Talk:Deinonychus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

Deinonychus is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

	Deinonychus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 26, 2007 Good article nominee Listed July 16, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

Contents 1 older entries 2 Brain-to-body mass figure of 5.5? 3 Image 4 Anatomy of a lifelike Deinonychus 5 Model Image 6 Formatting problems 7 Image revision 8 Scorpionman's Images 9 So what happened to those sketches? 10 Running speed 10.1 Deinonychus (6 votes) 10.2 Righto then, a to-do list 11 Skull image 12 Aerodynamic bones? 13 Illos back to haunt us again 14 Pronunciation again 15 Feathers 16 Grellet-Tinner and Makovicky, 2006 17 Roach and Brinkman, 2007 18 Speaking of hunting... 19 Citation needed 20 GA on hold 21 GA passed 22 Feathers 23 Home stretch before FAC 24 JP look alike. 25 Should There Be a Picture Change 26 Scale 27 Inconsistency re foot claw and short metarsus 28 Taxobox image 29 OMG You guys..why does Deinonychus look like a pigeon??

[edit] older entries

I can't upload it, but there is a decent image of a Deinonychus skull here. It's under the standard NSF license, which is acceptable per Wikipedia:Public domain image resources (though for some reason the {{NSFIL}} tag is not listed on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags). 68.81.231.127 22:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Brain-to-body mass figure of 5.5?

The human brain-to-body mass ratio is about 2.2. See "Mass of a Human brain". This means that Deinonychus was not only smarter than a human being, it was even smarter than a mouse. Check the link. --Wetman 09:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not a straight ratio... the 5.5 looks about right when using Jensen's encephalization quotient. It's actually a ratio of brain mass to expected brain mass, which is calculated by using .67 power of total mass (tiny creatures, like mice, have a larger brain, and that adjusts for it). Here's a better discussion: [1]. Renaming it to encephalization quotient might fix the confusion. 68.81.231.127 15:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am also adding my two cent's worth. Brain size is NOT neccessarily correlated with intelligence or for that matter any other mental ability except in a gross sense. As an example, The Neandertals had very often larger brains than modern humans, but psychologically they were different and they appear to have had less creativity.

[edit] Image

Could someone please find a better image for this page? The drawing looks like a total joke; a cross between a puffin and a parrot. Scorpionman 18:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am removing that ridiculous image until something saner can be found. I know dinoguy is obsessed with the bird thing, but this borders on lunacy. That thing doesn't even have the limbs of ANY breed of dromaeosauridae. Some artist has obviously stopped smoking the crack and started living in it like a Guild Navigator --Kaz 02:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User John.Conway is a respected professional paleoartist. I seriously hope you're joking. That thing doesn't even have the limbs of ANY breed of dromaeosauridae What on earth do you mean by this? And do you have a osurce to back it up? Dromaeosaurs ARE "birds", just (probably) not "Aves", and every paelontologist you might talk to agrees with this. Please do some research, or read a book published since 1996.Dinoguy2 06:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A deinonychus has the basic set of theropod limbs, the same as the familiar velociraptor.. a pair of short arms, a pair of long legs, and a long tail. That picture has no visible limbs and no tail. I agree that it's purposely exaggerating the birdlike features.

I don't care if Conway has been annointed as a saint by the Crack Smokers of Paleontology, that picture is utterly insane. It is instantly identifiable not as a dromaeosaur, but as a puffin. I'm aware of your obsession with tying birds into dinosaurs as absolutely and extremely as possible, for whatever reason, but there's not need to burden the reader with it in a case like that laughable picture. The picture goes...it borders on vandalism to have that idiotic maladaption presented as if it somehow represented deinonychus in any way. --Kaz 04:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments have crossed the line into ad hominem insults. Please desist immediately. This is the type of unacceptable behavior that drives valuable contributors like Dinoguy away from Wikipedia altogether. Dinoguy is a very productive and knowledgeable editor, and losing him would be a great blow to the Dinosaur Project here at Wikipedia.

As for the picture, I agree, and have stated to Dinoguy that I do not believe it should be in the taxobox. However, the picture is a valid representation of a feathered dromaeosaur. I am not sure where you get your information that Utahraptor and Deinonychus were probably not feathered, but it is certainly not in line with modern paleontological thought. There is absolutely no hard evidence about body covering in either genus as they are not preserved in sediment that would preserve soft tissue impressions. There is only speculation, and to be honest, most paleontologists would speculate that they DID have feathers, simply because most of their ancestors did. It is true that very large animals are less likely to have insulation in warm climates, which is why elephants and rhinos don't have hair today, and why many scientists think it unlikely that large tyrannosaurs had feathers. But I think you are a little confused as to the size of these animals, perhaps because of their tails adding significantly to their length. A fullgrown Deinonychus would have been just over waist high on an adult male human. Utahraptor was about the same height as an ostrich, which clearly still have feathers today, as did birds like moas that were taller than both. And if Deinonychus did have feathers, you can bet they would have patterns on them, like the majority of birds today. Would they look like a puffin? Who knows, but you cannot say it is ridiculous that they might. As for the limbs, even a basic knowledge of dromaeosaur anatomy would indicate to you that the hands are tucked up under the arm feathers as they would have been when the animal was at rest, which it clearly is in the picture. It is sitting on its long feet, with only the tips of its toes poking out from underneath its feathers. Dromaeosaurs undoubtedly sat like this on occasion, as trackways indicate, and modern bird behavior bears out. The tail clearly is not drawn short, it just goes off the side of the picture. I fail to see how the picture is anatomically incorrect in any way.

