HOME | DD
Tomozaurus — Common errors for Velociraptor
by
Published: 2010-09-11 05:01:03 +0000 UTC; Views: 31062; 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
And I have no issues with bald necked dromaeosaurus (see here: [link] ).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, again, now you are
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly! Actually, I think the "half-arse" specimen is likely the most accurate. The "true" specimen seems to be feathered like Confusciusornis. Those fossils indicatefluffy, passerine style neck feathers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Passarines have no such neck feathers. Do bother to actually do research.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Passerine birds are full of neck feathers. Don't jump to conclusions. And be polite. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They have neck feathers, but they are not "fluffy". They're structures more complex than mere fluff. In fact, they're quite long in proportion to the animal's actual neck
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are correct. I was talking about the fact that passerine neck feathers hide the true contours of the neck, making them seem a lot fuller than they really are.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Precisely. This would have made dromeosaur necks look a lot thicker then what they appear to be, unless the skin would be exposed via removal by the individual or other animals or if the animal pressed the feathers against the neck.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just think they could press the feathers against the neck. I'm thinking of some neck feathered vultures here, and secretary birds. Also, herons and egrets.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think so too. People have to realise that these are very ancient creatures we're dealing with, and even though birds evolved alongside dinosaurs we can't just say "right, all raptors have feathers because one was found with them and birds have feathers too blah blah blah..."
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Bullshit argument. By this logic I could say that ancient crocodiles did not have lungs because they're all ancient and different and shit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Now you're just being ridiculous. I'm saying that feathers hadn't truly evolved on dinosaurs yet. Most just had protofeathers. What you're saying is childish.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
That's incorrect. ALL members of Aviremigia (oviraptorosaurs, deinonychosaurs and avians) that we have found integunent for so far have full pennaceous feathers (it defines the clade), while Foth 2011 found that what we once thought were single filament "protofeathers" are actually just flattened down feathers, which would have been present on compsognathids, tyrannosauroids, therizinosaurs and probably ornithomimids.
True single filaments have only been found on Beipiaosaurus and a couple of tyrannosauroids and compsogathids intermittent with down feathers and on ornithischians Tianyulong and Psittacosaurus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow, I didn't know that. I guess I'm a bit slow to catch up on the news XDDD Thanks for putting that nicely, unlike the last person who attacked me >.>
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No worries, you know now. I try to keep things civil whenever I can.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Except we have enough evidence that most of Maniraptora had complex, vaned feathers, instead of fluff?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, like I said to that other guy, I'm a bit slow to catch up. I haven't been reading up on news journals of paleontology so I hadn't realised more discoveries had been made. Sorry for being a bitch, it's my first reaction to anything on the net...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
At least its dinosaurs this time. I'd be genuinely pissed of if this was about, say, pterosaurs, which are victims of lack of up-dates more than dinosaurs are.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh yeah. How many people still think they're dinosaurs?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Pterosaurs are not DINOSAURS????? Oh no! Don't tell Dragon! He's been talking to pterosaurs for YEARS and they tell him they're dinosaurs! Nasty pterosaurs!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
How about all that with the feather coverage and deal about the pronated hands? How sure are people about that kind of coverage, leading up to the fingers as such and covering the whole body in mostly developed feathers, and also that the hands faced explicitly outward (that I imagine mostly because the arm feathers) Or is it just the accepted standard for the moment? I was just curious because if it's only based on relatives' remains, and not actual remains found with feathers, then maybe there is still room to debate and change certain parts of it. ( There have always been accepted standards at some date, the jp-ish raptors of 20-15 years ago, the half feathered raptor after that etc etc.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The extensive coverage of developed feathers is pretty much a certainty. A recent study shows that even what we once thought were filamentous proto-feathers are in fact just crushed developed feathers, so proto-feathers (aside from EBFFs) weren't even present in coelurosaurs, let alone maniraptors or a form as advanced as Velociraptor.
