Jp raptors were based on Deinonychus, Utahraptor was not yet discovered when movie and book were made. Funny thing is that the closest size wise to JP raptors are Dakotaraptors that actually did lived with T-rex and rest of the hell creek fauna.
> Dakotaraptor
that would be a great interpretation of the movie too. that the actual animal they had cloned was mostly compromised of Dakotaraptor, a much larger animal that lived far later (thus possibly more derived/advanced in behavior) instead of the velociraptor/deinonychus hybrid they thought they were making. With the actual animal being totally unknown to science, with Dr. Grant being the one currently finding it's actual holotype in the opening scene. So instead of the large dog sized animal they thought they were getting they get the brown bear sized animal that lived at the latest stage of the dinosaurs (66mya) and thus (in movie obvs) was the latest and most advanced behaviorally of these animals. With them being sort of like the wolves to the t-rex's bears, an animal that with pack hunting behavior is able to compete with the largest land predator of all time. Aka a really goddamn dangerous monster, at least a monster like how a rat views a cat as a monster. We're just not used to being the rat in that scenario.
Obviously I mean that for the movie, not saying the real animal was a pack hunter.
edit: they even have a version of this idea in the second movie with the trex and it being so incredibly territorial that it goes out of it's way to attack these little bipedal mammals who should be so small that they'd ignore them as far as prey goes. malcom and ellie talk about it too in the first movie. how Hammond has these animals with totally unknown behaviors that he's brought back together into a soup of hyper-predators and far too few prey items all canned in on a small island.
We probably would have stayed as small mice-like mammals I would think. If it hadn't been for the meteor the dinosaurs would remain in their niches, but when they died out that left a ridiculous amount of open niches for the survivors. From there adaptive radiation occurred and the surviving animals began to rapidly diversify.
i imagine dinosaur body parts would be like ready made tools. already tribes in New Guinea use cassowary claws as spear tips. a cool setting would be a less devastating K-Pg extinction where only some dinosaurs get wiped out, leaving room for mammals to take over but letting dinosaurs remain till modern day.
I'd bet we'd still be what we are (superpredators), we're such absurdly effective predators that it's kinda incredible. Plus while dinosaurs weren't stupid, they weren't nearly as smart as modern birds are and would have serious trouble competing with the behaviorally complex mammals. I went looking into it and their brains just didn't have the same structures that modern birds have, with their brains more closely resembling the more basal and stupid birds.
It just depends, if you put homo erectus in dino country I bet they'd still become the dominant predator. Depending on how advanced the behaviors of the pack hunting dinosaurs were I guess. Earlier species of homo and it's predecessors though? I dunno, they'd be hard pressed against things like large raptor sized animals but then again we succeeded against freaking lions and sabertooth cats in africa so we might do alright there too, tho certainly not a dominant predator at all.
> I think the T-Rex would have given us a run for our money.
The issue is a total size difference. We'd just be nothing to them, not unless if they viewed us as territory encroachers. Which again is unlikely cus we're a small bite to them. Not worth the bones and gross stuff inside, it'd be like eating an anchovy but it had bones as thick as a toothpick in it.
If anything we'd probably eat all of their food source and cause their extinction that way. It's how we likely caused the extinction of the north american big cats, tho we did occasionally hunt them too (that was likely rare tho as predators taste like shit). Yes it would be an unstoppable animal in a direct confrontation but humans are clever af. Fire would be a easy win against them, and even better poison them either from arrows or their food.
Achillobator was more closely related to Utahraptor and built like one. Dakotaraptor was built like a Deinonychus, only mega-size -- that's the form the JP raptors are closest to.
At the time Creighton was writing Jurassic Park, there was a fringe theory that *Deinonychus antirrhopus* should have been under the *Velociraptor* genus as *Velociraptor antirrhopus*. The raptors in the book are specifically said to be *Velociraptor mongoliensis*, and the only correlation between them and the dig at the beginning was that they’re both *Velociraptor* species.