I am reinstating the picture, but placing it in the body of the article, with a caption that explicitly states that the artist is empahasizing the birdlike features of dromaeosaurs. I will also put the skull picture in the taxobox to replace it. Sheep81 11:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You compare the height of utahraptor to an ostrich, but utahraptor weighed perhaps ten times as much, and the "height" of an ostrich includes its skinny neck and legs, whereas you're citing what is essentially the height of the top of utahraptor's hind limbs. Utahraptor is closer to the mass of a hippo, not an ostrich. It also lived in a warmer, more humid climate, without even a genetic history of needing cold adaptation, winters and ice ages only starting when Australia separated from South America and Australia, millions of years later. I still find it unlikely that such a large, warm-weather creature would have (retained) feathers as a significant covering.. And thus, as it's possible Deinonychus is a descendant, or descentant of a close relative, there's a reasonable chance it, also living in a very warm climate and being reasonably large and active, didn't have them either. --Kaz 19:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get these numbers? I would like to see published data to back it up. I happen to have the original description of Utahraptor right here. Let's see what it says. "The great size of the Utahraptor, estimated at as much as 7 m long and less than 500kg in weight" (Kirkland et al, 1993). That's barely half a ton, in comparison to river hippopotami who commonly exceed three tons (2700kg) and occasionally approach four tons (3600kg). Large, warm-weather ruminants such as gaur, banteng, eland, and African buffalo today can reach weights between 800 and 1000kg and are covered in quite dense hair. A comparison with Deinonychus (since Utahraptor is extremely incomplete) would indicate that half of the 7-meter length of Utahraptor would be tail, and that hip height would be (very) approximately 1/3 of the length, with head height close to half the length. This puts Utahraptor at about 2.3 m tall at the hip and about 3.5 m tall at the head, just about exactly the same as a giant moa (and admittedly a fair bit taller than an ostrich). As I'm sure you know, moas were quite densely feathered. None of this says that Utahraptor WAS feathered, just that there is no reason, based on its size, for it not to be.

As far as your other assertion, that Deinonychus was a descendent of Utahraptor, this is patently false, as Utahraptor has several specializations, especially the extremely laterally compressed hand claws, not seen in Deinonychus. This is blatantly spelled out in the original description of Utahraptor. Have you read it? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and quote this to refresh your memory: "Because of its specialized manual claws, it is not thought to have given rise to any of the other described dromaeosaurs." In fact, there is very little resolution even in more recent dromaeosaurid phylogenies, so I have no idea where you are getting your info from. There are two main phylogenetic hypotheses currently. Number one is the Theropod Working Group at the American Museum of Natural History, which could not achieve any resolution above Sinornithosaurus as recently as 2004 (Norell & Mackovicky in The Dinosauria II in case you were wondering, but I'm sure you have read this one too). Number two is the phylogeny of Senter et al. (also 2004) which you seem to be using as you are referring to "microraptors," a concept that was originated in this paper. But contrary to your assertions, this paper actually finds Deinonychus to be basal to the group of Achillobator/Dromaeosaurus/Utahraptor, indicating that the line that led to Deinonychus actually diverged BEFORE the line that led specifically to Utahraptor.

Deinoncyhus was only around 1m high at the hip, perhaps 1.5m at the head on a good day and weighed roughly 80kg or 175 lbs.(Ostrom, 1990, in The Dinosauria I), comparable to a mountain lion (Felis concolor) or jaguar (Panthera onca) and smaller than both lions and tigers, all of which are active predators that live in warm climates throughout at least some, if not all, of their range, and all have fur. Clearly, Deinonychus' size would not preclude it from having a body covering for insulation. Besides that, feathers clearly have other uses besides insulation on birds today, such as display and even prey capture. In addition, pretty much ALL of its ancestors had feathers. I see no reason why Deinonychus would have secondarily lost feathers. Perhaps you can enlighten me, perhaps even using published data.

