>Velociraptor is featherless, 2mt tall, runs like a cheetah, and has human like intellect
>Dilophosaurus is big as a turkey, spits venom, and has retractable frills
>Pteranodon has teeth and can grapple on tree branches like a bird
>Brachiosaurus has elephant limbs, can rise on its twos, has nostrils on its crest, chews like a cow
>Spinosaurus is just a bigger t-rex with a long snout
>Stegosaurus is twice the size of what it ought to be
>Mosasaur is thrice the size
>Every carnivore is a psychotic killing machine that attacks anything that moves
And to think that Jack fricking Horner was hired as consultant. Everything is just plain wrong, how could he condone those designs?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Accurate dinosaurs are cool, but innacurate ones can be cool too, as long as no misinformation is spread.
Now stop being a b***h.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/makoshika-visitor-narrowly-escapes-velociraptor-080041630.html
>I shall refrain from talking similar shit in the future, however.
nah, that would be boring. And this stuff should be questioned.
*braps*
ik it's bait but if you're asking anything like this than I genuinely wonder why your tard wrangler is letting you post here because you're clearly severely mentally handicapped.
I wonder what it would be like to miss the underlying thread of Ingen being incompetents who take costly shortcuts in every facet of their operations while handling processes they don't understand. That point is literally spat in the face of one of the characters by the film's Dilophosaurus, which is a deliberately unrealistic depiction to achieve that point.
Or to somehow not understand how the passage of time might affect and evidence based field of study and how the depictions of that field's subjects might change due to evidence gathered between the three decades since the release of an action adventure film.
>which is a deliberately unrealistic depiction to achieve that point.
the idea that it might have been venomous, frilled, or brightly colored were all serious suggestions at the time. Spitting venom, or having all those hypothetical features in a single animal is a bit over the top though.
Fair enough, but it's obvious that those outlandish features were there to service a theme that's tied together by Ingen's hubris and incompetence in the film. OP is acting like Jurassic Park is a condemnation of paleontology by pretending that it was supposed to be a nature documentary and not the film adaptation of a book that used a Dinosaur Theme Park as the backdrop for a discussion about the cloning ethics and the importance of methodical, precise work in potentially dangerous scientific endeavors.
That and not understanding how time works. It's obvious to anyone with a brain that Jurassic Park sacrificed contemporary scientific accuracy in the pursuit of making the film more exciting or thematically poignant, of course it's not going to be accurate to scientific understanding 30 years after its release.
Dilophosaurus spitting venom isn't "unrealistic", it's just speculative.
I like how people are wasting their time debating scientific accuracy in a book about how modern science is inherently inaccurate and arrogant.
I don't think inaccuracy was an intended theme of the book since he did years of real research to try to make it as accurate as possible. Same as all his books. Dude was big on accuracy.
> don't think inaccuracy was an intended theme of the book since he did years of real research to try to make it as accurate as possible.
For Jurassic Park, inaccuracy was a key theme. Ingen cloned dinosaurs they thought would be as easy to manage as wolves in zoos, but instead they got a nocturnal venomous nightmares that guests hated and were a menace to their handlers. JP was "Science and Industrialists get btfo by nature: the book".
fair enough, that's true. However as OP points out Crichton introduced a lot of inaccuracies by accident while attempting to make the animals as accurate as possible.
I see his theme of "inaccuracy" as a stab at public perceptions, with Ingen being the standin for public perceptions, and the actual animals as accurate in ways the public nor Ingen expected.
>Instead they got a nocturnal venomous nightmares that guests hated
I'd think they were cool as frick. In the real world, there's obvious solutions to any of the containment issues that Jurassic Park had.
Well, that's the other side of the book. Hammond was a cheapskate who wanted to do what Walt Disney did with animatronics only even cheaper. He'd be in hog heaven today with all the recent AI technology, and we're going to repeat all of Hammond's mistakes of trying to replace regular people with common sense with AI's who chinese room everyone.
>Willy's Chocolate Experience but with live dangerous animals instead of cheap aliexpress decorations
I suppose it really is only a matter of time
Yeah, the book Hammond was a corner-cutting cheapskate butthole who was messing around with technology he didn't truly understand. His experiments with genetics in order to make money did have problems since the very start, yet at no point did he stop to consider stuff like
>if the miniature elephant we created has unintentional behavioral problems and is constantly sick, doesn't that mean that there is a significant risk that the dinosaurs we want to create could also turn out with traits we didn't want?
>Cheapskate
No, just greedy. Hammond and his investors sunk VAST sums of money into the whole JP project because (unlike in the movie) JP was intended to cater specifically to the ultra-wealthy and charge tens of thousands of dollars per head per day. They had some pretty significant design failures but there wasn't anything "cheap" about JP, it was luxury and careful design all the way but in the end hubris and cash was no match for nature. Basically the tower of Babel except people got eaten instead of becoming dyslexic.
Nope, Hammond was a cheapskate. It was true that the park cost a lot, but he intended to make up that money by cutting everything non-essential - which is what led to Nedry being the sole computer expert at the park while also not paid enough to be loyal.
>which is what led to Nedry being the sole computer expert at the park
The system was hugely expensive and cutting edge and they kept the labor pool small for reasons of secrecy. The technical failure of their systems was underestimating nature (including human nature), and not, fundamentally, pinching pennies. The monitoring system is a good example of this; they never assumed that they could end up with MORE dinosaurs than expected so they capped the monitoring system - which meant that by the time they realized their mistake there were dozens of raptors roaming the park and enjoying the buffet of Costa Rican food.
>while also not paid enough to be loyal.
Nedry played ball with Dodgson because he was resentful, and while money was at the core of that resentment it certainly wasn't all of it.
I just like any excuse to talk about dinosaurs
They wanted to put feathers on the raptors but the CGI of the day simply wasn't good enough.
>Every carnivore is a psychotic killing machine that attacks anything that moves
Jump into the lion exhibit at the zoo.
The raptors are 1.8 meters tall at most, but 1.7 seems more accurate to how they appear on screen
Ok but actually the biggest problem with the film is why didn't they just use moats like modern zoos instead of an insane system of computers and electric fences
dinos could swim
I'm pretty sure there are moats in the novel.