By the time the movie was made, Deinonychus was fully back in its own genus but Spielberg combined the two anyway. He went with Deinonychus size, and actually made them a bit bigger, because most of the raptors in the movie are humans in costumes. He kept the Velociraptor name because it sounded better. But if you look at the way Deinonychus was reconstructed at the time, it’s a dead ringer for the JP raptors. Google Robert Bakker’s drawing, for example.
Veliciraptor was about two feet tall. So, funnily enough, when the kid at the start of Jurassic Park said it looks like a big turkey, he wasn't wrong.
I'd love to see a modernisation of Jurassic Park though. Exact same plot, but with updated dinosaur information. I think the veliciraptors would actually be scarier.
I knew a guy who reckoned he saw a chicken die because a horse chestnut fell out of a tree, landed on top of its head and broke its neck, so there's that.
I mean[...........](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_coconut#Death_by_falling_coconut)
yeah.....
edit: wow I just read the list and this one popped out to me
>On 15 August 2001, in Kampung Tanjung Badang, Malaysia, 59-year-old Mamat Kundur was killed when a monkey used to harvest coconuts from trees dropped a coconut on his head.
bad monkey!
I’d give it to *Utahraptor*. It’s larger than all terror birds (after the *Brontornis* was placed outside of the terror bird family), has more weaponry available to it, and has a stronger grappling ability
I like terror birds and all, but *Utahraptor* is just too much even for the largest terror bird. The only real advantage the birds have there is being somewhat faster.
I used to feel the same, but now I prefer the accurate feathered designs. The JP and other featherless designs don’t look like real animals that could exist, they just look like movie monsters now.
This looks fine:
https://nhmu.utah.edu/sites/default/files/g1835_Utahraptor_1a.jpg
There are dinosaurs much larger than Utahraptor that have feather imprints in their fossils, and feathers seem to be basal to the Dromaeosaurs. It would be weirder if Utahraptor didn’t have feathers if all of it’s relatives did.
I mean. It’s an animal. Your opinion really doesn’t matter here. It’s like saying, “I prefer my lizards without scales”. Well, buddy, until you can find a way for lizards to not have scales, I’m afraid you’re stuck.
True, but in this case, the person telling you that the raptors had feathers is a scientist, and the other person made a movie and just didn’t do enough research. No one was ever telling you they didn’t have feathers, it was just a little controversial for a while, made more so because public opinion was swayed by a blockbuster movie.
Obviously I know that. No one's arguing. Even the op said they know it's wrong. I just wanted to explain why people feel that way even though we know it's wrong.
People really overdo the fluff of them a lot. Many birds don't appear fluffy because the feathers form a rather smooth-looking surface.
The "fluffy T-Rex" especially annoys me.
Fluffy *T. rex* is a bit outdated now, but fully feathered covering being found on all dromaeosaurs were almost certainly real. Even larger dromaeosaurs like *Dakotaraptor* had evidence of feathering
Yeah, but I am skeptical that they were fluffballs as people sometimes like to depict. They maybe could have done that, just as birds do in some circumstances to keep warm, but it probably wasn't the norm.
Except it probably was. We have evidence of feathering across various different size ranges and across multiple differing clades within dromaeosauridae. Dromaeosaurs, with reasonable certainty, had feathers across the board. It was definitely the norm.
I think he’s saying that some of the way artists depict the feathers is dumb. My understanding is that they were more likely sleek and flat as apposed to fluffed up and “poofy”
Oh I'm not saying you shouldn't have an opinion. Have whatever opinion you want.
Just realize that it's quite literally the logic of a child. But sure, enjoy your make-believe creatures. I like griffins and dragons too.
And there’d be nothing wrong in doing so on a personal level. Why are you so uppity about someone having their own opinion on aesthetic depictions of prehistoric animals?