As someone who is so sure of his conclusions, I can only believe that you have done quite extensive research and therefore you are aware of the references I have provided above. However, if you have misplaced them, I would be happy to provide full citations if necessary. Sheep81 03:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

So do these trackways of dromaeosaurs (assuming they're not microraptors) also show imprints of their feathered behinds and tails? That silly drawing would leave quite a feathery imprint. Since there is ZERO direct evidence of ANY non-microcraptor dromaeosaurs having feathers, I suspect that this includes tracks, not just bones. --Kaz 19:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, the track of a sitting theropod with feather impressions actually comes from the Early Jurassic of Massachusetts, and does not represent a dromaeosaur. It has actually been known since 1865, although the feather prints were only recently identified. Apologies for that misrepresentation. Sheep81 03:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is zero direct evidence of any non-microraptorian dromaeosauridae having SKIN. Are you arguing that all life restorations should be taken off Wikipedia if they do not reflect direct evidence? If no, then what standard are you using? If I uploaded a picture of a scaly sabertooth cat, this would be better than a furry one, wouldn't it? Since no direct evidence exists that non-feline felidae had fur, I mean.Dinoguy2 13:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Feathers are the most likely animal surface to be preserved. It's even harder to preserve fur, and hardest yet to preserve mere skin. There are more dromaeosaur fossils than most other kinds of dinosaurs. MANY of the microraptors have evidence of feathers, though their skeletons are far rarer than big dromaeosaurs. If Deinonychus looked like that crack-induced hallucination of a pic, imagine how huge and prevalent the feathers would be, how easily they'd be preserved, compared to skin. Even if they weren't ending up in slate like the Chinese and German proto-birds, surely SOME evidence would appear. Hundreds of Deinonychus, and not a single hint of a feather?

Note, too, that if we were talking about the era of the first true mammals and last paramammals, then it would indeed be bad science to pretend we knew for certain which ones had fur and which did not, without evidence. Casterocauda had fur imprints, though it's far older than any Deinonychus fossil and fur is harder to preserve and recognize. If it did not, then that almost-mammal absolutely should not have been assumed to have fur, even though its lifestyle would almost have required it...something which Deinonychus' lifestyle did not do for feathers. I don't think any scientists are seriously claiming that repenomamus almost certainly had fur, though they could make that ASSumption for the same reasons one would do of Deinonychus. But they don't have the emotional motivation to drive them to such an extreme. --Kaz 18:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there are not "hundreds" of Deinonychus known, there are around eight (Norell & Mackovicky, 2004). There are actually many more "microraptorian" skeletons known from the Yixian Formation of China, not all of which have been published on. Second of all, the Cloverly Formation, where most Deinonychus are known from, is composed of claystone and sandstone, some of the worst rock types to preserve soft tissue impressions (Maxwell, 1997). You will not find feathers in sandstone, even if they existed, and there are thousands of full-blown birds known from claystone and sandstone all around the world, from the Cretaceous to the Quarternary, where no feathers or even traces of feathers are preserved. I hope you are not suggesting that all these birds also secondarily lost their feathers? Third of all, I think it is actually a pretty common assumption that Repenomamus had fur, and in any case, it is not relevant to the current scenario since we KNOW that Deinonychus'evolved from ancestors with feathers, since we have found those ancestors in the Yixian and similar sediments in China. The burden of proof is on those who claim that feathers were somehow LOST on the line leading to Deinonychus. Sheep81 05:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A deinonychus has the basic set of theropod limbs, the same as the familiar velociraptor.. a pair of short arms, a pair of long legs, and a long tail. First, maniraptorans did not have basic theropod limbs. They are defined partially by the presence of what's called a semi-lunate carpal ("half-moon shaped bone in the wrist" for those who've seen Jurassic Park ;) ) This allowed the hands to fold backwards against the forearms. Order wings from Domino's to see how this works. Evidence also suggests that at least all paravian dinosaurs had what's called a patagium, a flap of skin connecting the wrist to the shoulder, again as in modern bird wings. Greg Paul and others point out that the consistant post of the fingers in these dinosaurs' fossils (the third finger flush with the second, or even crossed over it) indicated that they were joined together by skin in life, and that only the third finger would have been free (again, as in modern bird wings). The point here is that dromaeosaur, and oviraptorosaur, and and troodont arms were built like wings, not like "standard theropod limbs", and there's no reason to suspect they wouldn't have looked like wings in life, since they *were* wings, anatomically. Also, while this is a more minor point, dromaeosaurids had among the shortest legs of theropods. Studies have shown that, unlike tyrannosaurs and ornithomimids, which had very long legs, dromie legs were stocky and built for short bursts of speed.Dinoguy2 15:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This tendency you have for making such absolute statements about what must be, regardless of how trendy they are, mere suppositions is most of the problem I have with your "side" in these debates. Their limbs have not been "shown" in "studies" to be stocky, for short bursts of speed, as if it were some kind of hard research. Such "studies" are simply supposition. Similarly, you say "no reason to suspect they wouldn't look like wings", when what you should be saying is "there's no reason to think they COULD not look like wings". This still isn't sufficient to say they WOULD NOT look like them. You seem to automatically rest upon speculation as absolute fact whenever it makes dino=bird more attractive, and to absolutely rule out any possibility of anything which might even slightly mitigate the parallel. This, even more than the general tendency to make absolute statements, causes me to struggle to take you seriously. In deference to Sheepl, I'm not meaning this as an attack, but an attempt to explain why I grow so aggressive in debating you. --Kaz 19:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Such "studies" are simply supposition. The study of biomechanics is "supposition"? It's not "hard research"? A lot of scientists would take issue with this.

