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
How did I not favor this? Very good job!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Gotta spread this all over the internet, great job!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks a lot! I'm currently working on a better version, so be sure to spread that too
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What about Luis Rey? Most of his raptors seem to be "half-arsed"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Most of his dromaeosaur works seem to be getting to around 10 years old now, so they are outdated. His more recent pictures are more accurate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The size is the most obvious one, I think.
The thing that causes me the most troubles is how far they can bend their limbs in which direction.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Certainly the size and the wrist orientation are very big issues people seem to have with dromaeosaurs, and you can blame Jurassic Park for both.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
hm, i disagree, to an extent at least, please, at least try to listen to my logic. so the half arsed actually doesn't seem all that innacurate, if you look at birds, they only have scales on they're feet and ankle, and possibly sometimes they're face if i'm not mistaken, now if we compare this to, well let's just say the enigmatic t rex, you'd see a fully scaled animal, so, since the scales for the most part got restricted to one area of the body, would the same not be plausible? now here come the old "quill knob" thing, from what i've read similar structures had been found on mammals, as a place for muscles to attach, so, while unlikely the same could be true here, although i'm not sure if the to are structurally different. and my last problem with this is the type of feathering, would it not have a feathering similar to running birds today, like cassowaries ostriches or emu's, or like that we suspect the birds like diatrama to have had? i'm not sure of the benefits of this sort of feather structure for an animal of this sort but, who know's, my point is, you seem to be way too restrictive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It’s true that the half-arse isn't that far off, but it is still incorrect.
The quill knobs seem to be pretty much completely proven to be quill knobs, though I haven't read the paper in a while. The inter muscular line you are referring to occurs in crocodilians, some mammals and at least some dinosaurs (seemingly Concavenator) and is located between the flexor ulnaris and the extensor carpi radialis brevis. Quill knobs, such as in Velociraptor, are positioned far more anteriorly.
Tyrannosaurus rex was scaled on at least a small portion of its body, I can't remember exactly where the impression was from, but I think it was the thigh area. Additionally, Tyrannosaurus rex is a far more primitive animal, phylogenically at least, and very well may not be descended from feathered ancestors. It would appear that Dilong paradoxus' position as a Tyrannosaur is a little clouded at the moment. The same does not apply to Velociraptor which seemed to evolve from ancestors with scales present only on the tarsometatarsus and maybe the tip of the snout. These would therefore probably be the only places Velociraptor would be scaled. While it’s possible it had bare skin in other places (the neck, legs and inside of the wings most likely positions based on modern birds) I maintain that feathered is simply more likely. Not the be-all-and-end-all, just a fair amount more likely.
On your last point, yes it is certainly possible that Velociraptor went through some degrading of feathers as in the birds you described, I tend to think of Velociraptor being more akin to a roadrunner than to a ratite though. Also, contrary to popular belief, Velociraptor was not a particularly fast running animal, certainly nowhere near the point of an emu or ostrich.
There will be far deeper discussing into all the points on the new version of this image I am working on. This newer version will also leave more wiggle room.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i wasn't to adamant that they weren't quill knobs but, i still feel the scientist need more fossils to be 100% sure that they were in fact as such, and secondly i was only using tyrannosaurus as an example, my point was it was a coelosaurian like velociraptor, but from what is known didn't have feathers(yeah some people say it may have had some on the arms blah.) as of now, the main reason referenced was to provide the basic idea. what i was trying to say was that just as over time the scales were replaced with feathers for the most part, the reciprical may also be evident, i'm not at all convinced with the quill knobs though, interior parts seem like they would be easier shielded from exterior forces, winds abrasion, ect. which i find mainly irritating because it has been extinct for 71 million years, i am positive that such small stuctures on the outside of the bone could not have survived the various enviormental factors mainly the friction from the rock and sand around it, seeing as it's known from the gobi, which seems rather unforgiving with the harsh winds and all. but i'm not saying it didn't have feathers but the quill knobs seem improbable, i wouldn't say blind hoax but then again my opinion is somewhat leaning towards that thought in some way.
but it also seems odd some hadrosaurians, which ancestors had feather-like projections don't, referencing leonardo [link] may i get your opinion?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So what? You have decided that the quill knobs are a hoax, disregarding the opinions of well educated professionals whom have examined the subject? It sounds to me as if you are sending yourself on wild goose chases because you don't WANT Velociraptor to be feathered. I apologise if I am incorrect.