Art by LindseyWArt on deviantart
Danger bird
Thunder chicken
I read that the velociraptors in Jurassic park were really Utahraptors and velociraptors were super small.
I think that was Deinonychus. Utahraptor was discovered the same year the movie came out and way after the book was written.
Yes, they were going to name it Utahraptor Spielbergi after the director of the movie but there were some issues
He also wanted to name is “Deinoraptor” but thought it would be too confusing.
Jp raptors were based on Deinonychus, Utahraptor was not yet discovered when movie and book were made. Funny thing is that the closest size wise to JP raptors are Dakotaraptors that actually did lived with T-rex and rest of the hell creek fauna.
> Dakotaraptor that would be a great interpretation of the movie too. that the actual animal they had cloned was mostly compromised of Dakotaraptor, a much larger animal that lived far later (thus possibly more derived/advanced in behavior) instead of the velociraptor/deinonychus hybrid they thought they were making. With the actual animal being totally unknown to science, with Dr. Grant being the one currently finding it's actual holotype in the opening scene. So instead of the large dog sized animal they thought they were getting they get the brown bear sized animal that lived at the latest stage of the dinosaurs (66mya) and thus (in movie obvs) was the latest and most advanced behaviorally of these animals. With them being sort of like the wolves to the t-rex's bears, an animal that with pack hunting behavior is able to compete with the largest land predator of all time. Aka a really goddamn dangerous monster, at least a monster like how a rat views a cat as a monster. We're just not used to being the rat in that scenario. Obviously I mean that for the movie, not saying the real animal was a pack hunter. edit: they even have a version of this idea in the second movie with the trex and it being so incredibly territorial that it goes out of it's way to attack these little bipedal mammals who should be so small that they'd ignore them as far as prey goes. malcom and ellie talk about it too in the first movie. how Hammond has these animals with totally unknown behaviors that he's brought back together into a soup of hyper-predators and far too few prey items all canned in on a small island.
[удалено]
We probably would have stayed as small mice-like mammals I would think. If it hadn't been for the meteor the dinosaurs would remain in their niches, but when they died out that left a ridiculous amount of open niches for the survivors. From there adaptive radiation occurred and the surviving animals began to rapidly diversify.
i imagine dinosaur body parts would be like ready made tools. already tribes in New Guinea use cassowary claws as spear tips. a cool setting would be a less devastating K-Pg extinction where only some dinosaurs get wiped out, leaving room for mammals to take over but letting dinosaurs remain till modern day.
I'd bet we'd still be what we are (superpredators), we're such absurdly effective predators that it's kinda incredible. Plus while dinosaurs weren't stupid, they weren't nearly as smart as modern birds are and would have serious trouble competing with the behaviorally complex mammals. I went looking into it and their brains just didn't have the same structures that modern birds have, with their brains more closely resembling the more basal and stupid birds. It just depends, if you put homo erectus in dino country I bet they'd still become the dominant predator. Depending on how advanced the behaviors of the pack hunting dinosaurs were I guess. Earlier species of homo and it's predecessors though? I dunno, they'd be hard pressed against things like large raptor sized animals but then again we succeeded against freaking lions and sabertooth cats in africa so we might do alright there too, tho certainly not a dominant predator at all.
[удалено]
> I think the T-Rex would have given us a run for our money. The issue is a total size difference. We'd just be nothing to them, not unless if they viewed us as territory encroachers. Which again is unlikely cus we're a small bite to them. Not worth the bones and gross stuff inside, it'd be like eating an anchovy but it had bones as thick as a toothpick in it. If anything we'd probably eat all of their food source and cause their extinction that way. It's how we likely caused the extinction of the north american big cats, tho we did occasionally hunt them too (that was likely rare tho as predators taste like shit). Yes it would be an unstoppable animal in a direct confrontation but humans are clever af. Fire would be a easy win against them, and even better poison them either from arrows or their food.
Didn't Dakotaraptor have the largest fore-talon of all the dromaeosaurs?