You seem to automatically rest upon speculation as absolute fact whenever it makes dino=bird more attractive No, just when they are the most parsimonious. The simplest explaination is assumed to be most likely until other evidence makes something else most likely. All published scientific papers in the last 20 years find that dromaeosaurs are either a) the closest relatives of Archaeopteryx or b) more advancd than Archaeopteryx. If John Conway's image had been labeled Archaeopteryx instead of Deinonychus, would you have had a problem with it? If not, isn't that telling? Arbitrary taxon labels aside, the skeletal difference between Deinonychus and Archaeopteryx is equal to the difference between a lion and a cheetah. Is it possible Deinonychus looked very unbird-like, while Archaeopteryx is obviously very bird-like? Yes, it's possible, but is it plausible? Is it parsimonious? No. The simplest answer is that both were pretty dang birdlike in appearance. All paleontologists today *assume* this because it best fits the current evidence, just as they assume Smilodon was pretty dang cat-like, or tht Mosasaurs were pretty dang lizard-like (because Smilons basially *were* cats, Mosasaurs basically *were* lizads, and Deinonychus basically *were* birds). I challange you again to bring up this debate on the DML. Here's an easy test--post links there to John Conway's image, and an image of a lizard-like Deinonychus (if, that is, you can find one that's less than fifteen years old, which is a duanting and task in itself). Ask the real live paleontologists on that list which they think is the more accurate representation.

See, I just think wikipedia should eflect the current state of a science. Are there any scientists who think Dromaeosaurs were not birdlike, did not have wing-like arms, etc? That's ot a rhetorical question. Find a ref. If you can't, than the multitude of refs I have provided to support my position must win out. This is the key fact that makes Wikipedia work. It has been criticized for supporting a culture that shuns expertise, treating expert opinion as equal to layman opinions. The fact that things must be sourced is the only protection against this. I'll keep stressing the bird-like nature of these animals in the text because that's what the *scientific* consensus is, and I have refs to prove it. Dissenting opinions will be given weight proportional to the references available. That's what it comes down to.

What was your reason to remove that image? It didn't look right to you (this is all you state on the talk page)? Have you published a paper stating that droameosaurs don't have wings? Have you published a refutation to the printed work that states they do? Have you any published material written by others that states these things? If not, your removal of the image was absolutely unjustified.Dinoguy2 20:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, give me some references which say that dromaeosaurs, outside of microraptors (which may well end up being categorized separately), flew, or did anything like flying. That ludicrous picture shows wings which have WHAT function for the predatory, purely flightless deinonychus? How is it going to use its claws or hands, in predation? "But maybe they had wings" FEELS nice, if one's determined to have a pet dinosaur sitting there on a perch asking for a cracker, but what POSSIBLE evolutionary advantage could there be for that completely flightless, predatory animal which still invested resources and evolution in functional hands and claws, to have feathers covering those claws and its arms held backward like a bird? This isn't some ostrich with tens of millions of years of fully handless wings and no way to practically convert them back into tools for its mouse-hunting.--Kaz 17:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, in order for the first birds to fly, they would have already had to have feathers, right? So clearly feathers evolved prior to flight. And since evolution doesn't progress TOWARDS something, each individual adaptation must correspond to its own individual increase in fitness. Basically, a pre-flying theropod would not evolve feathers with the idea that one day, its descendents would use them to fly. The feathers had to have a positive or neutral effect on the survival of THAT animal, not its descendents, or they never would have proliferated in the first place. The mere fact that feathers continued to exist proves that they MUST have had an evolutionary advantage. There are many uses for wing feathers besides flight. Let's try to think of some. How about display? Look how cranes and ostriches display their wing feathers today. How about brooding? Look at the Oviraptor skeletons found in Mongolia, sitting on their nests, with the arms tucked back over the nest like a bird. We know that living birds use their wings in this way, to cover and incubate the eggs. Oviraptor is roughly the same size as Deinonychus, and feathers were not preserved (since it was sandstone), but why would they be in this posture if they didn't have feathers? How about prey capture? Look at various birds that actually use their wing feathers to help catch their prey in different ways, from pelicans to cormorants to secretary birds. Look at Archaeopteryx itself! Fully functional feathered wings WITH fully functional clawed hands on top! Sheep81 05:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If Conway's pic had been labelled Archaeopteryx, I would have had less objection because, and this is key, that creature COULD FLY. Under no circumstances could deinonychus possibly have done so. Not even if you glued actual wings on its arms. Also, we have PROOF that archaeopteryx, as well as various microraptors, had feathers. We have, to this very day, ZERO evidence that ANY dromaeosaur outside of the microraptors did. If they looked like big, fat puffins...which would be damned awkward for hunting...surely SOME of the literally hundreds of deinonychus fossils would have had SOME hint of a feather. Not to mention having, maybe, had their fossil arms held like pidgeons instead of carnosaurs. ALL of them died with their hands held in an unnatural way? But, by the way, I still would have objected, because while you could FORCE an archaeopteryx skeleton into that posture, it isn't consistent with its apparent lifestyle. That quack Conway didn't even bother trying to make it look like a predatory bird. He was too busy trying to make it look as bird-like as possible, far beyond what would be reasonable given the animal's lifestyle. Or do you have some evidence that deinonychus spent long-snowy winters diving for fish in the fjords?--Kaz 17:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, not hundreds of Deinoncyhus fossils have been found, but around eight (see above). And they are found in sediments that do not preserve feathers under any circumstances, even on full-blown birds. And not all of these skeletons completely preserve the arms. AND, these skeletons are not always articulated, meaning that the bones are not always arranged in any sort of order except where water currents or gravity carried them. So it would be hard to discern their arrangement just from where you found them in the ground. But biomechanics studies show that the arms would be folded back against the body except when used for prey capture, not just dangling like a carnosaur (Ostrom, 1997). In fact, this arrangement is seen in all maniraptorans (oviraptors, therizinosaurs, troodontids, dromaeosaurs, and birds) due to their semilunate carpal bones which specifically allow them to be held in this position when at rest. This is not "speculation," this is biomechanics. Sheep81 05:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