Of course, we can't say that the feathers were exactly like this, but the arrangement of the wing feathers (I think that is what you are talking about) is pretty safe. We know it had secondary wing feathers from the quill knobs on its ulna and we do not know of a single dinosaur living or extinct with secondary feathers that has lost it's primary feathers, so that seems to be out of the question as well. Additionally a study not too long ago found that large display feathers like this are the least likely to be lost due to extreme amounts of functionality (head feathers were the most likely lost).
There is always room to move, which I will be exploring in my next version of this particular study.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Awwriiight. I appreciate the explanation.
What is an EBFF? Not familiar with the condensed term
I agree, your reasoning seems pretty sound. Also, the quill knobs you said on the forearm, don't know how that wasn't taken into account before! And functionality makes sense, since animals like buzzards have relatively featherless heads and necks to sift through carcasses..
I have another question that's been bothering me, maybe you could shed some light. Like buzzards, their face feathers might be gone. But I wondered also why predatory animals with long arms would also have large developed wing structures on them. It's body makes it way too big to consider flying, so developed feathers would be useless.. And to have them would hinder their grabbing functions, and considering they still had long fingers they must have used them. I suppose it could be a little backwards evolution? Perhaps birds developed in the Jurassic, and sort of like Therizinoids, they can just as easily "regress" or backpedal evolution (though everything moves forward) to create raptors, which share wishbones before even needing them to fly. Maybe I am just stating something that has already theorized, though I am ignorant to it. But maybe that would account for some of the features, since not everything is linear.
Cool, I think studying this sort of thing is nice. I could benefit from knowing how this anatomy is put together
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
EBFF = elongate, broad, filamentous feather. They are the most basal type of feather we know of so far and have been found on Beipiaosaurus and some other undescribed basal coelurosaurs.
As for the wings, it seems that they're main function was probably brooding. Maniraptors brooded they're eggs as modern day ostriches do, by sitting upon their ground-based nests and seemingly covering the eggs with these long wing feathers. Of course there was also the obvious one of display and a fairly recent study on ostriches showed that the wings help with sharp turns at high speed. Wing-assisted incline running has also been suggested, but it is unlikely this was possible for dromaeosaurs who could not lift they're arms above a horizontal level.
Additionally, yet another study concluded that large wing feathers would not have hindered grabbing or other predatory functions of the hands.
I hope this was of assistance.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yep, that was very helpful, thank you : )
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is a good tutorial! Especially the wrong wrists and big feet and the greyhound dragon tail-one.
The "half-arsed" Velociraptor is definitely incorrect, but there's no fossil evidence to support that other dromaeosaurs like Deinonychus or Utahraptor would have had the same feather patterns. (I'm admittedly bias, as [link] proves.) Vultures lack feathers on their head because blood would mat their feathers and invite parasites and disease, and they have to stick their heads into large carcasses. That doesn't stop the Egyptian vulture from having a nice crest. Additionally, housecats have different fur distribution than their larger relatives. Larger dinosaurs also wouldn't have needed as much insulation to stay warm as smaller ones, and may in fact have needed feather-free areas to cool off. (Modern day vultures poop on their own legs to cool off in Africa!) Larger dromaeosaurs also would not have been able to benefit from WAIR (Wing Assisted Incline Running) that was an indispensable evolutionary trait for small species like Velociraptor, Confuciusornis, and Microraptor, so their heavy feathering would have probably been less specialized and less apparent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks very much for the comment and compliments.
While I agree that different feather patterns are certainly very plausible and probably more likely in Utahraptor and Achillobator sized animals, I think the feathering of these animals would have been more in line with the ostrich and other ratites. The lack of neck and head feathers on vultures is a very specialized trait common to on only some species which are entirely scavengers and lack the clawed hands for cleaning that dromaeosaurs possess. This sees loss of feathers for hygiene reasons fairly unlikely. In fact, living dinosaurs show that feather loss on the head and neck is more commonly for display purposes as in turkeys, cassowaries etc. Though, this rarely happens in predatory birds so is probably a more likely trait of Oviraptorosaurs and Therizinosaurs than it is in Deinonychosaurs.
