HOME | DD
Tomozaurus — Common errors for Velociraptor
by
Published: 2010-09-11 05:01:03 +0000 UTC; Views: 31061; Favourites: 318; Downloads: 319
Redirect to original
Description
I hate this image. It's old, it's terrible, there are huge problems with it. It's still here because of it's intense populatity and that it was the thing that shot me to "fame" in the palaeoartistic community. For an up-to-date and far superior version of the same idea see Chris Masna's Velociraptor infographic: www.deviantart.com/art/Velocir…
DISCLAIMER:
Too many people have misinterpreted this image for me not to throw this in. The "real" Velociraptor here is not supposed to be the be-all and end-all of how to feather the animal. Of course there is going to be variation you twats, Velociraptor and it's close relatives are not the same animal (see my post on the opposite end of feather coverage here: tomozaurus.deviantart.com/gall… . The point of the "real" diagram is to direct attention to phylogenetic bracketing as I assume that those drawing half-arse and greyhound deinonychosaurus don't understand it or don't know of it at all (as is evidenced in a lot of comments).
Yes, the comments are disabled. You can thank all the keyboard warriors commenting in contempt while at the same time having no idea what they are talking about for this loss of privilege for everyone.
Related content
Comments: 216
Duly noted. I'll be sure to add this to the new version.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
HERE is a truly ACCURATE Velociraptor! ------> [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
All the fully feathered raptor fossils are microraptorans, right? Couldn't the bigger ones have had bald heads like vultures?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bald heads and necks are certainly possible. I have done another artwork exploring possibly balding in deinonychosaurs, here: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've reviewed this tutorial on ART Evolved. Please don't take it as a personal attack, I love your art, and the idea you're going for with this. I do however have some philosophic issues with the presentation of your conjectural (rather than factual as you imply) guide on how to drawing Velociraptor.
[link]
Thought it'd be fair to give you a heads up (I even had to sign up with Deviantart and everything 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No worries.
While I agree with a lot of the points that you make, I do disagree with others. The whole point of the piece was to get people thinking about phylogenetic bracketing and you seem to find this as one of the main issues. That was the point!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*In a civil tone* Sorry just to clarify the point of your poster was to raise the issue of phylogenetic bracketing or for people to take issue with bracketing? The wording at the end isn't quite clear at the end.
I won't lie, I didn't bother to read the accompanying text on your post before. Yes this was very lazy and bad of me. However I'd encountered your picture on a few blogs discussing it before, and frankly they all did what I did. We took your diagram's builtin text as the important information and disclaimers, and assumed your text here on the DeviantART post was just a personal commentary. So your accompanying text ""the real" Velociraptor here is not supposed to be the be-all and end-all of how to feather the animal" was not seen. When you consider how much this diagram got around beyond this site... Disclaimers have to be attached to their target for them to work. Especially diagrams that already have text on them
Again I get your point about Velociraptors and Microraptors being related. People should keep it in mind!
That however this doesn't disprove the half naked model! Frankly nothing disproves it at moment...
So I do challenge *less civil, but still friendly tone* your challenge "If anyone else would like to make a comment telling me there is nothing wrong with the half-arse variant, make sure you include an explanation as to why a Velociraptor would have lost it's primary feathers when no other maniraptor known has done so"
I do NOT have to include an explanation. It is neither right nor wrong. Your "real" velociraptor is not right. It is not wrong. It is simply an artistic hypothesis.
Which means YOU have to provide the evidence it is right! So unless you are sitting on the fossil that can prove it, simply countering "no other maniraptor known" is not very convincing on your part. Our record of feathered Dinosaurs (while impressive and amazing) is hardly sufficient enough to make any broad claims. We only really have two examples of Dromaeosaurs with their full feathers for study, and these are very far removed from Velociraptor within the overall family of Dromaeosaurs...
We have no evidence one way or the other as to whether Velociraptors had feathers, apart from on the arms. That is all you or anyone else for the moment can state as fact or truth.
That is my point.