First, Id like to point out that I have nothing close to anything like expertise in this subject, however, the artical *does* say this "Carpenter's biomechanical studies using bones casts also showed that Deinonychus could not fold its arms against its body like a bird ("avian folding"), contrary to what was inferred from the earlier 1985 descriptions by Gauthier [30] and Paul in 1988.[31]" which sounds to me like the arms didnt fold. Feel free to correct me though, all I know is whats on the site, and the site is inconsistant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.39.188 (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It couldn't fold them as tightly as a birds would, or to the same degree, but the presence of a half-moon shaped wrist bone means it could folds its arms in a wing-like manner. Dinoguy2 07:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OF COURSE it's plausible that Deinonychus, a ten foot long, running predator, would look far less like a bird than the flight-adapted archaeopteryx. "But it's simpler if they look alike" is irrelevent. Ockham's razor is a favorite tool of the junk scientist, today. "The simplest answer is the best" is pure nonsense, which would result in almost all of what we know today being trumped, at one time, by the myths of the past. The spontaneous generation of microorganisms was simpler than for them to be spread around the world as spores. Plate tectonics were dismissed on PRECSELY that kind of reasoning, as well. A god making everything is simpler than evolution. When a study was done that said people who ate oat bran had less heart disease, the simplest answer was that eating oat bran caused heart disease. So that's what the junk scientists said. But the REAL answer was that people who eat more oat bran also do many other things differently than normal people, and THOSE were the factors which made the difference. --Kaz 17:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We'll put aside for the moment the fact that Ockham's Razor has been a foundation of modern science since before it was even called Ockham's Razor. Ockham's Razor says that the simplest explanation of the evidence is usually the best one, NOT that the first explanation to come to mind is the best one. Spontaneous generation is NOT simpler than biological reproduction, because there is no known mechanism for fully-formed maggots to just appear from rotten meat, for instance. You would be forced to invent one, and explain why all the evidence that maggots are fly larva is wrong, in order for it to be true. Not simpler. Similarly, plate tectonics may not appear to be the simplest explanation superficially, but it IS far simpler to assume that there moving tectonic plates explain the evidence (fossil distributions, volcanic hot spots, et cetera), than to assume that the surface of the Earth is static. And evolution IS the simplest explanation of all the evidence from fossils and modern life, because otherwise you have to account scientifically for where this supernatural Creator came from (not that there isn't one, just that it is hard to prove scientifically), AND why there is so much evidence that seems to support evolution.

If you are going to say that dromaeosaurids like Deinonychus didn't have feathers, you are going to have to provide a simpler explanation that accounts for the fact that all of their ancestors had them. Why would they lose them and what is the evidence that they did? Until you can lay that out, the simplest explanation will remain that they did. Ockham's Razor doesn't say that the simplest explanation is ALWAYS right, just that when you have no reason to assume otherwise, the simplest explanation (taking into account ALL the evidence) is the best. Sheep81 05:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ockham's Razor is the creedo of junk science...which means mainstream science, far too often today. It's not an actual argument to prove anything, but more of a sign that something's wrong with the rest of the arguer's arsenal. It tends to say "this guy has an agenda, he reached the conclusion first, and then looked for 'science' to fit"--Kaz 17:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore your dismissal of mainstream science as "junk", and ask you the following: Which specimens of Deinonychus preserve articulated hands in an allosaur-like pose? Please provide a reference if you can, as I wasn't aware of any articulated specimens. What geological property of the rocks in which Deinonychus is preserved leads you to believe that feathers would be readily preserved? I thought that kind of prservatio was only possible in deposits formed by stagnant lakes and lagoons, as the microraptorians and archaeopteryx are found in, but apparentl I am misinformed. With the "literally hundreds" of specimens that have been found, what can you tell us about the skin texture of Deinonychus? Where are the scale impressions? Lastly, out of curiosity: How would you restore the flightless, predatory terror birds? Or the Mihirngs? Surely they too would have similarly lost their feathers as an adaptation to hunting, as you speculate for Deinonychus. And yet, many entries on them here at Wikipedia (such as Phorusrhacoid) shows a hilariously crack-induced painting of things that look like big chickens, no the fearsome predators they obviously were.Dinoguy2 18:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, have you asked any real paleontologists about this yet? Even just a quick message to the DML [2], or any individual professionals on it. They won't bite, I talk to members there all the time. Or don't you think taking the state of professional opinion into accout is worthwhile? Their opinions should certaily hold more weight than us amatures.Dinoguy2 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Deinonychus had a stiffened tail that was slgihtly longer than its body, didn't it? This picture doesn't seem to have one, so no matter how bird-like the limbs were, I don't think it gives a particularly good idea of how the animal was built. Josh

Yes, it does. The animal in that picture is sitting down. he tail can be seen on the ground and fading out at the edge of the pic, since it wouldn't fit on the page. If I had permission, I'd use a current skeletal diagram instead. The most recent one was done by Geg Paul after his re-study of the Deinonychus skull. I have it on my HD if someone wants a copy.

