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
I see. Yes, I would have meant Sinornithosaurus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
1. Oh I agree, but also remember that an eagle has a lot longer bill than what you are showing featherless in your reconstruction. And I'd argue that likely being pack hunters (or so it is currently argued), they could certainly take prey down larger than themselves.
2. You also have to keep in mind feather tracts that would allow for the easy evolution of a loss of under belly feathers, or at least a reduction in them to cause an exposure of the under-belly skin.
6. I don't mean physically shorter, I mean just how the neck is held and appears superficially. Parrot neck are super long, but appear very short, superficially, due to the feathers.
I'm excited to see your new sheet! Like I said, I don't' feel anything you put on here is "wrong" just needs to allow for more wiggle room based on biological possibilities is all (that's more speculative based on related animals than actually found in the fossils). I'm happy to hear you are going to be including multiple reconstructions in your next one
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. An eagle length bare are may be acceptible. I based mine straight of the relted Sinornithosaurus. Also, there is actually very little evidence for pack hunting in dromaeosaurus, and it is doubtful they would have had the intelligence to pull of proper, wolf-like pack hunting as is commonly portreyed. I think (in line with a lot of professionals at this stage) that a komodo dragon-like "mobbing" was more likely.
2. It would, I'm not arguing that. However, it hasn't in any dinosaur that we know of at this point.
6. That's what I meant as well...
Thanks for the comments. Should have the new one up soon enough.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'll get back to you about your tutorial in my next comment. In this comment, I just want to correct a few things.
1stly, there's good evidence for true pack behavior in the better-studied eudromaeosaurids (I.e. Velociraptor, Deinonychus, Achillobator, Utahraptor).
2ndly, as the Witmer Lab has shown, eudromaeosaurids probably did have the intelligence for true pack behavior (See 4:03-4:37 of the vid in this link: [link] ).
3rdly, based on what I've read, there seems to be a lot wrong w/Roach & Brinkman (I.e. R&B) 2007 (in order of appearance):
-R&B claimed w/o supporting evidence that only a few raptors hunt in packs & those that do only hunt prey that individuals can kill alone, which is basically the opposite of what Ellis et al. claimed w/supporting evidence (See quotes 2 & 6). R&B probably knew about Ellis et al. 1993, given that they cited Bednarz 1995 (Bednarz co-authered Ellis et al. 1993), but chose to ignore it.
-R&B claimed that if lone Komodo dragons can kill prey 10x their size w/only their teeth, then so could lone Deinonychus w/both their teeth & claws. However, it's been known since at least 2005 that the former can kill said prey b/c they're venomous (See the 15th comment: [link] ).
-R&B claimed that the YPM 64-75 Deinonychus were all sub-adults. However, said Deinonychus "were all adults" (See "What Could Clump Raptors in Life?": [link] ). As indicated by quote 1, this has been known since at least 2003.
-R&B claimed that Bakker's lair sites were more likely kill sites despite the bones/sediments/lack of other predators suggesting otherwise (See quotes 3-4). Also, R&B claimed that the presence of both baby & adult tooth marks is coincidental despite the fact that "the baby shed teeth are always found with adult shed teeth" (See quote 3).
-Speaking of coincidental, see quote 5.
1 Quoting Bakker ( [link] ): "Those three or four adult Deinonychus we dug were probably a pack, a group from one species who hunted together."
2 Quoting Ellis et al. ( [link] ): "Highly developed cooperative hunting may be important for many raptors."
3 Quoting Levin ( [link] ): "Eventually, Bakker excavated 33 separate sites in Como Bluff. As digging proceeded, he started investigating a question that had long perplexed him: Did allosaur parents feed their young? "The books I grew up with said that the chicks of carnivorous dinosaurs had to catch prey all by themselves, the way baby crocodiles do," Bakker says. The teeth tell a different tale. Under the microscope, Bakker could see that baby allosaur teeth are miniature replicas of the adult teeth. To him, that similarity carries a significant message: "They ate the exact same thing—big hunks of meat. If baby allosaurs were feeding by themselves on little things, they'd need different teeth." Sure enough, bones of prey exhibit both baby and adult tooth marks. Equally important, the baby shed teeth are always found with adult shed teeth, implying that adult and child were eating in the same place. The family that shed together, fed together.
In similar fashion, Bakker concluded that allosaurs maintained guarded lairs where they ate and protected their young until they were fully grown. As Bakker uses the term, lair means not a nest or a den but a feeding area, potentially something as simple as a shaded spot on the plain. These sites contain abundant allosaur shed teeth mingled with bones from giant herbivores' meaty parts, such as the rump, thigh, and upper tail. Feet, which offered less nourishment, are missing. The sediments at these sites are fine-grained, meaning they were deposited by slow-moving water. "These carcasses didn't wash in," Bakker says. "It looks like somebody dragged them in.""