I am unaware of a hadrosaur ancestor with feather-like projections. The only example would be Tianyulong, but we currently don't know where Heterodontosaurids sit cladistically.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
why the hell did i say a matter of hills? well i meant years, my bad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i just said velociraptor WAS FEATHERED, around three times, shall i say it again? i'm just saying i don't think quill knobs, in my opinion would have survived, i don't have any evidence other than what you already know. erosion is a powerfull force, large hills can be terminated within a matter of hills, even days if different forces are applied, so you take that to millions of years, theres almost no possible way they could have made it there just isn't you find how it wouldn't ill believe the knobs.
and saying it as a hoax, since you assumed that it was my original opinion 
as for the heterodontosaurs, well since even the "scientists" aren't sure. well let's say psittacosaurus then shall we, how about quilled triceratops, would that be likely?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you are saying thay Velociraptor is feathered and that the quill knobs are not a hoax, then I don't know what you are trying to imply here; for we seem to agree.
Quilled Triceratops? Sure, why not?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
well, what i'm saying is, the quill knobs don't seem nesseccary, i was trying to say the knobs could be hoaxed, i didn't want to come across as saying they were or weren't. it moreover a challenge to the piece, hell you have more of what your talking about than even i do, it was also somewhat to test your opinion to see what the evidence was for it. sorry if it had come across as rude. and of course i knew there was a revision on the way, but i was wanting to see how much evidence this had for it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No damage done. As you can see, there is a fair amount of evidence, of which builds every day as more finds are made and more theories are put forward. its the brilliance of science and palaentology.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
some, not as much as i thought but i shall admit, some ;
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Additionally, quill knobs are just a normal normal part of the bone, and can be preserved as the rest of the bone. If bone had quill knobs they will be fossilized as all other parts of the same bone. The knobs being preserved is no more improbable than the bones themselves, really, and certainly no less likely than the feathers, scales, and other trace fossils that we have from other sites.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well, it seems the projections may have been worn down to nothing given time, as for scales you got me there i haven't nuch in the way of refuting that
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
oh, when i say would the same not be plausible i'm refering to the feathers, it seems i backspaced a bit too far.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Good stuff.
I think the consensus of the scientific community is that birds = theropods, and that coelurosaurs = feathered (with some members such as the larger tyrannosaurs were secondarily featherless). Except those silly BAND people (Martin, Olson, Feduccia and Ruben) who frankly comes up with ever more silly arguments against birds being dinosaurs.
And it seems that it is a view which has been embraced by much of the artistic community here (at least those who want at least some degree of scientific credibility), especially those who recognise the potential artistic possibilities which comes with feathered theropods. Illustrating a dromaeosaur like Velociraptor covered in generous plumage is about as controversial as saying primates = mammals. And if someone finds a small fossil primate without hair, they wouldn't suggest it's hairless, would they?
I think there are still a lot of people who get their information about dinosaurs from 20 year-old books and are unaware of the amazing discoveries from the last 5 or 10 years. They think dinosaur = terrible lizard = scaly, and are confused about the function of feathers; because most extant theropods are capable of flight, they equate feathers with flight, not realizing that flight was probably a secondarily evolved function of feather-like structures.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All correct points. Unfortunately, some people just can't get the picture.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think it's probably because the view of "dinosaurs = terrible lizard = scaly" is a so deeply ingrained in most people's mind because it has a far longer history than feathered dinosaurs. The image of these "terrible lizards" as animals covered in fluffy feathers and bristles can be terribly jarring if you are not well-informed, and used to thinking of them as just big lizards.
And even more recent discoveries show that ornithischian also had bristles or other tegumentary structures, and that it might even be a basal trait to that group. This means that dinosaurs may actually be even more strange than we previously imagined.