Anyway, the pic that's now in the taxobox doesn' even show a body. Deinonychus was more than just a head, so does that make it inaccruae? ;)Dinoguy2 20:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, I didn't want to start a monstrous, mile-long discussion, I just wanted to find a better image. And the image does NOT look like a deinonychus; if that's a deinonychus then I'm an elephant. The "dinosaur" here looks like a cross between a puffin and a chicken! It looks nothing like a reptile; it looks like a bird! No, dinosaurs are not birds, that's evolutionist BS. Deinonychus had long legs; the bird in this picture has short, stubby bird legs! You think an animal like that was going to be able to run and catch prey? You're nuts, like Kaz said! Scorpionman 21:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's sad how the hollywood, action action action image of dinosaurs has obliterated the idea that they were real animals like any other in a lot of peoples minds. As I've said several times-the Deinonychus in the picture is sitting down. Yes, dinosaurs sometimes sat down. I know, it's hard to believe that a man-eating bloothirsty killing machine ever did something so mundane. I'm sure you're legs don't look as long when you're in a sitting position either. No, dinosaurs are not birds, that's evolutionist BS. I hate to break it to you, but even many creationists, in an attempt to explain feathered dinosaurs, have decided that Deinonychus and its family are not dinosaurs after all, but actually birds.Dinoguy2 02:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The only creationists who believe that are old-earth creationists, who are almost equivalent to evolutionists. Scientists like Ken Ham don't believe such nonsense. If deinonychus was a bird, where's the proof? I don't see any evidence supporting this. The skull doesn't even resemble the head of the "dinosaur" in John Conway's drawing. I tell you, that is not a deinonychus. Deinonychus had long legs and long sickle-claws on its feet, which I can't see in Conway's drawing either. How do you explain feathered dinosaurs? Well, how do you even know dinosaurs had feathers in the first place? You don't! That's purely hypothetical! Dinosaurs did sit down, yes. But so do chickens, and that looks like a chicken sitting down! Even when the deinonychus sat down, I'm sure its feet were larger than that! It's sad how the Hollywood, action action action image of dinosaurs has obliterated the idea that they were real animals like any other in a lot of people's minds. That may be true, but keep in mind that the velociraptors in Jurassic Park III were made more "realistic" in following the recent findings. But I think that the images of raptors in the first two films were perfectly realistic. What evidence is there that they and deinonychus had feathers? The image of deinonychus takes away significantly from its ability to hunt and capture prey! If it was carnivorous, it would have had to had the image from the velociraptors of the first two Jurassic Park films. Scorpionman 04:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the deinos likely had feathers, but not THAT thick. How could it have hunted with that coat weighing it down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjay729 (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, there are certainly no predators today with thick fur or feathers! </sarcasm>

Sheep81 06:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

okay, there is WAAY to much text for me to bother reading right now on this subject, so i will simply say that it needs to be replaced by one with scales or less feathers. i believe there is a dromaeosaurus picture that has an appropriate amount of feathers. one would simply need to find one of deinonychus. and i totally agree with you, Sheep81, the feathers would just be a hindrance since it didnt fly. the feathers are simply way too over-the-top for my liking. that thing looks more like an archaeopteryx or microraptor! Brontoraptor02 04:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This debate has died since March and referred not to the image currently in the Taxobox, but this one,currently under "paleoecology".Circeus 06:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The discovery that Velociraptor had not only wing feathers, but wing feathers big enough to require anchor points on the bone, sghould really put this debate to rest once and for all... Yes, they looked like Archaeopteryx or Microraptor. As members of the same family, this is not surprising. Is it surprising that giant species like lions have even more fur, and more elaborate fur patterns like manes, than smaller members of their same fmailies? If so, why? Studies show that significant wing feathers do not impede hunting. Microraptor, Sinornithosaurus, Velociraptor, Rahonavis, and Archaeopteryx would have had big problems if they did. Dinoguy2 06:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They can't possibly have had feathers Dinoguy - why, that would be interfere with the belief systems of those individuals who think evolution is a crock of $#!^ :P 130.194.13.104 (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anatomy of a lifelike Deinonychus

I've outlined the skeletal/muscular anatomy of Conway's image [3] to hopefully make this more clear. I assume all the puffin comments come from the shape of the head, which really is the most obviously correct part of the drawing, especially when it's right next to a photograph of the skull in the taxobox, which clearly matches that shape! Here for reference/comparison is a skeleton of the similar Velociraptor [4] and a discussion of dinosaur musculature [5].