4 Quoting Levin ( [link] ): "Piled with pungent carcasses, lairs almost certainly would have attracted other predators, hoping to poach some food or make a meal of the vulnerable babies. But the sites that are rich in allosaur teeth do not contain shed teeth from other predators, Bakker found. Evidently, the beasts maintained good security. Teeth from all growth stages appear together in these lairs, hinting that allosaurs, like modern hawks and eagles, maintained extended families in which older siblings sometimes helped their parents raise the next generation."
5 Quoting Li et al. (See "Behavior" under "Discussion": [link] ): "Roach and Brinkman (2007) proposed that trackway data previously presented in support of gregarious nonavian theropods are perhaps better interpreted as coincidental instances of normally solitary individuals converging on a common point (e.g., food source). While we agree that some footprint associations may have been misinterpreted as gregarious, many convincing examples remain (see Lockley and Matsukawa (1999) for review). Group behavior more parsimoniously explains their numbers and diversity through the Mesozoic than does postulating that all such occurrences coincidentally represent parallel trackway segments of otherwise divergent trackways."
6 Quoting Stevens ( [link] ): "Dr. Ellis and his colleagues speculate that when raptors hunt alone, they will not even try to capture prey that they know can be captured only through teamwork; it is not worth the expenditure of energy. But bigger game or the quicker capture resulting from group efforts can make the expenditure worthwhile."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. Can you elaborate and show some evidence please. From what I’ve seen (and believe me, I’ve done extensive research) there is NO evidence for true pack behavior in dromaeosaurs. There is one bone-bed of multiple Deinonychus dead with a Tenontosaurus, which provides better evidence for mobbing than pack hunting and a couple of track ways showing multiple indeterminate dromaeosaurids walking together, not evidence for wolf-like pack hunting, only that they moved across the same area at a similar time. All this provides is the possibility that two dromaeosaurids were being social, something that I nor anyone else are not doubting.
2. For a start a little advice: do NOT use Jurassic Fight Club, or any other commercialized dinosaur documentary to get your information. They are extremely exaggerated, inaccurate and ridiculous and anything stated by the actual professionals on the show are cut-up, quote minded messes. They only place I’ve found reliable for truly accurate paleo-data are the actual papers, the DML (dinosaur mailing list) and a very select few paleo-blogs (the SVP and TetZoo being notable).
The video you have provided shows this, it is mined to show as close to what the show wanted (dromaeosaurids can hunt in packs) as the producers could get. He in-fact still specifically says that we can’t say that they hunted in packs. All he does say is that they MAY have been able to solve some more complex problems than other dinosaurs.
At this stage, the best evidence suggests that dromaeosaurids had an intelligence level around the same level as ratites, which would simply not have been enough for wolf-like pack behavior. Crocodilian, avian or Komodo Dragon style mobbing is far more likely (and seems to have happened at least once (based on the Deinonychus/Tenontosaurus bone bed).
3. Don’t have a lot to say on this one. I never read that paper because I heard that it pretty rough and poorly received, as you seem to be confirming. What are you trying to say?
"Quoting Bakker ( [link] ): 'Those three or four adult Deinonychus we dug were probably a pack, a group from one species who hunted together.'"
Another dumbed down, commercialized publication here. I somehow doubt that Bakker actually believes in wolf-like pack hunting in Dromaeosaurs, and if he does, I plain and simply disagree with him and believe that the evidence we currently have suggests otherwise. However, he does not claim wolf-like pack behaviour in this quote, just that they hunted together at this one time, which they did, though seemingly via mobbing, not coordinated wolf-hunting.
"Quoting Ellis et al. ( [link] ): 'Highly developed cooperative hunting may be important for many raptors.'"
This is not referring to dromaeosaurids, but true raptors (raptorial birds), some of which do OCCATIONALLY show pack behavior, but not to the extent that wolfs (and Jurassic Park monster raptors) do. Raptorial birds are also a lot smarter than dromaeosaurids.
3-3 & 4. Not sure what you want with this Allosaurus stuff. If you are asking my opinion on dinosaurs as caring parents, I believe it’s certainly possible. Many living dinosaurs do so, as do living crocodilians. There are also fossils of Citipati brooding.
5. I believe there are only two track ways of multiple dromaeosaurids together (though I can actually only recall one found in China earlier this year). Again, all they show is MAYBE these animals were moving together. It’s hardly evidence for pack hunting. Hell, its so inconclusive they may not have even been moving together, they may have just walked over the same piece of ground within the same hour, few hours, same day or even the same week.
6. Yes. I agree with this. Dromaeosaurids, in my opinion, would have hunted small game the vast majority of the time, while tackling larger prey in more desperate times (or if the prey was sick or dying) and occasionally mobbing larger prey (also likely sick or dying) crocodilian style when the opportunity arose and killing each other in the process (or the proceeding feeding frenzy).
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
This comment covers what my previous 2 comments didn't.