I suspect you are right, and they were mostly covered with feathers. It is important to state it as a suspicion and nothing more...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry, I have nothing against you or your inquiries (this is the friendliest, most intelligent and least antagonistic response on this subject I've gotten), but I can not explain phylogenetic bracketing and why it counts an legitimate evidence to another person. I'm frankly fed up and if you'd done so as many times as I had - mostly to no avail - then you'd understand.
I will address the point "which means YOU have to provide the evidence it is right..." though with: I believe the linear notes explicitly state that this is not correct (well, maybe it is, but you know what I mean) and the labels on the work itself explain why I did what I did.
I apologize that I didn't elaborate and probably won't, but I just can't do it any more. Maybe you'll get lucky and one of my regular 'helpers' will answer it for you
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cool. Yeah totally digging the nice discussion. Just wanting to help the promotion of the science and art.
I get the fight you speak of, but the language you use in this piece and its disclaimer imply facts we don't have.
Just fight the ignorance with what we DO have. Velociraptor definately had feathers on its arms. "Take that feather denialists!" You've alreay won.
Implying there is evidence that the half naked model is incorrect and dishonest. If evidence is found to the contrary and they were less feathered than a Microraptor these statements by yourself could be thrown back as "evidence scientists just make facts up all the time". WE know this isn't true nor what you were doing, but in this age of self entitled idiots it can and does get said. Take that ammo away from them.
I merely suggest present fact as fact and speculation as conjecture. That way when the mystery is solved one way or the other your not going to be caught with your pants down, so to speak.
Frankly I see a more naked configuration being just as valid as a fully feathered Velociraptorine, if even in the larger "flight" type feathers being lost. Microraptor needed full on feathers to glide or fly. Velociraptor and its keen did not. They were stuck on the ground, and they had to make their way through rough terrian.
Ostriches while have plenty of plumage have certainly lost or reduced them in many places. Yet I think they are not the best analouge compared to a Moa, Kiwi, Cassowary, and/or Emu. All definately have feathers, but they are very subdued and minimal due to moving through bush.
Now I can see Velociraptor proper possibly being in more of an Ostrich category due to both living in similar open environments, but the question is where did Velociraptor's relative originate. I think most ground dwelling Raptors would reduce unnessecary long feathers so there was less to get snagged on while moving through the forest.
Additionally as predators they probably did not want to call undo attention to themselves. This lifestyle difference puts them in sharp contrast to ratites. Carnivores seldom try to make themselves stick out more. Big display feathers won't help in ambushing prey (whether it be big or small). I see a more active predator reducing these feathers as much as possible so both the environment and prey don't have as much to pull or snag them on.
That's just my take on it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Not pronated the way that mammal hands are, but the palms faced backwards, yes. It has something to do with the orientation of the are bones, I think, but I'm not sure on the specifics.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks! I'll be looking more into it later...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So I guess when I look at this, my sole velociraptor drawing is probably between the half-assed version and the correct one. Cover almost entirely with feathers, without pronated hands but the feathers are fur-like, the head's less feathered and the ankles are weird. Oh well, I'll keep on trying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Had a look. There isn't a problem with leaving the head bare, it's not like that is implausible (see this: [link] ). The feathering is too fur like though. The feathering of deinonychosaurs would be pretty much indistinguishable from that of modern birds. The wing is also wrong; too furry and attached to the wrong places. There too would be almost identical to modern paravians, except for perhaps having the tips of the claws sticking out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, okay. Thanks for the tips. I'll take note next time. But at the extent that my raptor's head is unfeathered, do you think I should put some sort of display? All I can think of right now is a proper crest of feathers instead of that mane I put on it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just bright colors would do, if you colored your next one. I would think a predator like this would tend to have its face clear of external structures to avoid accidental biting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
feathered fingers!!! didn't know that!! I'll have to look more. Nice Studies
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, with representatives in troodontidae, dromaeosauridae and aviale, it would appear that completely feathered fingers are basal to paraves. Though, it is possible that some of the larger species had bare skin on the underside of the fingers as in ratites today, scaly skin is pretty much a no go, with the last group representative of that trend being the overaptorids.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thanks for the info. I found it very useful
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Been around a lot of birds and seen a LOT of pictures. All of this "the way it SHOULD be drawn!!!!" gets on my nerves. If one only is interested in keeping up with the most accurate or what we think is the most accurate knowledge, this is fine. I remember reading a damned good book on drawing animals. The artist was one of the best, no kidding, and he gave a very useful diagram for drawing horses when they are moving, from a slow canter, to a trot, to a full gallop.