Personally, I picture the Velociraptor as looking something like a big roadrunner.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Excellent job on this!
I love the birdy lil dinos.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It makes me kind of sad that scientists don't even know for sure if raptors had feathers, and you're calling people who don't put them on a reptile anatomically incorrect...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Yes, scientists do know for sure that raptors had feathers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Would you mind sending me a link or two on how they(scientists) know? I really am in the dark here. I've only seen the microraptor with the dark marks around the limbs and head, and Archaeopterix's feather imprints. One possible bird/raptor and a bird-sized raptor don't seem enough to feather the entire genus...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
But scientists DO know they had them...
Plus, birds are reptiles, and they have feathers. All the other feathered dinosaurs are reptiles and they have feathers. Not sure what you're getting at.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You can please show me references? I honestly don't know this. Links, articles. something.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sure
The primary find can be found in Turner, A.H.; Makovicky, P.J.; Norell, M.A. (2007). "Feather quill knobs in the dinosaur Velociraptor".
You can view it online here: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's very cool, and I thank you. I didn't know that, but now I do...Haven't been keeping up with dino discoveries as of late.
However, I'm a Christian Creationist.
So I don't think they could have been both reptiles and birds at once. Birds with teeth and *claws, maybe; but not two orders at the same time.
(*Living bird with claws = Hoatzin)
I will continue to mull over this new revelation, though, and see what new thing I can draw with it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, with you being a creationist and me being athiest, its hard to discuss the issue scientifically, as its apples and oranges. I'm glad to help you regardless. You may be interested to know that some scientists actually believe that Velociraptor and other dromaeosaurids are secondary-flightless birds, rather than actual non-avian dinosaurs; so you could even be correct in saying that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
oooooooooooh. And I thank you very very very much for not going into a massive drawn out I'm-right-you're-wrong-no-you're-wrong-I'm-right debate. (I used to get into those a lot.) You really have helped me.
And, even with feathers, your raptors are still pretty.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No worries, I respect other people's opinions.
Thanks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is very good and it IS important that people know what an actual Velociraptor most probably looked like.
I know full well the facts but I still like to draw my own 'fantasy' versions of raptors. And I accept that they are fantasy - the same way as if I drew a dragon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
very true. the jurassic park ones were based off of Utah Raptor though, so at least they weren't as badly mutated
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Jurassic Park equivilents where actually based on Deinonychus I beleive. Either way, they look more like allosaurs to me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
according to the book written by one of the paleontologist that consulted on the movie, the utah raptor was discovered during the movies production. spielburg wanted a giant raptor that hadn't exhausted prior to that.
the guy wrote an awsome book that you'd like called Raptor Red. The author is Robert T. Bakker.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, Utahraptor was discovered during the creation of the film. I can remember watching something where one of the film-makers joked that they invented it, and then it was suddenly found.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I love that they did find it. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is great! But there are only a couple of points I might wish to see elaborated.
1. On the facial feathers. One could argue that there may be very few feathers on the snout for an animal that likely plunges its head into carcasses. Having fewer feathers on the snout would reduce the chance for bacterial growth on the face where it is hard to clean the feathers. So, while it is an extremely valid point I don't know that it should necessarily be noted as a bad thing, more of a "this choice should be based on what you think this animal is doing". You could also argue that Velociraptor was not taking down as large of prey as, say, Deinonychus and the like, but still, probably going in after the delicious belly innards.
2. On a lack of under feathers. One could argue leaving belly-feathers out could be an adaptation to hot climates (deserts perhaps). Resting the belly on an area dug-down to cooler substrate could aid in thermoregulation. Again, not saying your description is wrong, but that in this case it's more of a "how is this animal adapted" than "this is wrong and half-arsed". Though you pointed out "mostly half naked" I'm just talking about the underside, not the legs and other naked bits.