Un-feathered areas are also not necessary for cooling off. This is a common misconception. Feathers are not the same as fur and are as good at keeping heat out as they are at keeping it in. In fact, male turkeys are known to overheat on hot days while the females do not due to the large amount of bare skin they show being uninsulated.
I believe that the loss of feathers on the legs of the ostrich is actually an aid for running at high speed and not for cooling off. Also note that the Australian emu lives in an equally hot environment and shows significantly less feather loss. Also, the extinct Madagascan elephant bird showed no feather loss and it was also living in an equally hot environment and was far larger.
I also do not see any reason that larger dromaeosaurs would not have benefited from WAIR. Ostriches do, and they are roughly the same size.
I do agree that animal plumage is variable though, and extinct dinosaurs would have been no different from extant ones in this fact. However, it is safe to assume that extensive feathering would have been far more common than noticeable shedding, as it is in modern birds. Also, it is very safe to assume that this shedding took place on primarily the legs, head and neck areas and only very, very rarely (if ever) anywhere else, as we also see in modern birds.
I do agree that animal plumege is variable though, and extinct dinosaurs would have been no different from extant ones in this fact. However, it is safe to assume that extensive feathering would have been far more common than noticable shedding, as it is in modern birds. Also, it is very safe to assume that this shedding took place on primarily the legs, head and neck areas and only very, very rarely (if ever) anywhere else, as we also see in modern birds.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
One small issue there. WAIR refers to running up inclines such as tree trunks by flapping the wings back and forth, which ostriches (and large deinonychosaurs) are too large to do. You're probably thinking of using the wings for balance or running aids, which would have indeed been beneficial to large deinonychosaurs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, you're right, my mistake.
Its actually not like any of this matters much to the tutorial as it is refering specifically to Velociraptor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Other than the pronated hands & lack of primaries, there's nothing necessarily wrong w/"the half-arse".
1stly, the dino-eating Velociraptor probably had less head feathers than the small-prey-eating Microraptor (See the Viscardi quote).
2ndly, "simple, fur-like, protofeathers" probably did cover Velociraptor's body (See the Holtz quote).
Quoting Viscardi ( [link] ): "I think that they main reason is that vultures have bald heads when birds of prey don't is probably down to the size of the animal being eaten. Vultures don't kill their own prey, so they have no limit to the size of the animal they feed on. This means that they may be feeding on something very large that requires them to get their heads deep inside the body cavity.
Hunting birds are limited to feeding on animals that they can over-power, which will mean something smaller than them. This means that they are unlikely to need to get their head inside the body cavity - they just rip out beakfuls at a time or swallow the prey whole. Obviously this is far less messy than sticking their heads into a large rotting carcass."
Quoting Holtz ( [link] ): "Protofeathers of this sort seem to be present as part of the body covering of therizinosaurs, oviraptorosaurs, deinonychosaurs, and basal avialians. (In ornithothoracines, they are replaced by body feathers.)"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
0. I pretty much agree with that, the lack of primaries and the semi-pronated hands are the main issues and are the two I really wanted to emphasise with the half-arse. These are probably two most common errors within "real" paleoart and both irritate me to no end when I see them. The bare pubic boot is also an issue I wanted to look at because it happens a lot for no reason. If Velociraptor were to loose feathers the most likely spot would be the underside of the wings and perhaps the legs, as we see in ratites. No dinosaur we know of has lost the feathering on its pubic boot or underbelly as is often illustrated. This was the other point I wanted to emphasise. Other than that, it basically okay.