He also gave examples of what horses NEVER do. So? The next day, I see a photo of a horse doing just what he said a horse never does. And this was for an animal that has loooooonnnnng been studied, videoed, photographed, and just plain LOOKED at for thousands of years. So many absolute pronouncements are made from what is really flimsy evidence--fossilized feathers and bones. Flimsy in that it is hard to tell from the available evidence just exactly where the feathers were placed. I do a lot of walking and have had my chance to study dead animals. Without knowledge of the living beasties, I'd have made some wonderful mistakes if I was trying to restore them artistically, since so many skin features were either grossly distorted or missing. Trucks hit hard, and, even when the bodies were not mashed badly in appearance, what happens when vultures and dogs get at the rotting body? Pieces get torn off, things get rearranged, and go awol.
Since fossils are fossils of...well, dead animals, we ought to be careful of what we claim as absolutely known. You are likely correct in most of what you're claiming, but some of the claims might be off for different seasons or skin conditions or other reasons, like fighting and individual differences. Dinosaurs seem to have had a lot of genetic variation. How can we claim that all Velociraptor specimens had feathers on the head? Or didn't have feathers? Even so, would the head feathers, for example, have so completely hidden the contours of the head itself? Maybe so, maybe not. Accuracy is important, but, when "accuracy" becomes the mainstay, art often goes out the window and an accurate pic of anything that gets done ONLY by analysis usually fails to catch the essence or possible essence of the subject.
I guess that's why so many restorations, otherwise superbly done, look like pictures of a mount of the animal, rather than the animal itself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
1- Behaviour is very diverse, but is still restricted by anatomy. An animal with hands that cannot pronate like a bird would simply not be able to pronate them, otherwise risking to damage its manus. For a human example, we can be very flexible, but we simply cannot raise (by this I mean in the perspective of the body in a horizontal position, not in the natural vertical position we have) our arms like birds do, unless you have a fetish for intense, unbearable pain.
2- Your argument that we have little evidence for the external appearence falls flat when most maniraptor fossils come from iconic laggerstate fossil sites, being among the best preserved fossils in the world. Couple with a large amount of individuals from several species, we have enough material to know the ways individuals varied. Predictably, like modern birds, you don't get the retarded half-assed and greyhound forms, but instead the bird like forms held here as the real forms.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Varies way too much! Sorry, but the lagerstaten argument falls flat with me because of the distortions that can happen after death. I've seen birds (hoatzins) whose neck feathers can be full, or basically show the contours of the flesh and bone neck.
I walk a LOT, seen a lot of road kills and I've seen a lot of weird configurations. Lagerstaten fossils are fancy road kills; very, VERY useful and informative, but still not the last word.
Since feathers in a living bird can be varied all over the place by said bird's skin muscles, I do not look for only one look from anything with feathers. I would agree that a Confusciusornis probably (VERY probably!!!!) had a full set of neck feathers, but I'm still out on any dromaeosaurid having a truly bird-like form in the way you describe. Could be you're correct and, at the same time, it could be I am correct, for the same animal at different times, even in the same season. I not only look at pictures, but also study the living creatures when possible, and it's possible a lot where I am. Apparent forms can change a lot, depending on the animal's mood, the ambient temperature, whether it's wet or dry, and/or a number of other factors: molting, after a fight, and so on.
Always leave room for your (mine too) theories to fail and fall. The way you call others retarded makes me want to draw all dromaeosaurids, velociraptorids, the kitchensinkids etc. buck naked and scaley just to spite you, and you could not say I was wrong. Why? Birds sometimes get plucked and sometimes molt. Been around the real thing and I've seen some real sights. Psittacine birds especially can go neurotic, so why not Velociraptors?