"Don’t have a lot to say on this one. I never read that paper because I heard that it pretty rough and poorly received, as you seem to be confirming. What are you trying to say?"
This is weird in that everything you've been saying about eudromaeosaurid pack hunting comes from R&B 2007 ( [link] ), yet you apparently didn't know that (I originally thought you did, which is why I brought it up in the 1st place). How did that happen? My best guess is that someone you trust said more-or-less the same thing w/o mentioning R&B by name. Am I right? If not, then please correct me.
"This is not referring to dromaeosaurids, but true raptors (raptorial birds), some of which do OCCATIONALLY show pack behavior, but not to the extent that wolfs (and Jurassic Park monster raptors) do. Raptorial birds are also a lot smarter than dromaeosaurids."
1stly, I know that Ellis et al. 1993 discusses raptor pack hunting & not eudromaeosaurid pack hunting. In fact, I specifically said so in my 1st comment ("R&B claimed w/o supporting evidence that only a few raptors hunt in packs & those that do only hunt prey that individuals can kill alone, which is basically the opposite of what Ellis et al. claimed w/supporting evidence (See quotes 2 & 6). R&B probably knew about Ellis et al. 1993, given that they cited Bednarz 1995 (Bednarz co-authered Ellis et al. 1993), but chose to ignore it."). How you thought otherwise I don't know, given that I've referred to eudromaeosaurids as eudromaeosaurids (as opposed to raptors) in every comment I've made here.
2ndly, had you read either Ellis et al. 1993 or the Stevens article (which discusses said paper), you'd know that many raptors do more than just "OCCATIONALLY show pack behavior" (See quote 2) & do so "to the extent that wolfs" do (See quote 1).
3rdly, as indicated by the Witmer Lab's research (See my previous comment), eudromaeosaurids had similar brain structures (& thus intelligence) to raptors.
4thly, "Raptor Pack" is more than just "another dumbed down, commercialized publication". It gives the best idea of what eudromaeosaurids were like when alive AWA how we know what we know. Besides that, both Currie & Holtz helped prepare it.
1 Quoting Stevens ( [link] ): "These hawks are "not one whit behind a wolf pack" in their hunting behavior, said Dr. David H. Ellis, an animal behaviorist and raptor expert at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service at Laurel, Md."
2 Quoting Stevens ( [link] ): "But none of this behavior constitutes true cooperative hunting. As used by Dr. Ellis and his colleagues, the term requires that the foraging pair or group be a stable social unit; that some members, in a division of labor, sacrifice their own prospects for a direct kill in deference to the group interest; and that group members share in the spoils.
In the most complex forms, raptors exchange signals to coordinate the hunt and cooperate in hunting outside the breeding season. Many instances suggesting this level of behavior have been observed."
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This comment covers the JFC/intelligence-related stuff.
1stly, I was obviously referring to what Witmer said about eudromaeosaurid brains/pack hunting, not JFC itself.
2ndly, I know that some dino docs (E.g. Clash of the Dinosaurs) have quote-mined dino paleontologists. However, can you prove that JFC has quote-mined anyone? I doubt it, given the fact that, unlike the staff of CotD, Blasing actually cares about educating ppl (even if he doesn't always do a good job).
3rdly, you conveniently left out the most important part of what Witmer said about eudromaeosaurid brains/pack hunting ("Compared to other predatory dinosaurs, they certainly were starting out with a better sort of brain power that potentially could've made that kind of capability possible": [link] (raptor_vs._t-rex)/5916/HISTP/Wednesday_May_13_2009/53360/ ).
4thly, I get what you're saying about JFC in particular/dino docs in general & I appreciate it (even if it was unnecessary, given that I already know what's wrong w/them). However, based on what I've read, you need 1 very important piece of advice: Get w/the times man! Everything you've been saying about dino intelligence is based on relative brain size, which is OK for comparing the intelligence of nonavian dinos to e/o, but that's about it. At best, relative brain size can tell us that the most intelligent nonavian dinos (I.e. Advanced deinonychosaurs) were w/in the avian range of intelligence (See the paragraph w/highlighted words, pages 121-122: [link] ). Relative cerebrum size is better for comparing the intelligence of nonavian dinos to modern animals (See quotes 2-3), but brain structure is the best of the 3 (See quote 1). Using GABRA (See quote 5), the Witmer Lab has compared the brain structures (& thus intelligence) of nonavian theropods to modern birds ( [link] ). Both online (E.g. See 3:40-4:50 of the vid in this link: [link] ) & book sources (E.g. See quote 4) have references to the Witmer Lab's research.