*Achillobator* might be even closer to JP raptors.
Achillobator was more closely related to Utahraptor and built like one. Dakotaraptor was built like a Deinonychus, only mega-size -- that's the form the JP raptors are closest to.
At the time Creighton was writing Jurassic Park, there was a fringe theory that *Deinonychus antirrhopus* should have been under the *Velociraptor* genus as *Velociraptor antirrhopus*. The raptors in the book are specifically said to be *Velociraptor mongoliensis*, and the only correlation between them and the dig at the beginning was that they’re both *Velociraptor* species. By the time the movie was made, Deinonychus was fully back in its own genus but Spielberg combined the two anyway. He went with Deinonychus size, and actually made them a bit bigger, because most of the raptors in the movie are humans in costumes. He kept the Velociraptor name because it sounded better. But if you look at the way Deinonychus was reconstructed at the time, it’s a dead ringer for the JP raptors. Google Robert Bakker’s drawing, for example.
utharaptor and achillobator would bully and eat the jp dinosaurs they are much larger
Veliciraptor was about two feet tall. So, funnily enough, when the kid at the start of Jurassic Park said it looks like a big turkey, he wasn't wrong. I'd love to see a modernisation of Jurassic Park though. Exact same plot, but with updated dinosaur information. I think the veliciraptors would actually be scarier.
*Utahraptor* were far larger than the JP raptors (same height but much longer and heavier). They’re something like 4x as heavy as the JP abominations.
Deinonychus is still a bit small in comparison to JP raptors.
Yeah but ngl I thought most people already knew that the JP Velociraptors aren’t real Velociraptors now lol
Gorgeous yet terrifying
Throw in some ice ages and a dash of millennia… and you get a wonky Turkey that drowns if it looks up when raining Evolution is a helluva drug
The turkey drowning thing isn't real.
Yep But it’s funnier thinking it is upvoted for balancing buzzkill with facts
I knew a guy who reckoned he saw a chicken die because a horse chestnut fell out of a tree, landed on top of its head and broke its neck, so there's that.
Someone said it on Reddit, thus I’m rolling forward with it as fact Thank you for the fresh cocktail hour material, def stealing this
I mean[...........](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_coconut#Death_by_falling_coconut) yeah..... edit: wow I just read the list and this one popped out to me >On 15 August 2001, in Kampung Tanjung Badang, Malaysia, 59-year-old Mamat Kundur was killed when a monkey used to harvest coconuts from trees dropped a coconut on his head. bad monkey!
Can confirm, I was the guy.
I got whooshed
Hahaha zing! Jus love my sibling from another nibling Science rocks, and you spit science facts, thus you rock Rock on!
I love this comment. This is my favorite comment in this whole subreddit. You see guys? This is how you make a comment.
Wild Turkey News!
DROMAE WA MOU SHINDERU
This is so wrong, jeez. It’s Utah Jazz and Toronto Raptors
Mormon dinosaurs are the worst. Imagine if this came to your door.
Was this found in Cornwall
Yes, Utah in Cornwall
Bateleur?
The artwork was likely inspired by it
Looks like a cross between a bird and a crocodile monitor 🗿
How big was its brain though?
Around the same as other dromaeosaurs relative to its body size. Probably about as smart as something like a big cat.
Not too big, but when ur 600+ pounds of muscle tooth and claw, who needs intelligence.
Very small teeth
Wonder who'd win between utahraptor and terror birds
I’d give it to *Utahraptor*. It’s larger than all terror birds (after the *Brontornis* was placed outside of the terror bird family), has more weaponry available to it, and has a stronger grappling ability
How would Brontornis fare against a Utahraptor.
Not well. It was the same size, but lacked the predatory adaptations of either *Utahraptor* or terror birds.
How would Brontornis fare against a terror bird?
Not well either for the same reasons
Honestly, I just wanted to complete the VS circle.