Probably the biggest takeaway is that the book was pretty much accurate to science AT THE TIME.
If you wrote a novel or movie about dinosaurs right now, it would be full of glaring inaccuracies by 30 years from now. Because the science is advancing- and in some cases regressing- quite rapidly.
this is the problem with Dinonerds like OP building their entire personality around "SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY."
That's a moving target. Everything you know about dinosaurs is probably wrong, and even if it's right, somebody is going to publish a paper saying it might be wrong just to frick with you and collect (You)'s and $$$$.
JP itself was a huge frick-you to what people believed at the time. And it won't be the last.
OP is proof of that. Constantly complaining because the state of the science has changed. It's going to keep right on changing, and people like OP are going to keep right on getting bulldozed by the change.
we've finally reached the same understanding of dinosaurs that the brits and germans had in 1862 after spending close to 100 years being dead wrong about them.
No reason to think what we know now is the absolute truth. What's accurate now will be viewed as stupid and silly 30 years from now.
Read
canonically they were mixed with frog DNA and genetically engineered to be a cool attraction rather than accurate but I think the film cut that scene while it's in the book
The first clue is Dr. Grant studying "Velociraptors" in Montana.
there aren't any velociraptors from montana. Only Deinonychus.
Deinonychus was originally named Velociraptor by Ostrom when he first described it. Gregory Paul published it as Velociraptor in 1988 as well. Crichton consulted with both Ostrom and Paul when writing his books, and the Velociraptors were actually the much larger Deinonychus.
Horner is the one that pushed for feathers on the "Velociraptors." Which were added at his suggestion, but not nearly enough feathers to make him or anyone else happy. Mostly for reasons of continuity. Hard to explain the raptors being bald in some of the movies and fully feathered in others.
Crichton's Velociraptors in the books originally had forked tongues like a snake. Horner suggested that detail be removed as they were warm blooded and the forked tongue gave them a cold blooded reptilian look. In this case Horner's suggestions were also followed.
>Hard to explain the raptors being bald in some of the movies and fully feathered in others.
However the books and the movies do emphasize the bird-like movements and behaviors of the raptors even if the feathers weren't known at the time. The whole "giant turkey" scene is talking about how birdlike the raptors were. Even though feathers weren't known from the animal at the time, the close relationship to birds was certainly known.
The film was revolutionary for the time, being the first major film to depict dinosaurs as active, warm blooded, intelligent, and birdlike.
Crichton consulted with the fathers of that view (The Dinosaur Rennaissance), including Paul, Bakker, and the OG himself, Ostrom.
Dinosaurs were considered birdlike in the 1800's, but by the 1900's that idea was forgotten. Ostrom's work on Deinonychus (Velociraptor) changed everything. JP reflects that change in views.
to be fair, it took 20 years for Ostrom's views to finally make it into mainstream culture. He pointed out the obvious relationships between raptors and birds in 1969. It wasn't until Crichton's book in 1990 and movie in 93 that Ostrom's ideas were presented to the public in general.
Bakker of course was spreading Ostrom's views in science well before the movie, but that's because Ostrom was his professor and mentor. Neither Ostrom nor Bakker had the reach or impact on the public that a blockbuster movie by Crichton did. But again, Crichton consulted directly with those guys when he was writing the thing.
No not really. This thing, about dinosaurs being hyperactive and birdlike, was a plot point in the book. But by 1993 people roughly had the same perception of dinosaurs in media. Kids didn't play with toys of the iguanodon statues at crystal palace.
Because both were morons. Kaisen already defined the anatomy of the velocitaptor more than fifty years prior. I don't understand how could they possibly think a deinonychus was just a bigger velociraptor, the skull is completely different.
The biggest scientific complaints I have with the fiction are
>Most of those animals aren't from the Jurassic
>T. rex couldn't run
>frog dna kek
aside from that, it's a work of fiction incorporating a lot of actual science, though some of it is now outdated. Overall a decent flick. The acting on the newest installments was pathetic, and the plots formulaic, but at least it's not Marvel Superheroes for the 9000th time.
If paleotards had their way every dinosaur movie would be two hours of a morbidly obese feathered t rex sleeping.
Yeah, I did like the WWD part where the Allosaurus were just laying around on the ground. Not exciting, but pretty realistic.
sad but true
Tyrannosaurus Rex was bald. Maybe some down on the back, or quills, but nothing more than that.
Recent fossils out of China show that not only was T-Rex feathered, but had diminutive wings.
No they don't, shut up.
No there's no "Maybe some down on the back, or quills" there's literally no reason to believe that was the case, it's pure fanficiton
It's called plausible speculation; dumb-dumb.
> there's literally no reason to believe that was the case
Now that's outright untrue. Tyrannosaurus rex had feathered ancestors, so it's entirely possible, maybe even likely, that it had some feathers, just reduced.
>It's called plausible speculation;
he's right, it's not plausible
>Tyrannosaurus rex had feathered ancestors,
this will likely be proven wrong in the next 20 years. Just as soon as Holtz and a couple others die.
It's just a matter of how much weight the bones could support.
>this will likely be proven wrong in the next 20 years
Never happening. Feathers and scales are made of distinct forms of keratin, but crocodilians have feather keratin during their embryological development, it being suppressed as they grow, so feathers are probably ancestral to all archosaurs in general.
>so feathers are probably ancestral to all archosaurs in general.
I like that you believe that. I'd ask what you make of the several papers disagreeing with that view, but my guess is you haven't read them.
>the sacred texts say this!!!!!
what do you base your beliefs on if not the work of other scientists? And when scientists disagree, how do you weigh which ones to believe and which ones to ignore?
In real life we know that even if your view is correct, feathers were lost at the very base of the crocodile tree, and could just as easily have been lost in dinosaurs before they even evolved. Making them basal to neither dinosaurs or crocodiles or birds.
>other scientists
>other
"other" as in
different individuals than the scientists you are dismissing without any real criteria for doing so.
anon's chosen scientists are no more trustworthy or correct than the others he is shitting on.