1 Quoting Kluger (See "Conscious Critters": [link] ): "Among animals aware of their existence, intellect falls on a sliding scale as well, one often seen as a function of brain size. Here humans like to think they're kings. The human brain is a big one — about 1,400 g (3 lb.). But the dolphin brain weighs up to 1,700 g (3.75 lb.), and the killer whale carries a monster-size 5,600-g (12.3 lb.) brain. But we're smaller than the dolphin and much smaller than the whale, so correcting for body size, we're back in first, right? Nope. The brain of the Etruscan shrew weighs just 0.1 g (0.0035 oz.), yet relative to its tiny body, its brain is bigger than ours.
While the size of the brain certainly has some relation to smarts, much more can be learned from its structure. Higher thinking takes place in the cerebral cortex, the most evolved region of the brain and one many animals lack. Mammals are members of the cerebral-cortex club, and as a rule, the bigger and more complex that brain region is, the more intelligent the animal. But it's not the only route to creative thinking. Consider tool use. Humans are magicians with tools, apes dabble in them, and otters have mastered the task of smashing mollusks with rocks to get the meat inside — which, though primitive, counts. But if creativity lives in the cerebral cortex, why are corvids, the class of birds that includes crows and jays, better tool users than nearly all nonhuman species?"
2 Quoting Larson & Donnan ( [link] ): "Of all dinosaurs, Velociraptor and other raptors, including the smallest one, Bambiraptor, had the largest cerebrums relative to their brain size. So even though their overall brain size was smaller than T. rex's, they probably were smarter. Stan was busy using his brain to smell you. Velociraptor was ready to play chess with you (before dinner!)."
3 Quoting Larson & Donnan ( [link] ): "So now we'll answer that last Big Question: Could Velociraptor open a door? At Yale University, pigeons have been taught to play ping-pong. Even if Velociraptor isn't as smart as Bambiraptor, he was probably smarter than a pigeon. Anybody who can play ping-pong certainly could open a dumb door — if he had hands, like Velociraptor. He might have to watch you do it first, but he'd wrap his little hand around that knob and give it a twist. You'd better lock it after you. And set the alarm. And maybe push the fridge up against the door. And just to be sure, I'd run."
4 Quoting Marven ( [link] ): "Imagine a hunting dinosaur the size of a wolf. Give it long hind legs and the running speed of a greyhound. Equip each foot with a huge, curved claw that could hook into flesh. Make it as intelligent as a bird of prey. You have imagined a dromaeosaur."
5 Quoting Morhardt ( [link] ): "As far as research is concerned, I have, with the input of my advisor Dr. Larry Witmer, determined a tentative path for my dissertation. I will be building on a topic that Ryan Ridgely and Larry presented in a poster at the 2007 ICVM conference. Their poster described the applications of a technique they dubbed "Gross Anatomical Brain Region Approximation" (GABRA). In short, GABRA is a set of quantified, established osteological correlates that allow comparative neuroanatomists to piece together the brain of an animal that may have died thousands or even millions of years ago. GABRA correlates are determined by studying the brains of living animals, usually those that are evolutionarily related to the fossilized creature in question, and looking for patterns in brain structure placement and size. By scanning the inside of a fossil's cranial cavity, and by applying the GABRA set, scientists can obtain a fairly accurate
picture of what structures would have been present in the brain of the ancient animal, where those structures were in relation to other neural components, and how big the various brain parts were. Having an idea of the structure, placement, and size of brain structures in extinct animals would allow paleontologists to infer sensory, motor, and - gasp - even behavior attributes of a long-dead animal. For example, be able to determine if Triceratops was as dumb as we think (sorry Mathews - couldn't resist)."
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Do you mind if I break up my response into 2 or 3 comments? I figure it'll be easier to keep track of everything I'm going to say if I only say a little bit at a time.
For Velociraptor, see "Figure 1.5" (I know they're featherless w/pronated hands, but that's Sibbick for you): [link]
For Deinonychus, besides said bone-bed (which, as indicated by the blog post in this link, is better evidence for a cooperative pack than an uncooperative mob: [link] ), there's also the # of teeth found w/Tenontosaurs AWA the position those teeth were found in (See quote 5).
For Achillobator, I was referring to the Dromaeopodus trackways, which were probably made by Achillobator, given their time/place/size (See quote 4).
For Utahraptor, see quotes 2-3.
I know you've been saying that gregarious behavior =/= pack behavior. However, when it comes to large terrestrial hypercarnivores (E.g. Eudromaeosaurids), it usually does (See quote 1).
1 Quoting Bakker ( [link] ): "Predators don't usually hang out in groups if they don't hunt together. Tigers are like this — they mostly hunt alone, and you don't see bunches of tigers lying around together. But lions are social predators. They hunt and raise their young and sleep and snore together."
2 Quoting Britt et al. (See "4.2.2. Dinosaurs": [link] ): "The dromaeosaurid theropod, Utahraptor, dominates the theropod assemblage, and is represented by 62 teeth and 146 bones pertaining to at least nine individuals (based on hind limb elements), including 2 adults, 3 subadults, and 4 juveniles."