As for pronation: I will research the subject more. I've seldom ever drawn pronated theropod hands so it's no big artistic deal for me. If maniraptorans and theropods and so on had one certain muscle (dunno what it's called) they could probably pronate their little hands all day long. If not, then pronation was likely impossible, even if their bones are loose as a whore's morals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"I will research the subject more. I've seldom ever drawn pronated theropod hands so it's no big artistic deal for me. If maniraptorans and theropods and so on had one certain muscle (dunno what it's called) they could probably pronate their little hands all day long. If not, then pronation was likely impossible, even if their bones are loose as a whore's morals."
You should research the topic more. One of the first things you'll learn is that pronation is not accomplished by particular muscles, but is allowed or disallowed by the nature of the articulation of the forearm bones at the elbow.
I'm sorry, but threads like this are frustrating because it frequently consists of people making passionate arguments about topics which they *admit* that they have limited knowledge of. DragonxXxShadow called JohnFaa, above, a "know it all" because he (shock! horror!) apparently possesses more information relative to the topic. this does not make one stupid, it should be seen as a learning opportunity.
Or, put another way, it is wise to know that there are things you don't know. and you're better off learning about something and *then* making an argument, rather than the reverse.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Interesting point, and you might be correct. However, I'd have to see if they had certain muscles. I meant what I said, and I am not operating out of pure ignorance. Pronate your hands. Feel your forearm as you do it. Feel near the elbow especially. IF theropods/maniraptorans had certain muscles, then I think they could pronate their hands. If not, their elbows could be constructed any which way, and they'd need their body weight to pronate.
IF I see something I think might be different than the scientific claims for it, I will speak out.
If I am wrong, show me the proofs. I will be glad to retract my statements and concede you your points Been there on DA and done that.
You see, if you do that little experiment, you'll find the bones at the elbow (forearm) scarcely move at all when you go from slapper to clapper, pronation to supination, if those are the correct terms. The WRISTS move and the bones seem to twist.
Try it. If there is a process that keeps the elbow base of the forearm bones from rotating, then I am likely wrong. If not, and these dinos had the muscle that twists the forearm, then they could pronate and supinate to their hearts' content.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You understand that human arms are drastically different in their articulation than theropods, right? When you pronate your arms, your radius rotates around your ulna. You can feel the bone shift near your elbow (maybe this is the "muscle" you're talking about?). Theropods arms are built differently than primates--the bones can't shift like that.
I recommend you read these papers: [link]
[link]
A good scientific thinker does not come up with an idea and then ask others to prove why he's wrong. He first tries to prove himself wrong to the best of his ability before making the suggestion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Unfortunately, I can't read the papers under present circumstances. They do look very interesting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't see bones as muscles. And I do not just challenge ideas before studying the problem. I always try to prove myself wrong--saves time and trouble!!!--but, if I think a theory is wrong, I will say so. Read my journals on gryphons. Anyone can come up with a silly theory, no matter how well educated. Paleontologists are no exception, and neither are artists.
The bone near my elbow scarcely shifts in pronation/supination, but the bones near the wrist do.
I'll look at the links later...out of time right now, and let you know if I have come to believe I am wrong. That certainly has happened before!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well you may be feeling something near the wrist as well, because the entire radius moves. Read the section "Movements at Elbow and Proximal Radioulnar Joints" here: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the links! I'll be studying the matter of pronation more, mainly out of curiosity. Yes, the bones twist around one another to pronate-supinate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Sorry, but the lagerstaten argument falls flat with me because of the distortions that can happen after death."
Distortions do happen, but they're fairly rare. Most of those sites were once toxic environments, which is why decomposing bacteria were rare; as a result, the corpses were left untouched due no one meddling with them.
Many lagerstaten taxa, like Messel bats and birds, as well as Liaoning birds and pterosaurs, look freshly fallen from the sky, precisely due to the nature of the preserving environment.
"Apparent forms can change a lot, depending on the animal's mood, the ambient temperature, whether it's wet or dry, and/or a number of other factors: molting, after a fight, and so on."
They, however, still retain a basic, recognisable form. Birds can raise their feathers at will and can press them against the body at will, but they do not look any less feathered by such actions.
