lot about animals we don't understand ergo we still don't understand dinosaurs.
Secondly there's a complex problem you fail to understand about palaeontology: for every fossil discovered the palaeontologist has to ask is what i'm seeing unique to the species or unique to the animal?
Mutations, disease and even fractures can drastically alter are understanding of dinosaurs simply because there is so little fossils to go on. Think about it this way if hundreds of years from know some alien species starts digging up human remains and the skeletons they dig up all suffer from dwarfism they would conclude that all humans were that small. I know the likely hood that all they discover only people suffering dwarfism is small but if they only find three skeletons and two of them are dwarfs they are going to assume that the third one is the exception and not the rule.
Remember this question began with Dromaeosaurs how many skeletons do we have of this animal? how many do we estimate there was? This is important because in order to prove definitively how the animal behaved and looked we need to have a high percentage of the animal other wise we may have simply seen animals that are the exception and not the rule.
lastly for the longest time Brontosaurs was the unicorn of the dinosaur world it simple did not exist except in fairy tails
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You don't want to admit that we have some fact that are absolutly true about dinosaurs, like the fact that Raptor weren't able to be pronator.
"Secondly there's a complex problem you fail to understand about palaeontology"
as we say in France, it's the hopital that mocks the charity.
"Mutations, disease and even fractures can drastically alter are understanding of dinosaurs"
So every fucking theropod had wrist fracture ?
I mean, it's not a theory the whole "theropod can't pronate their hands". If a theropod had pronated hand, then he will die pretty young.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
again how many dinosaurs skeletons do we have? how big was the population theses things matter. if only 15% of the population had non pronated hands and we just happen to discover the 15% that's not fact its luck. also saying a dinosaur will die petty young because of an abnormality isn't true they have discovered an allausaur with a broken jaw that lived a pretty long life even after the jaw healed in a odd position "life finds a way" as the saying go.
I don't believe in absolute facts that's what i believe science is all about:nothing in science should ever be considered absolute because science is about discovery not truth. I honestly believe science has lost it's way to often people say "it's fact because science" forgetting that science is not a seer of truth but an explorer of are world. Absolute fact you say? rubbish even something as trivial as a researchers emotional state can effect the outcome of a study. Mock me if you must but i hope you that you take this as a challenge to prove my views wrong; become a paleotonlogist, do research try to prove that all raptors and not the few specimens were as you say. Just remember it's all about the journey of discovery; it's just as possible that someone will come along and disprove your theory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First: " if only 15% of the population had non pronated hands"
It implies that EVERY FUCKING THEROPOD SPECIES EVER FOUND had 15% of non-pronated specimen ? That's absolutely dumb.
If Aliens found our fossils, and almost every human they'll find is between 1m60/1m80 tall, they will not say "only 15% of the human population was 1m70 tall"
The Broken-Jaw was a lucky bastard. Not every dinosaur, especially theropod could survive if he was misshapen. A pronated Theropod could not claw another animal, he could not take a prey, he could not fly (Yi qi for exemple), he could not climb into trees etc...
"I don't believe in absolute facts"
So you can say that humans aren't mammal, that the sky isn't blue or the sun is not hot.
Or that Tyrannosaurus wasn't a meat-eater, that Triceratops didn't had horns or that Velociraptor didn't had feathers on the arms.
If a paleontologist proove that EVERY SINGLE THEROPOD was pronated (wait, it's impossible), I'll eat my hat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
no but if aliens find only 15% of a population there going to base theories on that 15% it's important to know that because it means you've got to grapple with the fact of this bias. It means that although your theory may apply to the population as you've discovered it is still possible that 95% of the population the theory is wrong. It's been 40 years since science classified Theropod's and 10 years since the discovery of feathers it is still within reason that we don't fully understand the nature of these animals. Heck were still trying to unlock the secrets of sharks an animal that exists and can be tagged and studied alive.
the sky is't blue it's transparent the blue colour is a result of light rays are being scattered in the atmosphere, if it was blue it would be a darker blue at night and not black
Although humans could be classified as mammals it is also possible to say that we inhabit are own category after all we stand on the heel of are foot rather then are toes like all other mammals
the sun isn't hot when compared to other stars (notably red dwarfs)
the dinosaur facts i will confess to not knowing enough about to challenge but my point is this: points of view can drastically alter the perception of fact.
One scientist can take a look at something and say one thing about and another can see it and see something drastically different. Fact only comes when the science can routinely test there theories and routinely get the expected results. Papers based solely on a small percentage of fossils of different animals found is a theory not a fact. If they could find more fossils based the same animal routinely showing the same animal in the same condition would Sufic as fact.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0