3 Quoting Britt et al. (See "5.5. Historical taphonomic history of the Dalton Wells bonebeds": [link] ): "The presence of clusters of partial carcasses of Gastonia, Venenosaurus, and the iguanodontid, suggest that groups of these taxa died and were introduced enmasse to the thanatocoenose. Accordingly, we speculate that these, and possibly other well-represented taxa at DW (basal macronarian, Utahraptor, other sauropods) were gregarious."
4 Quoting Li et al. (See "Paleobiogeography" under "Discussion": [link] ): "Footprint size, varying between 26 and 28.5 cm in the better preserved Dromaeopodus tracks, is consistent with a track maker comparable to Achillobator (Perle et al. 1999) in size (Table 1; see S2, S3, and S4 for formula and measurements), providing the first evidence that such animals were locally abundant in the Early Cretaceous of East Asia."
5 Quoting Maxwell (See pages 2-3: [link] ): "Nobody knows for certain what took place at the Shrine site. We do know, however, that whether hunted down and killed by a pack or simply scavenged after death, Tenontosaurus was the preferred food of Deinonychus. Approximately eighty occurrences of Tenontosaurus remains have been discovered in the Cloverly formation to date, and thirty-five include Deinonychus teeth. While Deinonychus fossils are rarely found with other possible prey animals, three or four Deinonychus teeth typically turn up wherever there are Tenontosaurus remains. And at a site discovered in the Cloverly formation in 1992, there were even more.
Laid out in its death pose at this new site was a beautifully preserved, near-complete specimen of a young Tenontosaurus. Four Deinonychus teeth were found alongside the bones; later, in the laboratory, seven more teeth were uncovered. It's possible that a few more teeth were missed in the field or unwittingly discarded during preparation because they were concealed within small lumps of rock. So we have a subadult Tenontosaurus no more than fourteen feet long (compared with a length of about twenty feet for the adult at the Shrine site), preserved with at least eleven Deinonychus teeth.
But how can we distinguish between the remains of a victim hunted down and devoured by a pack and an animal that simply died and was scavenged by a few passing Deinonychus? As is the case at the Shrine site, this Tenontosaurus was preserved where it died. After death, the desiccation of the abundant supporting tendons that line the vertebrae of the neck and tail cause these parts to coil. The tail of Tenontosaurus, which accounts for about one-third of the animal's total length, is particularly heavy with supporting tendons. In this specimen, the pronounced curvature of the tail and the neck toward each other effectively counters any claim that the bones were carried to the site by water currents. The Deinonychus teeth were found in the region of the abdomen and pelvis, suggesting that the predators lost their teeth while feeding on the viscera. Most modern carnivores begin with the areas around the anus and abdomen when they feast on freshly killed prey, and it's likely that carnivorous dinosaurs did the same.
The number of teeth indicate that more than one Deinonychus was involved with the carcass. Like all other theropod dinosaurs, Deinonychus shed and replaced teeth throughout its life. The teeth would fall out upon the animal's reaching maturity but also could be wrenched out earlier by the stress associated with the biting and tearing of flesh. Because of this, theropod teeth are very common in sediments containing dinosaur fossils. The teeth from this site vary from recently erupted to fully mature ones. Given that Deinonychus had only sixty teeth in its jaws at any one time, it's unlikely that all eleven were wrenched from the mouth of just one feeding animal. This would leave the Deinonychus toothless after five similar meals. The possibility that Deinonychus was replacing shed teeth in a few weeks or months, and therefore had the ability to sustain such dramatic tooth loss, was quashed by Greg Erickson, who, as a master's degree student at the Museum of the Rockies, worked on replacement rates of teeth in various dinosaurs and living reptiles. After CT-scanning portions of the lower jaw of Deinonychus and studying individual teeth, he came up with an estimate of 300 days for the time it took Deinonychus to replace a shed tooth with a mature one.
We know that this Tenontosaurus was not yet an adult, so it didn't die of old age. Of course, this doesn't rule out death from disease or injury and doesn't confirm that it was cut down by a pack, but it's a start. Next, we have a concentration of teeth around the abdomen and pelvis. This may indicate that the pack fed on the abdominal contents while they were still warm and moist. If, after the viscera had been consumed, the remainder of the carcass was scavenged over time by many individuals, we would expect a much more disturbed carcass and a wider scattering of teeth.
Not your ordinary toe: the second digit on each foot of Deinonychus was a pointed, sickle-shaped tool designed to pierce and rip flesh.
Photo by Mick Ellison, AMNH
Similarly, if the Tenontosaurus had been killed by a larger predator-such as the unknown owner of the three-inch-long serrated teeth that occasionally crop up in the Cloverly formation—then whatever remained of the carcass would have been strewn around the area."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry, but I simply can't be bothered replying to every little thing anymore (plus, I just got up 
I don't see any of the material provided in the above quote as evidence for coordinated pack hunting and you seem to be clinging to a bunch of vague passing comments anyway. Dromaeosaurs were not intelligent enough to coordinate attacks like wolfs, lions or Jurassic Park monstrosities. Its as simple as that. It seems they probably gathered in groups as crocodilians and Komodo Dragons do and mobbed prey like this on occation.