I see
>In real life we know that even if your view is correct, feathers were lost at the very base of the crocodile tree
That would just mean crocodilians are derived rather than basal, at least in that aspect.
>and could just as easily have been lost in dinosaurs before they even evolved
But they weren't. Saurischian and ornithiscian dinosaurs both had feathers, indicating that feathers are basal to dinosaurs, pterosaur pnictofibers are evidently homologous with feathers, which means that the common ancestor of dinosaurs and pterosaurs had feathers, and crocodilians have the genes to synthesize feather keratin, albeit suppressed, as they evidently were in sauropods as well, which would indicate that feathers, or featherlike structures, were present in the common ancestor of all living archosaurs.
>indicating that feathers are basal to dinosaurs
or that Ornithodira is correct, or that feathers evolved convergently twice in dinosaurs, once in pterosaurs, and never in crocodiles.
there are multiple options, and we don't know which is correct. Several scientists have argued that the lack of feathers in crocodiles and most dinosaurs indicates they weren't basal.
> or that feathers evolved convergently twice in dinosaurs, once in pterosaurs
Which would be impossible unless there were pre-existing structures present in archosaurs that easily evolved into what's labelled "feathers", and it's not merely scales. We see nothing like feathers in lepidosaurian reptiles.
>and never in crocodiles.
Yet crocodilians HAVE the genes to synthesize the keratin that makes up feathers, they PRODUCE this keratin in the embryological stage then lose it, indicating it's a basal trait that's been suppressed.
>Which would be impossible unless there were pre-existing structures
like feather keratin in the scales?
>indicating it's a basal trait that's been suppressed.
only iff the SOLE PURPOSE of feather keratin is to produce feathers.
which is obviously untrue since feather keratin HAD to evolve before feathers could. Meaning it had some use other than producing feathers.
The nails claws and scales in reptiles and birds are made of keratin. The moron that was responding to you is ignoring this or ignornat of it
pangolins and elephants must be horrifying to that moron lol.
They're not the same keratin.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6055177_Beta-keratin_localization_in_developing_alligator_scales_and_feathers_in_relation_to_the_development_and_evolution_of_feathers
Yeah they are. Feathers are made of beta keratin, scales are made of beta keratin what this study attempts to show is how r different structures form.
>Yeah they are.
The authors specifically used two different immune antibodies, one that targets feather keratin and one that targets scale keratin.
meaning they are genetically and molecularly distinct.
>The nails claws and scales in reptiles and birds are made of keratin.
Yep, but feather keratin can be identified by the fact that it originates in avian DNA strands. It differs materially from most beta keratin, but the easiest way to ID it is from the bird genes that code for its production.
This is why the anon you're calling ignorant is actually correct, and also why when you spend days arguing that bird foot scales are reptilian, any geneticist immediately sees why you're wrong. Feather keratin is very simply made by genes that produce feathers in birds.
>Feather keratin is very simply made by genes that produce feathers in birds.
what this means is that at least one of the genes that produces feather keratin in birds is basal to Archosauria and probably Avemetatarsalia.
this is not the same as saying feathers are basal to either clade though. Merely that it's possible since the ability to produce feather keratin was present in at least crocodiles and dinosaurs from the very beginning. Probably pterosaurs as well.
Basically feathers could've evolved any number of times, but the odds of THE EXACT SAME GENE LOCUS producing feather keratin evolving convergently in two related lineages is essentially zero.
The reason crocodiles have the same genes to produce feather keratin as birds do is almost certainly because those genes were present in the MRCA of the two groups.
>The reason crocodiles have the same genes to produce feather keratin as birds do is almost certainly because those genes were present in the MRCA of the two groups.
also of course this locus is different from the genes that code for scales in reptiles, or from those that produce beaks or claws in birds.
if they all originated in the same genes, that alligator study never would've got published. The reason it's new and interesting science is because most crocodile scales DON'T originate in genes that birds carry. It's weird that some portion of their embryonic scales arise from DNA that birds share, and use to form feathers, and then that DNA production is suppressed in favor of a more reptilian keratin production.
also just using caps for emphasis as you are.
I'm not angery at you and I don't have a strong opinion on this topic. Just pointing out criticisms of your adopted position. It is possible that you're right. It is possible that you're wrong. No way to know yet. Perhaps in 20 years we'll know, but not at this time.
no, just means that the structure that can produce either scales or feathers is basal, not feathers or scales are basal, but because of the fact that you cannot turn feathers back into scales, means that scales are basal. its like oil, turn into petrol(scales), then you can turn it plastic(feathers), but you cant turn that plastic back into petrol
nothing in this post is true.
wheres the lie
>no, just means that the structure that can produce either scales or feathers is basal,
scales are basal
>not feathers or scales are basal,
scales are basal
>but because of the fact that you cannot turn feathers back into scales,
bird face and leg scales are feathers that were turned back into scales
>means that scales are basal.
one truth
>its like oil, turn into petrol(scales), then you can turn it plastic(feathers),
plastic isn't made from petrol
>but you cant turn that plastic back into petrol
plastic can be turned back into oil just like feathers can be turned back into scales.
>bird face and leg scales are feathers that were turned back into scales
no, they werent, they had to have another gene to suppress the shh signaling that was turning the scales into feathers
you should get out there and publish that because right now every biologist in the world disagrees with you and it sounds like you're pretty sure of your idea.
personally I think you just don't understand what happened plus you feel like you can't possibly be wrong so you're willing to make shit up rather than admit a mistake or that reality doesn't agree with your bullshit. But hey, maybe you're a secret genius?
we're also ignoring the fact that even if feathers were basal in dinosaurs, the fact that T. rex lacks them is more likely to indicate that its supposed ancestors have been misclassified rather than that they lost feathers for whatever reason.
it is more likely that T. rex ancestors lacked feathers than that they had them and lost them.
>it is more likely that T. rex ancestors lacked feathers than that they had them and lost them
How? Specific clades ditching ancestral synapomorphies is far from uncommon. Turtles are probably diapsids in cladistic terms, but their temporal fenestra are gone.