The hoatzin example you gave, for instance; hoatzins can raise their neck feathers at will, but they still don't look like vultures, just that their neck feathers "become" less long.
"Why? Birds sometimes get plucked and sometimes molt. Been around the real thing and I've seen some real sights. Psittacine birds especially can go neurotic, so why not Velociraptors? "
This is a better justification. Physical de-feathering is more plausible than actually being born without feathers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are correct again, but the distortions I was talking about are from the environment, like getting wet or being messed up. Once dead, the poor animal cannot fix them up again.
True, they do not become any less feathered...sometimes they look a lot more feathered when they're cold! I just was pointing out that contours can be changed, thus allowing more kinds of true-to-life restorations than just one, which is my main point.
The hoatzin example is true, but they can show their true neck contours, something I believe the dromaeosaurids could do as well.
As for the last point, VERY true! All I'm trying to say is this: while you and Tomozaurus have many good and valid points and are correct in many of your suppositions, there are also other possible and plausible contours that can be shown, even if you are correct about the basic feathering; what kind, how thick, and so on. And I base this thesis on observing animals in life. I'm not a 'measuring tape' artist, but I DO research my subjects and measuring is important to my art.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Right on mate. My thoughts exactly.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Then you fail epically at bilogy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bilogy? Don't you mean paleontology?
Excuse me but I seem to recall that your gallery does not have a single picture of a raptor. Draw some accurate art, then you can lecture me on raptor anatomy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
...and yours doesn't have any dromaeosaurus. You have a couple of Jurassic Park inspired monsters, but no real dinosaurs, so I don't see how you are in a better position than John.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have had this fight with someone before... except for the picture of the parasaurolophus, the other dinosaurs in my gallery aren't technically dinosaurs at all. They're demons. The raptor-ish one you saw is a cross between a utahraptor and a ceratosaurus, whilst the other is a demon giganotasaurus. I don't like to draw real raptors (I can never get the hands right).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, in that case you don't have any dinosaurs in your gallery either, hense making your original comment a little redundant.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I realise that now. That other guy was just sounding like a know-it-all and it pissed me off.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So you don't care about scientific facts unless someone draws something for you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Google hoatzin! Some pics look (neck feathers) like your correct specimen, while others look like your half-ass version. Neck feathers vary a lot. Passerine birds and them iggle types have fluffed out neck feathers. Hoatzins, which are freaky, vary, while others have close to the neck feathering, like griffon vultures, herons, egrets, and storks. There are others, but those ought to do for now...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, even some chickens don't have neck feathers. I don't see why, based on a few feathered specimens, people now claim that ALL dromeosaurs were covered head to tail in feathers. What about truly large specimens, such as utahraptor? Surely an animal as big as that would have little or no use for feathers. Maybe on the neck for display or something. I reckon polar dinosaurs like leallynasauria would definitely need a thick coat of feathers. But not all dinosaurs had them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Chickens don't have neck feathers because they are ripped off by other chickens.
Also, the "too big for feathers" argument is utter bullshit. Modern tropical birds have much denser feather coats than their mammalian analogues; unlike mammals, dinosaurs have complex air sac systems, allowing a more efficient body temperature control. Furthermore, dromeosaurs had a much larger surface area than mammals, meaning they'd loose heat much more quickly.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Good point about the chickens. They can be mean to each other! I wonder if velociraptorids fit in that category too?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Transylvanian bald neck chicken: [link]
And also, mammals don't have feathers. I'm merely sharing my thoughts and opinion with ~Algoroth , I didn't invite everyone who disagrees with me to attack me. Geez, calm down mate. Also, are either of us even paleontologists?
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Transylvanian bald neck chicken...not ugly...FUGLY! Neat pic though!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The naked chicken is an artificial breed created by humans, just like all domestic "breeds."
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
A very valid point...however, Mother Nature will also breed bald-necked birds, and I think there are blad-necked or partially bald-necked gallinaceous bords...could be wrong...hold on....or close to gallinaceous...hold on...
Got it! [link]
Also, there are ostriches and some kinds of vultures, but I wanted something close to velociraptorid in size and flying habits. Sort of.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>