Also, mainly in reference to quote 1, mammals are bad analogues for archosaurs. They are generally far more intelligent (carnivores in particular) and have completely different styles of feeding and hunting. When trying to decern dinosaur behaviour, the amature tends to be quite mammal bias, with us being mammals and mammals pretty much dominating the world as we know it. This is unnecessary when we have 10,000 species of dinosaur living with us today and a wealth of crocodilians to represent more basal archosaurs that we can more accurately measure our assumptions with.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That at the top is a Microraptor? You made it look like a giant-sized version of Archeopteryx.
Microraptor =/= Bird
Microraptor =/= Dromeasaur
Saying microRAPTOR is a raptor is like saying a WHALE-shark is a whale.
It's wrong and mis-informed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
ignore this comment, wasn't paying attention
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oops I meant "That at the top is a velociraptor?"
Velociraptor =/= Bird
Velociraptor == Dromeasaur
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm sorry, as much as I love velociraptor and try my best to keep it as anatomically well drawn as I can, drawing the bad ones below is fun 
I have never seen that version of velociraptor above. Where did you get this information on what raptors should look like? I'd love to read that article 
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Good to hear you are trying to improve. Always the best quality in any artist. "The version of the Velociraptor above" is my interpretation of a real Velociraptor based on evidence from fossils. This is what all paleo-reconstruction should be. Therefore I got the information from fossils - via the use of scientific papers and the interent obviously.
Thanks for the comment, and I am actaully quite new to drawing feathers as well, I just took to it quickly. I find them fun to draw.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, your design seems pretty original from what I've seen around dA. He doesn't look as terrifying as the other versions imo, but I think he looks kinda cute :3
And np
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I strongly doubt that Velociraptor would have been very terrifying in life. Its larger reletives (Deinonychus, Achillobator, Utahraptor) on the other hand may have been a different story.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
check out the utah raptors if you like the JP ones. read the book "Utah Raptor" it's soooo awsome and written by one the paleontologist that helped consult on the movie
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do you mean this one?: [link]
I do have a raptor book though, but it talks about a few different kinds that were known during the 90's. I love the book to death because of its artwork and I reference it all the time. Thanks for the suggestions, though!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah I meant Raptor Red. I needed coffee for my brain to work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Although this is nice, it makes it sound elitist and snobby, as if all other velociraptors drawn by those who may not have the skill - dimissing them as not worthy of being called raptors.
You said yourself "When I see the greyhound I figure "oh, this person is not a dinosaur aficionado, oh well." That's not fair, what about people drawing fanart? I love raptors and try to draw them, but i'm an amature artist and draw mostly dragons and fantasy beasts. It's this elitism that puts me off drawing raptors for not wanting some paleo-nut jumping down my throat at my 'poor anatomy.
That's my 5 pence worth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I've had that last sentence happen to me with an oviraptor, but like you said I draw pretty much everything in an artistic way.. that is, more so than anatomically correct. If that makes sense. I wanted to join a group for paleo art, but was rejected based solely on my inaccurate oviraptor. That's stupid if you ask me. Just because I'm in the learning stage doesn't mean I don't love dinosaurs any less..
More related, I think I draw velociraptors as a mix between the correct one and the "half-arsed" one haha. Where did you get the information that the feathers go to the nose like that? And are there feathers all the way down the legs?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Fair enough to a point. Critiquing anatomy and critiquing artwork are very different. This guide is specifically designed for those who want to draw Velociraptors realistically. It’s not like I run around the internet insulting those whom are specifically drawing, say, Jurassic Park fan art. If someone sets out to draw inaccurate Velociraptors, then they do. Whatever.
I also do not criticize those with lesser artistic talent, which would be horrible. This guide has nothing to do with the skill of the artist. For example: being off lesser skill is no reason to, say, leave the feathers off. That is exactly why this is here, actually, the help those who may not know much about dinosaur anatomy what is right and wrong, so they can improve.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I personally have tried using the realistic guides and such, but my attempts come out looking like some mutant parrot.
I still disagree with your crudely described 'half-arse' version, it's rude to label something as such that doesn't conform - it's not constructive critique.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Its labeled that in reference to the face that those who draw it are 80% of the time, well informed or even well known paleo-artists; but they are still drawn like this in a desperate attempt to hang on to an outdated model. "Not conforming" doesn't really apply to paleo art. It’s a matter of science, not of art. Again, I'll state, there is no reason that lesser skilled artists can not draw accurate dinosaurs, paleo-accuracy and skill of the artist are different things.