>How? Specific clades ditching ancestral synapomorphies is far from uncommon.
Birds have had what, 130 million years to ditch feathers and gain scales over the entire body, but none ever did it even when it would seem advantageous to do so. Crocs have had much longer to evolve feathers and lose scales, and again never did it even when it would seem advantageous to do so.
gaining and losing feathers seems to be extremely rare and difficult. No particular reason to think dinosaurs did it dozens of time or hundreds of times while birds didn't even do it once.
I don't think it'd be advantageous for any bird to lose feathers or for any crocodilian to grow feathers.
yes, that's one possible criticism of the parsimony argument. Not one most paleontologists would agree with, but a valid argument.
the other possible criticism is that perhaps birds did lose feathers or crocs did gain them but we just haven't found the fossils to show that.
>I don't think it'd be advantageous for any bird to lose feathers or for any crocodilian to grow feathers.
the main countercriticism is
>if it wasn't advantageous for birds or crocs, WHY is it advantageous for dinosaurs?
size has been proposed as an answer, but Yutyrannus slaughtered that argument. As will the dueling dinos specimen when it finally gets published.
climate has been offered as a slightly better argument, but birds and crocs live in the exact same climates dinosaurs did, so that one fails.
a combination of endothermy, climate, and size could explain the difference, but not as easily as just assuming feathers weren't basal in dinosaurs.
Ultimately this question creates 2 competing hypotheses:
1. Feathers were basal and all dinosaur had them
2. Feathers were convergent and most dinosaurs lacked them
the only way to resolve this is to find more feathered dinosaurs.
some scientists have attempted to resolve it by counting any lineage containing feathers as all members being feathered. But this ignores the obvious problem that perhaps the animals that had feathers in a lineage that lacks them were classified incorrectly. Something all scientists are aware of and very few will say out loud.
it's possible Yutyrannus and Dilong are NOT tyrannosauroids, but if so that means Holtz and others have been wrong this whole time, and nobody wants to say that.
>nobody wants to say that.
More importantly, you can't just publish a paper saying Holtz is wrong. You have to come up with a better solution. And aside from Ornithoscelida, nobody has really done that. And Ornithoscelida has its own very large problems.
>Ornithoscelida has its own very large problems.
primarily that axial and appendicular pneumaticity is just as difficult if not more so than evolving and losing feathers
If we dismiss Ornithoscelida, that makes basal feathers more likely by one example
however it still ignores the hundreds of examples that argue against it.
Probably the best support we could find for basal feathers would be a repeat of the c.f. Dilophosaurus resting track with apparent feathers.
finding that early theropods had feathers would be a strong indication that feathers were basal in Dinosauria. But so far we've found just the one indication, and it's pretty hotly disputed.
Doesn't the pubis bone leaving a single mark in the ground imply it was more "shrinkwrapped" than modern paleoartists want us to believe?
Something like this is what i'm thinking
couple extra observations on this model. If the legs were birdlike I'd expect more of a chicken drumstick shape to the upper thigh. Like rounder and fuller at the top.
also pronated wrists in the model and lack of avian folding. I think various scientists have found the wrists to be more birdlike.
neck flesh is a bit thin at the lower end while apparently having an avian type gullet at the top. A weird choice. But overall I like the slender look of the animal. Seems right to me.
tail is too stiff probably. but who knows.
I dunno, how "unshrinkwrapped" do modern paleoartists want you to believe it was? I don't pay much attention to paleoartists.
looks good to me. Wild animals usually don't have a lot of extra fat an muscle. Birds and crocs would be the best models for dinosaurs I'd guess, and those guys aren't very chubby.
>I dunno, how "unshrinkwrapped" do modern paleoartists
Morbidly obese
seems extremely unlikely in an animal whose closest relatives are birds and next closest crocodiles.
Gotta differentiate between fat, and round though. Birds are very round, but not at all fat.
they're full of air, which makes them thicc. Theropods were built the same way. Sauropods probably too. Not fat, but very round.
It's unknown if Dilophosaurus had air sacs in the hip, pubic region, and tail. Birds do and most derived theropods did. But no indication on Dilophosaurus that I recall.
this would depend on when the avian pump and non-septate flow-through lungs evolved. The presence of pulmonary diverticulae in both sauropods and theropods points to the avian pump being basal in Saurischia, in which case Dilophosaurus would have air sacs in the hips and tail. But afaik this didn't leave a mark on the bones. I'm not a Dilophosaurus expert though, I may be ignorant or forgetting evidence on the animal.
I only trust what the council says
your plausible speculation is all guesswork thinking the missing fossils all contained feathers
Feather gays are desperate to make every dinosaur a "heckin chonkerino fluffy birdo gud boi"
I really put into quesiton all those "T. rex could or could not run" papers, i really doubt people would be able to tell hippos could run really fast if they only had the skeleton
When the book was written, Deinonychus was considered a species of Velociraptor by at least some scientists.
The idea that Deinonychus was a pack hunter and one of the smartest dinosaurs was widespread then and now.
Dilophosaurus was at least suggested to be venomous by scientists as a possible explanation for the apparent weakness of the jaws and teeth.
Threat displays such as frills have also been hypothesized and still are for any or all dinosaurs. We don't know, but it's not unreasonable to add them just to get people thinking about the unknown possibilities.
The idea that not all dinosaurs were always full size is just common sense. Juveniles and subadults are real, it's not some sin to portray animals less than full size.
Likewise what you consider normal adult size of an animal isn't accurate. In most cases we have specimens that are 2-3 times larger than supposed adult size. Indicating they're either different species, or more likely dinosaurs didn't actually have an adult size. They just kept growing like snakes or crocodiles.
The depiction of sauropods was accepted at the time, though some of those features aren't considered likely now.
Spinosaurus was very much just a big T. rex with a sail and a snout. It might still be.
The "Mosasaur" specimens that JP and WWD were based on have been reassigned and shrunk in size estimates, but at the time they were considered accurate enough.
Carnivores in general aren't particularly safe to be around at any time, but when they're hungry you have a real problem.
Feathered raptors is a much more recent discovery than 1990.