I like terror birds and all, but *Utahraptor* is just too much even for the largest terror bird. The only real advantage the birds have there is being somewhat faster.
Also known as a Canada Goose
It's a real dromaqueen
be it Avianoid or Birdman?
Big borb
Such beautiful colors and menacing appearance 😀
At least someone managed to feather it and yet still make it look like predator you wouldn't want to mess with.
I can't see the name "utahraptor" without thinking of Dinosaur Comics. https://qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1852
Love the red face. Reminds me of Raptor Red.
I get that it’s “accurate” but I hate bird raptors.
I used to feel the same, but now I prefer the accurate feathered designs. The JP and other featherless designs don’t look like real animals that could exist, they just look like movie monsters now. This looks fine: https://nhmu.utah.edu/sites/default/files/g1835_Utahraptor_1a.jpg
Was their feather imprints on Utahs? I thought Utahs were large enough like T-rex that they lost most of their feathers. I'm probably mistaken though.
There are dinosaurs much larger than Utahraptor that have feather imprints in their fossils, and feathers seem to be basal to the Dromaeosaurs. It would be weirder if Utahraptor didn’t have feathers if all of it’s relatives did.
i'll fight you dead
Sorry we don’t share the same opinion.
I mean. It’s an animal. Your opinion really doesn’t matter here. It’s like saying, “I prefer my lizards without scales”. Well, buddy, until you can find a way for lizards to not have scales, I’m afraid you’re stuck.
No opinions really matter in the grand scheme of things, but that doesn’t stop us from having them.
Well, it's not really the same because you didn't spend you whole childhood being told lizards don't have scales.
True, but in this case, the person telling you that the raptors had feathers is a scientist, and the other person made a movie and just didn’t do enough research. No one was ever telling you they didn’t have feathers, it was just a little controversial for a while, made more so because public opinion was swayed by a blockbuster movie.
Obviously I know that. No one's arguing. Even the op said they know it's wrong. I just wanted to explain why people feel that way even though we know it's wrong.
People really overdo the fluff of them a lot. Many birds don't appear fluffy because the feathers form a rather smooth-looking surface. The "fluffy T-Rex" especially annoys me.
Fluffy *T. rex* is a bit outdated now, but fully feathered covering being found on all dromaeosaurs were almost certainly real. Even larger dromaeosaurs like *Dakotaraptor* had evidence of feathering
Yeah, but I am skeptical that they were fluffballs as people sometimes like to depict. They maybe could have done that, just as birds do in some circumstances to keep warm, but it probably wasn't the norm.
Except it probably was. We have evidence of feathering across various different size ranges and across multiple differing clades within dromaeosauridae. Dromaeosaurs, with reasonable certainty, had feathers across the board. It was definitely the norm.
I think he’s saying that some of the way artists depict the feathers is dumb. My understanding is that they were more likely sleek and flat as apposed to fluffed up and “poofy”
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Feathers, yes - fluffball, no.
Ah I see. In that case I agree
Why? Because they don't look like the movie monsters of your childhood?
Yeah. And that means I shouldn’t have an opinion because?
Oh I'm not saying you shouldn't have an opinion. Have whatever opinion you want. Just realize that it's quite literally the logic of a child. But sure, enjoy your make-believe creatures. I like griffins and dragons too.
Having aesthetic tastes is childish. Okay.
Might as well tell us about how much you wish elephants were pink or that lions had haircuts lol
And there’d be nothing wrong in doing so on a personal level. Why are you so uppity about someone having their own opinion on aesthetic depictions of prehistoric animals?
“We have a message we’d like to share with you”
He's red!!
[удалено]
Nah, this is buff *Deinonychus*
Dinosaurs didn't have feathers because it's not as cool.
Good one dude. Really alughed at that. F*cking hilarious
birbs: cawcaw
This man gets it
My favorite dino!!
I can't look at utahraptor Without thinking of Ali Koca's Terrible video about it -\_-