The puffin comments come mainly from Conway's deinonychus being completely covered in feathers. Of course, the head looks a lot like a puffin's in this drawing too. I checked out the links, and although the outline matches the skull, the details that Conway drew on are too bird-like to be a dinosaur. It looks like a beak (which the deinonychus obviously did not have, according to the skull), and there's a dark area around the mouth, which looks either like a parrot or a toucan. When I first looked at this image, I thought it was a puffin (until I saw the subtitles)! If Conway's going to draw a deinonychus, he'd better do a better job at making it looks like a dinosaur, not a bird. Scorpionman 15:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There are some scientists woh think Deinonychus is a bird and not a dinosaur (though what the difference between those terms is varies from person to person). These links are cited on several pages, including Dromaeosauridae. Most scientists who think it was a dinosaur and not a bird mean that in a purely cladistic sense, the same way a Dimetrodon is not a reptile (but sure looked like one). If you have any sources to contradict the many I've listed that state Dromaeosaurs are birdlike or are birds, please list them. Until you do, your comments are irrelevent.Dinoguy2 21:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could list evidence against it, such as the fact that archaeopteryx was thought to be a cross between a bird and a reptile, but turned out to be just a bird. But you wouldn't listen. Scorpionman 00:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say list any evidence. I'm not interested in your original research. List citations that refute the citations I've included in Dromaeosauridae.Dinoguy2 00:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, can we just have an image of the complete skeleton of a deinonychus? Then we'll see just how well it compares to the drawing. I don't mean an image of the skeleton sitting, I'd like to see an image of the deinonychus standing up with its claws and arms outstretched. Scorpionman 03:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Go find one. The debate on this subject is getting tiresome and pointless. Dinoguy is correct in that most modern paleontologists would find the image completely plausible (look at the cover of the second edition of The Dinosauria if you need quick confirmation of this... or write some emails if the cover of a book designed to be a compendium of modern dinosaur knowledge, with chapters written by many of the major dinosaur paleontologists in the world, does not convince you). Scorpionman (and Kaz) are correct in that the image is a little "out there" and may not be recognizable as a Deinonychus by the common reader. So how about instead of arguing in circles when both parties are actually more or less correct, and maybe getting into a completely off-topic argument about evolution, someone just add another, more "traditional", image of Deinonychus to the article for comparison? Holy cow.Sheep81 04:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Then quit arguing about it and find a deinonychus skeleton! Where am I supposed to get one? You're the one who seems to know everything there is to know about deinonychus, so you find one! And by the way, I don't care if the image is considered "plausible" by modern paleontologists, that doesn't mean one bit that deinonychus looked like that! There could be a picture of a puffin that looks like an iguana and that wouldn't make it correct! And this argument is pointless, so just find a skeleton, post it, and we'll compare it! Stop ranting and raving about this stuff; all I asked for was a skeleton! Scorpionman 01:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Weird how every single one of your sentences ends in an exclamation point, yet *I* am the one ranting and raving. Dinoguy provided three different links in the first paragraph of this section, which you have yet to comment on. I am not going to waste my time looking for a publically accessible picture when I am not the one who has a problem here. Anyway, how qualified are you to argue about Deinonychus anatomy if you don't even have access to a picture of its skeleton? Sheep81 06:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is Greg Paul's latest reconstruction of the Deinonychus skeleton [6]. Note that the skull differs slightly from those pictured (Paul has done new research on the known, poorly preserved skulls, and come to this conclusion about its shape). Note also that we do not have permission to use it in the article (and I'm probably stretching it to have it up on my web site at all, as I'm not even sure it's been published yet, so take a good look because I'll be taking it down in a day or two).Dinoguy2 14:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Model Image

The image is good in terms of accuracy (the hands are slightly off, but that's a minor issue), but I seriously doubt it's fair use unless specifically discussing that model or its sculptor.Dinoguy2 16:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, now that I've checked, this probably applies to the image of the model skull as well.Dinoguy2 16:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the model skull, maybe you could find a real one somewhere? Scorpionman 02:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if I could, I wouldn't have permission to use it. I do have a picture I took of the mounted Deinonychus skeleton at the AMNH, but it's in front view. [7] Dinoguy2 03:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting problems

I can see that Dinoguy2 really wants the bird-like Deinonychus image in the article. Ok, but it's causing problems with the presentation of the article. I'm going to shorten it's description, and tweak the formatting so it fits nicely. Malamockq 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that up. I feel very strongly that science-based illusrations should have precendence over those from movies in these articles, though including both is obviously a good comprimise. Dinoguy2 16:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image revision

I hope this image should be Deinonychus. Please, check it. --Snek01 16:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not bad from an artistic standpoint, but it does not resemble Deinonychus close enough and would be excluded based on Wikiproject:Dinosaurs guidelines.Dinoguy2 19:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe could be good to cut out the first specimen only? I can send you the original photo taken at the exhibition if you want. --Snek01 08:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortnuately, no. Again, it's good from an artistic standpoint, but it fails the follwoing Image Use Guidelines (found on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs:

• Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements. (The skull actually resembles Dromaeosaurus more, and the tail is far too short).
• Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion. (It has the common "bunny-hands" mistake cited as an example on thel inked page).