Horner probably did 0 consulting on the film, since everything you complain about is in the book. If he added anything, it was minor.
>The "Mosasaur" specimens that JP and WWD were based on have been reassigned and shrunk in size estimates, but at the time they were considered accurate enough.
There is no mosasaur in JP and WWD. The mosasaur in JW was made inaccurate on purpose because they don't care about depicting accurate prehistoric animals, they just want them to looks cool on screen. The liopleurodon in WWD wasn't even accurate at the time and it was just an error, there never was any evidence of a 25 meters pliosaur, the largest ones don't exceed 15 meters. The real liopleurodon was smaller than a killer whale.
It's funny because if they kept the 16 meters from the promotional website, it would not only still look very impressive, but be passable as just a very large specimen
is featherless, 2mt tall, runs like a cheetah, and has human like intellect
that was Crichton
is big as a turkey, spits venom, and has retractable frills
except for the frills, that was also Crichton
has teeth and can grapple on tree branches like a bird
Not pteranodon, but also Crichton
has elephant limbs, can rise on its twos, has nostrils on its crest, chews like a cow
not sure on that one
is just a bigger t-rex with a long snout
pretty much standard paleontology in 1993
is twice the size of what it ought to be
also standard paleontology even now
the largest specimens are about twice what you call normal size
is thrice the size
see above
carnivore is a psychotic killing machine that attacks anything that moves
Definitely Crichton. If anything Horner has come out repeatedly (and wrongly) against that view.
My guess is Horner had almost no creative input on the movie or the book, he was just there to attach a big name in science to some fiction that was perfectly accurate for the time. Including some stuff he clearly didn't agree with.
>except for the frills, that was also Crichton
The dilophosaurus in the novel is much larger and picks up Nedry with it's mouth.
>The dilophosaurus in the novel is much larger and picks up Nedry with it's mouth.
anon said it was the size of a turkey, which tells me they're a very poor judge of size in a movie.
The movie version was easily big enough to run off with Nedry, despite him being a fat dude.
I don't think it could have carried him off, but drag him? Sure, I guess.. Many predators prefer to eat in a location they perceive as sheltered and safe. Either way, the dilophosaurus in the novel is a whole ten feet tall and the one in the movie is probably intended to be a small juvenile. Old enough to be independent but obviously with different prey opportunities.
depends on its posture. JP also introduced the horizontal posture in dinosaurs which was pretty new at the time. A 15 foot tall Dilophosaurus in the old kangaroo posture might be a 6 foot tall animal in a horizontal stance.
I always wondered exactly what he meant with "10 feet tall" since Dilophosaurus had a really long neck, the actual size of the animal would vary wildly depending on where and in what pose you measure those 10 feet
Yes, and I don't think Crichton was aware of this. It's why we started measuring skeletons at the top of the hip rather than overall height. The movie did a good enough job of showing it though. Hard to tell on the Dilophosaurus since the thing is mostly hidden in the brush.
Now that made me think of a dilophosaurus that is 10 feet tall at the hip, that thing would be insane
I'm not sure the largest examples are even that big. I haven't looked at one in a while. They have a cast of the largest fairly complete specimen at the Fruita Dinosaur Adventure museum and it seems like it's maybe 15 feet in a kangaroo mount. Maybe 6 feet or so at the hip.
The wording is specifically "10-foot-tall body", so it could be at the hip or shoulder, but I like to think that it's ten foot at the head held erect for a good view.
>I like to think that it's ten foot at the head held erect for a good view.
in that case the little guy in the movie probably isn't far off, assuming he's not standing full upright.
>Despite what the recording said, Tim saw only one. The dilophosaur crouched
on its hind legs by the river, drinking. It was built on the basic carnivore pattern,
with a heavy tail, strong hind limbs, and a long neck. Its ten-foot-tall body was
spotted yellow and black, like a leopard.
>But it wasn’t close. The dinosaur stood forty feet away, at the edge of the
illumination from the headlamps. Nedry hadn’t taken the tour, so he hadn’t seen
the different types of dinosaurs, but this one was strange-looking. The ten-foot-tall
body was yellow with black spots, and along the head ran a pair of red V-shaped
crests. The dinosaur didn’t move, but again gave its soft hooting cry.
>Nedry fell to the ground and landed on something scaly and cold, it was the
animal’s foot, and then there was new pain on both sides of his head. The pain
grew worse, and as he was lifted to his feet he knew the dinosaur had his head in
its jaws, and the horror of that realization was followed by a final wish, that it
would all be ended soon.
So the animal is definitely big and strong enough to lift an adult human to a standing position with its jaws and carry them off.
>JP also introduced the horizontal posture in dinosaurs which was pretty new at the time.
Dino Riders did that several years prior, though only for Deininychus, not for 'rex.
That aside, the whole thing about horizontal vs. vertical stance is moronic, especially in the context about people mocking 'Kangaroo-like' stances.
Kangaroos move in a horizontal stance, but prefer a vertical stance at rest. This makea sense, because the horizontal stance is unstable at rest.
It'd be the same for dinosaurs. A quick glance at modern reconstructions makes it clear that weight isn't terribly evenly distributed in the horizontal stance. They'd fall over when resting.
That's beyond the vertical stance having advantages when wanting to observe one's surroundings, of course.
It's not a matter of vertical vs. horizontal. It's both, in different situations.
>It's not a matter of vertical vs. horizontal. It's both, in different situations.
prior to the 80's you'd almost never see a bipedal dinosaur depicted in horizontal stance, and after the 90's you almost never see the old upright depiction.
The reason for this is in the 90's there was considerable debate on which stance was more likely for various activities, right?
And some brilliant fricker pointed out that in the upright, kangaroo stance, the muscle that held the animal in that position (M. Caudofemoralis) would be overcontracted by an enormous amount. Since muscle can't contract beyond a certain known limit, that means the muscle that would be used to gain that upright stance wasn't capable of achieving it. It would just hang slack. It was too long to pull that far.
This fairly brilliant observation was the end of the kangaroo stance almost entirely. If you ask a paleontologist about it, most will tell you that upright posture was impossible in dinosaurs. The best they could do was maybe 30 or 40 degrees above horizontal.