3. Leg feathers. Yay for basal traits! And I think this is a fantastic reason to put it on there, but I'd love to see something noting that basal traits can be lost. So the lack of leg feathers wouldn't necessarily make the Velociraptor incorrect, but the artist should seriously consider them for the reason you pointed out, being basal in the clade. (And you did say "probably" so this is me just being nit-picky about wording. Feel free to ignore!)
4. Head crest. Same as the leg feathers. I'm glad you mentioned it being found in other dromaeosaurs, but it would be good to note that it doesn't dictate that Velociraptor has a crest, but does suggest the possibility.
5. I'd personally add that the arm feathers should probably not be asymmetric. To the best of my knowledge we don't' see asymmetric feathers until the dromaeosaurs that begin to fly (as it is a flight adaptation).
6. Necks. I'd note that just because they have long necks doesn't mean they need to be drawn goose-necked. The neck can be curved and obscured by feathers giving the animal a shorter-neck appearance and more avian-like. They CAN be drawn goose-necked though!
With my comments I have to agree with earlier comments that overall there needs to be an emphasis on what would likely be features based on related animals and basal ones, but that it does NOT dictate necessity. I think you have a lot of very valid points of how a Velociraptor might be constructed, but there is certainly a lot more wiggle room than what you have suggested here. I'd focus on the big points: feathers themselves and what types, primaries and secondaries present, head shape, and stiff tail. THEN note that there are other features that should be strongly considered, but are not completely necessary for an accurate reconstruction: leg feathers because they are basal, full body covering of feathers, tail fan and long wing feathers for maneuverability while running (and found in related animals), more complex plumage on the body, etc. Then followed up by your personal preferences based on biological, considered opinions.
Again, I love that you went to the trouble to do this and you definitely know your paleo! Just think variation in forms and a hierarchy of features.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Thank you very much
1. A vulture-like loss of feathers on the face and/or neck is not out of the realms of possiblity. It is the less likely scenario however. See, vultures are almost entierly scavengers, whereas Velociraptor was probably an active predator, with its main prey being smaller than itself. More akin to a bird-of-prey, which mostly have fully feathered faces. Additionally, Velociraptor had additional pruning tools which vultures do not, ie. its clawed hands. this would allow it to clean its feathers as a vulture is unable to.
2. That is an interesting idea, but it is noteworthy that all the modern birds we know of to have lost feathers have lost them from the head, neck and legs, not the body. Also, feathers actually aid in keeping heat out as well as/rather than in, hense they would probably be more of a help than a hinderence in hot climates.
3. As you say, I stated proably. I actually agree that it is likely that Velociraptor's leg 'wings' would have been massively reduced or degraded, being pretty much useless to it. I just included them here in order to show it as a basal trait.
4. Same, pretty much completely speculatory, just included it to show an example of the basal trait.
5. Ah, but Velociraptor actually evolded FROM those flying Dromaeosaurs, not into them, hence simply retaining the asymmetrical feathers from that stage. But, as I stated in an above post. It is possible that they were degraded, as in ratites.
6. I belive mine has the shorter neck. Microraptor and Saurornithosaurus both show this shorter, avian neck. Phynogenetic bracketing wins out.
I belive all other points are discussed above. My new version of this image is currently in construction, and will show numerous acceptible constructions of Velociraptor, rather than just the one. I found out when drawing this one that I was sort of tied down by including all the possible traits on one image.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
In reference to "1", see the Gill quote.
In reference to "6", did you mean Sinornithosaurus or Saurornitholestes?
Quoting Gill ( [link] ): "The facial feathers of raptors tend to be simplified to bristles and semibristles, which are easier to keep clean than are fully vaned feathers. This condition reaches an extreme in the carrion-eating vultures, which have bare heads with scattered bristles."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. I thought we were talking about pack behavior? I agree that facial feathers on dromaeosaurids were bristles or semi-bristles. In fact, fossil evidence shows that they were.
2 (in reference to "6") Both?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That was a response to your 1st response to SageGoat in which you discussed head feathers under "1" & mentioned Saurornithosaurus (by which I assume you meant either Sinornithosaurus or Saurornitholestes) under "6". I know it's confusing, what w/it being grouped w/our other, separate discussion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>