Basically, if you want to draw an inaccurate version (like the greyhound or to a lesser extent half-arse) you aren't drawing a Velociraptor, you are drawing a made-up animal. Granted, a similar animal, in the half-arsed case (or a completely different animal in the case of the greyhound version).
Also, I looked at your profile, and you are a perfectly good artist, and the one dromaeosaur I saw was reasonably accurate (minus a lack of primary feathers). You shouldn't talk yourself down.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
People either draw feathed raptors or non-feathered. Both are correct. (we have no proof that of feathers in the mongolian raptors since the rock isn't fine enough to preserve feathers in any way, shape, or form)
Ahem.
You have an interesting opinion and even though I like JP raptors most, you've got the most realistic "realistic" raptor ever.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, this is wrong. non-feathered is incorrect. For one, phylogenetic bracketing is evidence. Very good evidence. For example, there is no evidence of fur on smilodon, would you hence reconstruct it naked? Secondly, we have found quill knobs on the ulna of Velociraptor, unequivocal proof that it had feathered wings.
And thanks, I strive to have the most realistic dinosaurs I can.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ulna quill knobs =/= Whole body covered in feathers.
okay, there is no evidence of feathers on baby t-rex, do we ASSUME they had feathers because "dinosaurs and birds are related, tghey both ALL had feathers, case closed." (quote is from 90% of all dA)
Phylogenetic bracketing is something I had no idea existed, but the smilodon example is blatant and stupid. Smilodon is a mammal. Mammals have fur. The mammals that don't have fur (as adults) are very rare, almost as rare as monotremes. It's only logical to ASSUME smilodons, as CATS would have fur similar to LIONS and TIGERS and the like (although Smilodon probably weren't related to either).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No... its exactly the same. Its logical to ASSUME velociraptor, as DROMAEOSAURS, would have feathers similar to MICRORAPTOR and SINORNITHOSAURUS and the like (of which are probably more closely related to Velociraptor than Smilodon is to Panthera).
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I refer to true Dromaeosaurs, not Maniraptorians in general.
There is a difference. Dromaeosaurs are Maniraptorians, but Maniraptorians are not Dromaesaurs.
Dromaeosauria:
Velociraptor
Pyroraptor
Utahraptor
Dromaeosaurus
Deinonychus
Maniraptoria:
All of Dromaeosauria
Microraptor
Sinornithosaurus
Any other feathered creature that is not a bird.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is incorrect I’m afraid.
"Dromaeosauria" and "Microraptoria" don't even exist. There is a Dromaeosaurinae (which includes Achillobator, Utahraptor and Dromaeosaurus *note: not Velociraptor) and a Microraptorinae (which includes Microraptor and Hesperonychus among others). Then there is a Dromaeosauridae (which includes all of the above among others) which is itself found within Deinonychosauria along with the Troodontids.
Deinonychosauria is then a part of Paraves, along with avians (birds). Maniraptora is a far larger group which contains the Paraves along with Therizinosaurs and Oviraptorosaurs.
Velociraptor is very, very closely related to Microraptor and Sinornithosaurus, and would have at least shared a common ancestor, if not evolving from a member of Microraptorinae. Being in a different family means squat in this case, as Velociraptorinae is descended from or descended from common ancestors with Microraptorinae, and in turn, all of Dromaeosauridae share a common ancestor with the Troodontids, whom are also feathered. This forms Deinonychosauria, which then in turn shares a common ancestor with birds, which are also feathered, which share an ancestor with Oviraptorosaurs and Therizinosaurs which are also feathered, and so on, and so forth.
Velociraptor within the most highly evolved of a group descended from feathered ancestors. Additionally, the quill knobs on its ulna indicate that it definitely had pennaceous feathers. It should then be noted that feathers are almost never lost, and certainly not to any extent. When it does happen, it has been for a very specific purpose, i.e. vultures that specialize in eating carrion and ostriches whom are both giant, live in a hot environment, and need the lack of leg feathers to aid it in its extreme running speed. Although, it of course would have eaten carrion, Velociraptor was likely an active predator, more like an eagle or an owl than a vulture. As for the ostrich, Velociraptor did live in a hot environment, but it was far smaller than ostrich. In fact, it was very small. Also, contrary to popular belief, it was reasonably slow.
Wow, I written a lot. I’m not actually sure what you are trying to argue at the moment. Do you believe that Velociraptor had feathers only on its ulna? Do you believe that it lost its ancestors feathers for seemingly no reason even though no modern bird has any substantial loss of feathers without a legitimate reason (even the largest birds that ever lived the Giant Moa and the Elephant Bird retained all of they’re feathers.).
I’ll also state that I do not believe that the image I have shown here is absolutely what Velociraptor looked like. One of the main reasons I am creating a new version. A ratite-like degrading of the feathers, particularly flight feathers is certainly a plausible outcome, as is the possible loss of the leg wings, as these would no longer serve a function. Neither of these adaptions can currently be backed up by the fossil record though, so going with the plumage of its closest ancestors is a better option. Any further loss of feathers should currently seen as reasonably unlikely at this stage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How can you come to the conclusion that "they are closely related" when you don't have any DNA to prove it? What, did they find a way to examine the ENTIRE genome from a FOSSIL?