Regarding Dino Riders, I wouldn't know. Like most adults in 1993 I had never heard of it. But like most adults in 1993, I had read the JP book and saw the movie.
JP certainly wasn't the first to depict dinosaurs in horizontal posture, it was just the first depiction the vast majority of the US public saw.
I think the other problem that killed the kangaroo stance was trackways. We have close to a million individual theropod trackways, and very few of them show tail marks. This indicates a horizontal mode of travel.
resting traces often have hand prints, again indicating a horizontal mode when resting.
there are few - or perhaps no - known tracks from bipedal dinos walking or resting in an upright stance. This supports the biomechanical objection that dinosaurs weren't even capable of achieving a kangaroo-like posture, whether resting or moving.
There's also the problem of the Acetabular Roof.
in dinosaurs the hip socket is open, with a roof at the top where the ball and cartilage of the femur usually rested against the hip, supporting the weight of the animal.
in dinosaur hips this Acetabular Roof is usually placed at or very near the top of the socket, indicating a horizontal posture being normal for the animals. An upright kangaroo posture might have dislocated the hip socket.
But this is the reason the horizontal stance was suggested in the first place. In the 70's and 80's this observation was widely accepted, and artists began portraying dinosaurs in a more horizontal posture instead of the previous upright stance. This was both a cause and contributor to the view that dinosaurs were more active than previously thought. They were built for running and walking in a horizontal stance, not just lounging about resting on their tails or dragging their tails wherever they went. Combined with trackway evidence the old view pretty quickly got tossed.
>It's not a matter of vertical vs. horizontal. It's both, in different situations.
so those 3 lines of evidence,
>Osteological: rotation of the acetabular roof
>Ichnological: huge numbers of trackways indicating horizontal travel and resting postures
>Biomechanical: m. caudofemoralis was incapable of contracting to form or support an upright stance
most paleontologists DO consider it one or the other. Most will tell you the old upright stance was physically impossible.
The reason kangaroos can rest and travel in that posture are:
>Full hip socket surrounding the head of the femur
>much shorter femur allowing much shorter m. caudofemoralis to contract fully
>more flexible tail
dinosaurs lacked these adaptations to upright resting or moving postures, indicating they probably never did them.
>more flexible tail
this is another big problem for the old kangaroo stance. As dinosaurs evolved, the tail became more and more stiff, to the point that by the Cretaceous most bipedal dinosaurs had tails that either didn't bend much vertically, or didn't bend at all. Elongation and fusing of the sacral series and stiffening of the tail/hip joint is also normal.
again indicating a horizontal resting and moving posture. The tail evolved to be less flexible because dinosaurs habitually carried it in the air and probably never used it as a seat to rest on.
>The tail evolved to be less flexible
this evolved at least three times in dinosaurs, in 3 different ways.
Hadrosaurs had ossified tendons that stiffened the tail and prevented movement and flexing.
Raptors had elongated zygopophyses that fused together to prevent the tail from bending
Tetanurans stiffened the tail with longer chevrons and neural processes supporting more muscle and decreasing flexibility, as well as tighter fitting articulations of the face of the centrum.
all of these convergent trends point to horizontal postures in bipedal dinosaurs, and make vertical postures unlikely, or impossible.
The fact that at least 3 different bipedal dinosaur lineages evolved stiffer tails in at least 3 very different ways is solid indication that dinosaurs normally moved and rested in a horizontal posture with the tail held up off the ground.
Combined with other lines of evidence, the posture is considered pretty much proven. Not only were dinosaurs built for horizontal postures, but they probably couldn't even get into an upright posture without something to rest against. (tree, cliff, other animal, whatever)
In addition to stiffening the tail, all these modifications also made the tail heavier. This aided some in the balancing of the animal in a horizontal posture.
Hadrosaurs in particular also used the hands to rest and walk on at least some of the time. Switching between horizontal quadrupedal and bipedal movement, as indicated by both osteology and trackways.
raptors were likely capable of quadrupedal movement as well, though they apparently didn't prefer it. Larger theropods such as T. rex of course would've been incapable of quadrupedal movement because their arms were too smol.
I don't know why ossified tendons always gave me the creeps
yeah they look like spider webs to me.
>Hadrosaurs in particular also used the hands to rest and walk on at least some of the time. Switching between horizontal quadrupedal and bipedal movement, as indicated by both osteology and trackways.
That's somewhat unsurprising. The switch from bipedal to quadrupedal movement necessiates an in-between stage, and it happened twice before in ornithischia. Thrice in dinosauria as a whole.
>the whole thing about horizontal vs. vertical stance is moronic,
It actually makes pretty good sense, but a person would have to look into it a bit to know why.
I do like that you took the middle of the road stance. Instead of saying it was one way or the other you said it was both.
this view is usually correct in nature
>It's not feathers OR scales, some dinosaurs had scales, some had feathers, some had both
It's usually safest not to take a solid position that excludes other positions.
Just so happens in this case the common view is that it IS one or the other. And there's a lot of good reasons to believe it. Scientists aren't usually moronic, they often have very good reasons for thinking the way they do.
>A quick glance at modern reconstructions makes it clear that weight isn't terribly evenly distributed in the horizontal stance. They'd fall over when resting.
This is a wrong assumption based on mammalian anatomy.
In dinosaurs and birds probably over half of the head, neck, and torso was full of air. They were giant balloons. So what looks like a really heavy chest and gut and huge head is mostly just air.
>That's beyond the vertical stance having advantages when wanting to observe one's surroundings, of course.
this was probably handled by the neck. Birds and other theropods likely held the neck in an S shape most of the time, to keep from falling on their faces and to make it easier to turn when running.
That S shape can be elongated forward, down, or up.
cougars have been known to drag adult deer up trees, and they aren't particularly large cats.
Based moron. The animals were designed to be over the top tourist attractions in the books, because actual dinosaurs were boring/non intimidating etc. They explicitly say this in the books.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/autistic-individuals-are-more-likely-to-be-lgbtq
>Spinosaurus is just a bigger t-rex with a long snout
That was correct in 2001
c'mon OP, did you know those are in the book? Major plot points in the book?
you never read the book, huh? You've had 35 years and never read it?