1. Velociraptor was probably small-prey eating as well. I think the Protoceratops fight may have been a time of desperation, or the ceratopsian initiated the attack (perhaps because the Velocriaptor was attempting to rob its nest or take its young). Some feather loss on the face may be plausible (though unsubstantiated) but loss to the extent of a vulture is unlikely. For one, Velociraptor was not a full time scavenger as a vulture is, it was likely a hunter of small game. Secondly, Velociraptor has clawed hands to preen clean its face with unlike vultures. Bare faces and necks seem to be a rare occurence in dinosaurs, mostly because it greatly increases the likelyhood of sunburn. In fact, male turkeys with they're bald heads often overheat while feathered females remain fine.
2. Microraptor and Anchiornis both have barbed feathers on they're backs. Holtz specifically states "PART of the body covering," which is true. Everywhere else on dromaeosaurids is protofeathered, but the torso has barbed feathers as well (and the wings and legs have full, veined feathers obviously).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Velociraptor was probably small-prey eating as well. I think the Protoceratops fight may have been a time of desperation, or the ceratopsian initiated the attack"
Actually, Hone et al. 2010 has shown that "feeding by Velociraptor upon Protoceratops was probably a relatively common occurrence" ( [link] ). Besides that, there's also Gallimimus (See "Figure 1.5" in 1 of my other comments) & Pinacosaurus (See quote 1). My point is that Velociraptors in particular/eudromaeosaurids in general "were predators of dinosaurs" (See "DROMAEOSAURIDAE": [link] ).
"(perhaps because the Velocriaptor was attempting to rob its nest or take its young)"
That probably wasn't the case (See quote 2).
"Secondly, Velociraptor has clawed hands to preen clean its face with unlike vultures."
That's why I originally said "less head feathers" (as opposed to "no head feathers") as in raptors (See the Gill quote in 1 of my other comments).
In reference to "2", you're saying that you're problem is w/Velociraptors w/completely protofeathered bodies (as opposed to those w/partly protofeathered bodies), right? If so, then I'm OK w/that.
1 Quoting Burns et al. ( [link] ): "Specimen articulation, consistent
posturing, and their preservation within 9 structureless sandstone suggest that the Pinacosaurus
from Bayan Mandahu died in situ during a 10 sandstorm, at least within Quarry 101. At Quarry 100, specimens showed no preferred 11 orientation and other
evidence of scavenging in the form of associated Velociraptor teeth 12 (Jerzykiewicz et al. 1993)."
2 Quoting Hone ( [link] ): "As for your point about the FDs, yes there are multiple interpretations possible (and indeed we discuss this in the paper a little). However, I would argue against the eggs thing – for one the nest would likely be preserved and found is the preservation was good enough to save these animals locked in this position (and given the frequency of eggs and nests found at these sites). Secondly, it seems that if you want to steal eggs (especially from something much bigger than you) you wait till mum is not around. If she does turn up, you run, not launch yourself at her."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In response to the first ("actually, Hone...): that linked paper looks interesting, I'll have to give that a read before I bother mounting any sort of response for or against.
"That probably wasn't the case" + Hone quote
Hone does bring up a reasonable point about the Velociraptor being more likely to flee if it was robbing the nest. Though, this doesn't rule out the option that the Protoceratops initiated the attack, or that this was a time of desperation, or any other alternative to the Velociraptor leaping headfirst into a melee with an animal so much more powerful than itself.
"Less head feathers..."
If you just meant a smaller degree of loss, or a thinning (the most likely scenario IMO) then I have no qualms with this hypothesis.
"Against protofeathered bodies..."
Yes, that's all I meant.