Okay, what source are you getting this from? Tell me so I can make sure you're not just making shit up to support your opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course they don't have the DNA and of course we can't be 100% sure about anything when it comes to extinct lifeforms, because we weren't there. This is however, basic phylogeny. You wouldn't call Allosaurus a sauropod, would you?
This comes from prior knowledge gained by study, primarily reading scientific papers; but also from talking to paelaentologists and occationally studing fossils when I get the chance.
The most up to date cladogram of dromaeosauridae can be found in Longrich, N.R. and Currie, P.J. (2009). "A microraptorine (Dinosauria–Dromaeosauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of North America," which can be read online here: [link]
Hope that helps.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, it does. I didn't have the most up-to-date information. I had reasonably up-to-date information from last year.
Then again they don't exactly post new scientific discoveries on your regular news channel now do they? At least, not here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Glad to be a help. And no, they rarely make any form of media, I get all my information from the internet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Additionally; featherless coelurosaurs seem to be just as rare as furless mammals, with large tyrannosaurs (probably) and maybe Juravenator (although, it seems to show traces of protofeathers as well as scales) being the only ones.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Great drawing of the raptor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First, we know that "Mainstream" style velociraptor is a most uncorrect view. In the actual fact, Velociraptors are feathered dinosaur rather than a reptilian dinosaur with the lizard like tail, the human like arms, long body and the dog legs and clawed paws.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've seen lots of "how to draw accurate dromaeosaurs" tutorials over the years, but this one might be my favorite. Or at least one of my favorites. Even the best tutorials usually make subtle mistakes but it looks like you've covered all of the nitpicky bases. I don't think I've ever seen another tutorial that talked about how there would not be feathers on the humerus, giving the wings a "notched" appearance. (People frequently make this mistake with Archaeopteryx, too.) Or the idea that it's a good idea to illustrate dromaeosaurs with at least small legwings since the trait appears to be basal for the clade. In recent years the "half-arse" has come to annoy me almost more than the "greyhound". Every time I see a dromaeosaurid with arm feathers ending at the wrist, I wince because it always looks to me like they had their primaries forcibly ripped off.
Anyway, good stuff, I'll definitely remember to save this link to show people who ask me about drawing dromaeosaurs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you sincerely. Knowing that this is appreciated and will be utilized makes it completely worth while making it. I am actually working on a new, far more thorough version. I completely agree with you about the "half-arse" version, it really looks like someone has pinned the animal down and ripped its primaries out (so in essence, drawing them this way could be regarded as cruelty to animals
Anyway, thanks again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The depressed nasals in _Velociraptor_ are the product of crushing in the type specimen. Thus, the snout should not possess them... The dorsal margin would be much straighter. It would, however, still be much closer to the way you reconstruct it than the greyhound form.
I'll post my other comments as a reply to the thread above...
Over all, though, I am in strong agreement with your vision of the animal. Very nicely conceived and executed. Keep up the good work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think you're being too strict. Velociraptor is about 60 million years removed from its common ancestor with Microraptor, and was a much bigger animal in a completely different environment. Very little about the "half-arse" Velociraptor can be contradicted by fossils of Velociraptor itself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry, but there is no way it'd lose its plumage to that extent. Feathers are extremely useful structures, and evolution usually denotes that an animal will only lose that which is harmful to it. Nor would they have the ridiculous hands and the feathers on the body would not revert back to protofeathers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Again, love your illustration (see comment below in new 'thread'), but there are some issues here.
Features lost through evolutionary processes include not only things that are harmful, but (often) things which are useless. "Brad"'s comment holds some weight. Sixty-million years is a _long_ time. Consider, for a moment, that humans are very hair-reduced and are separated from other African apes by about 1/10 that amount of time. We are significantly smaller than some African apes, and parts of our evolution occurred in cooler environments. Hind limbs are very useful for some aquatic animals, but whales have lost them within the last 60 million years. Endothermy and naked mole rats; flight and dodos or Galapagos cormorants... I guess my point is that it's tough to predict evolution.
However, I can see your point, and moreover, there are quill knobs on the ulna of _Velociraptor_ indicating that it had wings with _primary_ feathers.
Again... Fantastic job with the illustration and great deal about getting stuff right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Thanks for the comments. You are right, they do use things that are useless. The primary feathers on Velociraptor were far from useless, most likely serving as aerodynamic tools while running, as in the modern ostrich. Plus, as you say, we have the quill knobs to prove it. I will probably update this work to include those points, plus that about the depressed nasals (another common error I can point out).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
wow if i could fave any comments this would be the one to fave, i love the point you made there
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Great artwork, though, right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>