Or did you not know the movie was based on a book?
go look it up. It was based on an earlier book, called "Jurassic Park."
you'll find those inaccuracies in the book. If they even are inaccuracies.
the real question is why are you pissing your pants over a 30 year old movie
but you've never read the book?
are you a fricking moron? Go read the book and then tell us about it. You will be surprised to find all those inaccuracies and more in the book.
>how could he condone those designs?
they were in the book. they're integral to the plot. Pretty simple.
horner wasn't hired to rewrite the plot
The book doesn't say anything about pteranodons anything about pteranodons having teeth.
Those aren't inaccuracies, those are biological quirks that you would've never been able to figure out from bones alone, at least according to Crichton. Like the dilophosaurus being venomous. Or the t-rex having a prehensile tongue. But going against the literal definition of that animal is not something Crichton did or even advocated. He didn't make a brachiosaurus without claws on its foretoes or a fricking blowhole. He didn't make a dilophosaurus with frills. Those are things that Spielberg came up with.
>The book doesn't say anything about pteranodons anything about pteranodons having teeth.
doesn't it?
All of your complaints are major plot points. Are you pretending you didn't know that? Or are you pretending you've read the book?
Screencap it
read the book. Lazy piece of shit.
There's nothing in the book. The only instance in which a pteranodon with teeth appeared was in Jurassic Park 3. Not only you lie, you're also pathetic. Good day sir.
>There's nothing in the book.
lazy piece of shit.
How is it a plot point in JP3 that the pteranodons had teeth or not?
It doesn't, he's just a no-life troll. They put teeth on the pteranodon because they thought a beak long as a human torso wouldn't be scary enough.
I know. I just wanted to see the mental gymnastics he would preform trying to justify his post.
>I just wanted to see the mental gymnastics he would preform trying to justify his post.
I'll give you a hint. The pterosaurs in the book aren't pteranodon, and the teeth are used to carry something. Or someone.
You're a flaming homosexual, and illiterate to boot.
Don't need teeth to do that. How is it a plot point?
>Don't need teeth to do that. How is it a plot point?
read the book
or write a letter to the author and ask him and see if he wants to argue all day with morons.
I have read the book. Which is why I know it's not a plot point. Please read the book and watch the movies, anon.
moronic samegay
>I have read the book
you lie.
or you failed to understand the book because you're stupid
or you have forgotten the plot of the book
none of which concerns me.
Do you think Ralph getting his head stuck is also a plot point? You don't what a plot point is.
so you mistook the toothed pterosaurs in the book for Pteranodon, and then in embarrassment you're now arguing they weren't important to the plot? As if that somehow makes them toothless?
just trying to follow the mental gymnastics, as you suggested earlier.
not sure how the movie following the books is Horner's fault, particularly in cases where OP simply misunderstood the book.
No, my point was asking how the frick it was a plot point at all. I never said shit about Horner. There still isn't an explanation on how there being teeth or not is a plot point. You gonna answer that? I want exact references in scenes and lines from the book. If it's a plot point it should be easy for you to post it. If it's not, you can either stop posting or or go back on what you said previously.
I do what I want. Deal with it.
Well good morning butthole! Still lurking here? You're a disingenuous scumbag, you know that? We were talking about a toothless species that has no teeth, you bashed your head on a walk saying that It DID show up in the book (which is irrelevant anyway because i made a thread about the movie), and now you pretend that just because the cearadactylus appearedin the book then it must be the same thing. How fricking moronic are you, really? There's a frickton of pterosaurs that have teeth, the pteranodon is NOT one of them. Now go away, get a fricking life.
you need to reevaluate your life dude
>just because the cearadactylus appearedin the book then it must be the same thing.
that and the pterosaur in the movie has teeth.
how did you come up with the idea that it was Pteranodon? Those don't have teeth?
explain why those should be different genera while the very different skulls of T. rex shouldn't be.
I feel like only one of us was alive and interested in public perceptions of dinosaurs in 1993 and it wasn't you.
You can go on wikipedia and check this stuff, you know? You don't have to make stuff up. There are literal articles on the WWD and JP mosasaurs and what they were based on.
No two T. rex skulls are as different as the skulls of Velociraptor and Deinonychus are from eachother
>No two T. rex skulls are as different as the skulls of Velociraptor and Deinonychus are from eachother
how do you measure this?
I'm just fricking with you, I realize you can't measure it. You don't even realize that genera aren't usually erected on skulls alone, especially if the rest of the body is known. Nor do you know that the overall shape of the skull is influenced by how the bones are assembled, and we don't usually find whole skulls or articulated skulls so your idea fails the instant somebody digs up a single skull bone or any bones that aren't from the skull.
Point being not that I disagree about Deinonychus v Velociraptor, but you have no idea why they're actually different genera if all you can point to is "skull shape." Something no scientist would use to differentiate them.
Jesus what an insufferable homosexual
then don't suffer me.
leave. You going away won't bother me any. The board would gain 20 IQ points the instant you walk away.
Well, based on what are they the same genera? genuinely curious
>Well, based on what are they the same genera? genuinely curious
they're not.
neither case. Deinonychus is a different genus than Velociraptor and we have several likely genera assigned to T. rex.
What are those other rex genera?
>What are those other rex genera?
unnamed and undescribed. With the exception of Tarbosaurus and possibly Nanotyrannus.
>write a letter to the author and ask him and see if he wants to argue all day with morons
He's been dead since 2008, moron.
>He's been dead since 2008, moron.
doesn't change the fact that the pterosaurs in the book had teeth and weren't Pteranodon. And that the teeth were specifically included to move the plot forward.
or that getting rid of the teeth would require being less faithful both to the book and to the paleontology. Or that OP has never read the book so he doesn't know this.
It's not. Even the birds that could theoretically kill a human look gay and moronic. Bears are scary. Sharks are scary. Ostriches look like sock puppets made to teach slow kids to look up and down the street before crossing. The creatures in the JP franchise are movie monsters not muh hecking real aminals.
read the book. The pteranodon scene is right out of the book.