Just an FYI: I doubt I'll be replying to any comments involving the pack hunting behavior or intelligence of dromaeosaurds. It has very little to do with the original tutorial and to be frank, I cannot be stuffed picking apart giant walls of text and visiting 1000 links any longer. I will likely do further research on my own, but won't be replying here about it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I made a half-arse drawing of my own, ill post it up, but it probably has way too many mistakes and looks more innacurate now lol, a lot of people for some reason though seem to think feathers are stupid though
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Totally inspired me to take this old [link] Utahraptor I made in Spore (following the Jurassic Park design) and refurbish him to be more scientifically accurate. ;D [link] Here's a short video clip of the new one, based on your diagram. Plush little beastie, but hopefully more accurate. Nice drawings, very helpful. I've been drawing raptors wrong for years, since I wasn't really keeping tabs on the feathers debate, ha ha. Thanks for the cool diagrams; they're perfect for someone like me who is a very visual learner.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have to say that is the best spore dromaeosaur I have ever seen. No joke. Your very welcome for the image, this is exactly the kind of thing it was made for: education. I'm glad to be of help.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Aw, thanks. To be fair, it's impossible to give ANY creature a complete feather coat without using cheats, so doing a proper spore dromaeosaur is especially hard given the game's limitations. It would be nice if they made a skin material that looked feathery.
Anyway, I like having my facts straight even if I liked the "wrong" image I grew up with. Times change, science/technology marches on, and ignorance is bliss until it gets you ridiculed, ha ha.
There are plenty of articles that explain what's wrong with the public image of velociraptors and their cousins, but most of them come across as technobabble to the layman. I love how your image very unambiguously lays everything out in simple terms alongside realistic yet simplified drawings that anyone can look at and immediately process. By simplified, I mean you don't waste space with anything but what's important, with good silhouettes that keeps it from being confusing. Kudos for good art AND good information. Hard to believe how much damage one single movie did to generation after generation by firmly imprinting the wrong image in all our heads. Thank goodness I'm young and open to change, because I pretty much lived my whole life with the Jurassic Park raptor image in my head, and thought they looked pretty awesome. Then I ended up here in a pretty roundabout way, read some supporting articles, and I realized that I was WAAAAAY behind the times.
As a fellow artist, I think I can hypothesize that one reason the greyhound lizard image persists so strongly is that a lot of people think it looks badass, on top of having grown up with that image. Compared to that image, the correct version feels like a slap in the face. They probably don't want to believe that this devilish, sleek, intimidating demon lizard really looked more like the turkey that the random kid so disdainfully compared them to in the beginning of the first Jurassic Park movie, ha ha. I certainly grappled with it for a while. It's rare that I don't want to accept something when I know I'm wrong, but the artist in me was really fighting it at first.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the comments. What you describe in your second paragraph is exactly what I was going for with this tutorial and an very glad that it seems to have come accross that way.
I think the face that people have grown up with it is the main reason the Greyhound/Lizard persists. People need to accept it as a movie monster and like it for that in stead of trying to press it onto a real animal. I mean, no one kicks up a fuss because Godzilla or the Predator don't exist.
It is my opinion that all dinosaurs are amazing in they're own way, from [em]Triceratops[/em] to [em]Brachiosaurus[/em] to the common pidgeon and if people can't except that then its they're own fault.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Question, what is your position on the feather coverings of Tyrannosaurs as they aged, I heard a theory that as they got older they lost most of the fluffy down or so. I picture the young as being fully covering but the teens and adults not having as many feathers such as this [link] . Please let me know your opinions on this matter
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I more or less agree with you. I picture fully grown [em]Tyrannosaurus[/em] individuals as being sparsely covered with protofeathers, something like we see in [em]Juravenator[/em]. I illistrate this theory here: [link]
I see the idea of downy covering on juveniles as being a plausible if unproven theory. I would frankly accept juveniles from very fluffy to the same as the adults to completely featherless as possible.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think so too, however people once again hate the idea of feathered theropods especially an animal like Tyrannosaurus. I don't see what feathers take away from what makes it a fearsome predator.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, I don't see what feathers or protofeathers take away from an animal. Because an animal is more well insulated it somehow becomes wimpier? I think not. Is an eagle a less effective killer because its feathered? No.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And... you're on DinoGoss! [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>