You didn't answer my question. How is it a plot point if they have teeth or not?
>You didn't answer my question.
I told you to read the book. I don't get paid to summarize it for you, and I don't care if you've never read it.
I've read it more times than you. How is it a plot point?
>I've read it more times than you.
clearly not. Or you can't read for shit. Neither would surprise me, you seem really dumb.
So, you can't say how it's a plot point. Because you don't know what a plot point is. Interdasting.
>you can't say how it's a plot point.
everyone who has read the book knows.
everyone who has not doesn't
it's very simple. Read the book and save yourself some embarrassment. Or don't and keep looking stupid.
in the book they are cearadactylus
i kneel
Thread hidden, no (You) for (You), and you-know-what in the options field, grow the frick up you fat, lifeless, neckbeard loser.
>Velociraptor is featherless
Really setting the tone for the thread
>Jack fricking Horner
Was defeated by Puss and inferior to Death
I'm not rooting for horner. Quite the contrary he's a petty scumbag and a stereotypical academic baron. He likes to grind his axe against anyone who is against his inane theories that were made up to cause media uproar and thus coverage.
But, he's also one of the most respected paleontologist worldwide, and this outrageous lack of professionalism is something that oughta be met with scorn, not praise. If you are one of the few chosen ones that rose above the sea of underpaid glorified waiters that are researchers today, and are able to make your voice be heard to billions, might as well say things that aren't pulled out of your ass
>>Jack fricking Horner
>Was defeated by Puss and inferior to Death
Best post all thread
you were right…
I love you <3
One thing Redditors can't seem to comprehend is the fact that it's not some win for paleontology to claim that Jurassic Park was wrong about dinosaurs.
Jurassic Park's production relied heavily on paleontologists at the time. Spielberg didn't have to, could've just made up random dino-based monsters, but he was a dino nut and wanted to try making these things at least somewhat accurate.
So he frequently consulted people like Horner and others.
Today we can comfortably say most of JP's dinosaurs are wrong in one way or another. But they're wrong BECAUSE? Because the paleontologists they relied on at the time were wrong. Yes it was just a Hollywood movie, yes they're canonically mutants in the story who don't bear a 1:1 likeness to the real historic animals, but the fact that Spielberg tried to make them accurate, relied on paleontology to do so, and failed, is more of an indictment on paleontology itself than it is on just the film industry.
Another thing to consider is that (at least in the book; I can't remember if it was in the film or not) the dinosaurs were specifically mentioned as not being truly accurate due to all the mixing of DNA fragments, substitution from present-day creatures, and other frickery required to get a complete genetic sequence for them, in addition to enhancements protecting them from disease and such.
If I remember correctly, in one scene Dr Wu outright proposed to Hammond that they modify them further to match public preconceptions of what they were like, since it could be more lucrative and they already weren't "authentic" dinosaurs anyway.
This could be a reasonable explanation, were not for the fact that Steven Spielberg hardly cared about the underlining subplot of dinosaurs being mutant freaks that just look the part. Considering how little dialogue is brought by the book, like the dialogue between malcolm and grant, or the internal monologues of hammond and wu about what dinosaurs really are, and considering how the movie tampered with the collective representation of dinosaurs much like jaws did with sharks, it's safe to assume that no, those dinos are supposed to be the real thing, at least in the eyes of the director.
I really don't want to bicker because it's pointless. But what you all seem to forget is that many features present in those prehistoric animals WERE ALREADY KNOWN. you can't just say "hurr durr at duh time", because we know how a brachiosaur is supposed to look since the 30s, and a pteranodon since the 1870s. We KNEW a velocitaptor was big as a dog, we KNEW a dilophosaur was taller than two stacked men, and YET, these unchallengeable facts were warped in the book. Why? I don't know. You can excuse them for not knowing about the feathers, or the true size of marine reptiles, or e EN the spinosaur since nobody knows how it was supposed to look even today. But the rest no, it's not inexcusable. You are just being contrarian and obtuse to spite me.
>Redditor
Picrel
Evidence based fields are typically wrong and self correct
Only religion can be right immediately and forever by raging like an angry child instead of correcting its mistakes. Thats why devour christians are more likely to be fat. Their gluttony aligns with their childish thinking.
reddit lives in your head rent-free whereas they don't think about you at all
found the butthurt redditor
Anon, the point of Dilophosaurus (at least in the original novel), was that John was an idiot who thought the dinos would be exactly like the bones but the Dilos had some unpreserved features that caused mayhem.
>Brachiosaurus cant rise on its hind limbs
Sounds like the kinda thing you cant really prove or disprove.
>b-but the latest analyses of skeletal structures and pneumatization suggests that-
You weren't there, you don't know, cope.
So how do you explain the fact that it could chew? Or that it had nostrils on the crest like a whale? Those are simply incorrect.
Also i'd love to see you prove how an animal that weighted 70 tons and had longer forelimbs like a hyena could possibly lift its body, while also not crashing its tail in the process.
>So how do you explain the fact that it could chew? Or that it had nostrils on the crest like a whale? Those are simply incorrect.
I didn't mention any of these, just the standing on hind legs part.
I know dinosaurs are cool and Hollywood movies are gay anon, neither of these two are news to anyone. Also consider the fact that dinosaurs are gone forever, you're never getting them back, and everything about their behavior will forever be relegated to the realm of conjecture unless proven otherwise with direct fossil evidence, which is rare.
Also to answer your question, Jack Horner condoned these designs because he was wrong, he's an accredited paleontologist and he was wrong, as are most paleontologists even today. These people are not beyond questioning just because they have a degree in something.
They can theorize away about animals they've never seen all they want, but at the end of the day, they just weren't there, and we'll all just have to cope with the fact that most of these animals are simply unknowable. Paleontology isn't divination. But in the internet age, people want to claim to know everything.
You mean a 30 year old movie took artistic liberties on top of the limited knowledge available at the time? That's crazy
Artistic liberties? Pteranodon means literally "wing with no teeth", that was simply moronation.