The image would be perfectly appropriate, and a welcome addition to a section on Dinosaurs in Art, or Deinonychus in art if you wanted to create such an entry.Dinoguy2 14:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scorpionman's Images

While I appreciate the effort to add images to these articles, the last few images Scorpionman has added have been removed under the following WP:Dinosaurs guidelines:

Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.

Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.

Specifically, on the latest image [8]--The length of the neck is too long, the shape of the skull in incorrect, the proportions in the arms and legs are incorrect, the hands are oriented in a pronated position impossible in life, the lengs of the fingers are incorrect, the size and shapes of the claws are incorrect, and the tail is too short and too flexible.

Again, despite my criticism, I really appreaciate the effort. Maybe we could set up some sort of image review sub-page at WP:Dinosaurs to discuss images that could be added? I'll re-post this on the talk page there for discussion of this point.Dinoguy2 17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dinoguy, I appreciate your concerns. I admit that I'm not a paleoartist, but I really haven't had much time to study the skeleton. As for "known movements", however, you are wrong because we don't know how they moved. This is a speculative subject. But, if you could show me a skeleton, I would be happy to study it and to make my drawings more anatomically correct. Regards, Scorpionman 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The wonderfully talented fantasy/paleoartist Kyoht Luterman has a pretty good tutorial on how to draw dromaeosaurs, with a good summary of the anatomical details, figures of the skeleton and range of motion, etc. http://personal.kyoht.com/Tutorial/Raptor/index.html Dinoguy2 14:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We may not know exactly how they moved but we can be pretty sure how they didn't move (ie, the animal probably didn't dislocate its wrist on a regular basis just to achieve pronation). Sheep81 00:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to show I've read this string, I've edited the title! - Ballista 04:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dinoguy, the link you provided only shows how to draw raptors. The images I am attempting to create are of deinonychus. Scorpionman 18:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Deinonychus is a type of "raptor"--that site used "raptor" in the vernacular sense to mean dromaeosaurid. You'll find exacmples and diagrams based mainly on Deinonychus, with a few of Velociraptor and Bambiraptor.Dinoguy2 19:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, this [9] Deinonychus skeleton is the best one I can find online. It's from 2002, wheras most I can find on google look like they're based on outdated reconstructions from the '70s.Dinoguy2

Well, I'll try to get an image drawn, but as I am about to send my computer to someone to get it fixed I won't be able to use the scanner for a little bit. Thanks for your help Scorpionman 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind the scanner still works. Tell me what you think of this one: Scorpionman 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Better! The skull in particular is very accurate. Put it up on the WP:Dinos image reviews page for voting.Dinoguy2 23:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just like to make my support for Scorpionman's efforts public here. His pictures are getting better each time and I wish him the best of luck in the endevour. Jefffire 14:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I like that image a lot, especially the head. I had forgotten how long their arms were! Sheep81 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! Before I put it on for voting, however, does anyone think it should be enhanced at all? I think it should be a little darker. Anyone else? Scorpionman 16:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A little work on refining the hands as they are a little rough. Jefffire 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You could probably do a bit more to define the edges, especially around the darker areas, by layring on more contrast. This would also help the overall look of the feet and hads, as it is a bit "sketchy" at the moment.Dinoguy2 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if I had one complaint, it's that it doesn't look "finished" yet. Perhaps you can refine it so that it changes from a sketch (a VERY good sketch, mind you) to a more complete drawing. Sheep81 01:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately my photo editor isn't working right now. If one of you has a program that allows for the enhancement of this image, I give you permission to do so. Scorpionman 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's something that would have to be done on paper, I think, for best results.Dinoguy2 14:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I could do that although I'm worried that I might mess something up. Scorpionman 16:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have another "finished" image; see if it's satisfactory.

I prefer the first, these aren't as detailed, and a little rougher. Also, it might be better to just post a wiki-link to save on take page confusion. Jefffire 20:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So what happened to those sketches?

I notice the puffin/chicken is still featured on this page, vs. some of the more traditional-looking dipictions such as those sketches above. It's been months since that was posited, so what happened?

Addendum, I thought the displays at the Natural History Museum in my native San Diego made quite a convincing argument for the "feathered dinosaur" argument. [10] MalikCarr 23:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The more "traditional" sketches are not scientifically accurate, and violate the rules for image inclusion of WP:Dinosaurs. The bird-like drawing is accurate both in anatomy and in extent of feathers, based on what's known of other dromaeosaurids like Microraptor, Sinornithosaurus, etc. The model you linked too is ok, but I don't like it much aesthetically--it looks unnatural, like a 'traditional' Deinonychus with feathers glued on a bit haphazardly (which is exactly what it is, by the way--I remember a story a few years ago about the 'feathering' of those old deinonych models). There's also no evidence that any dromaeosaurids lacked feathers on the head/face, and both known relevant feather impressions from this family have them, but that's more an artistic decision.

I'd love to see some pics of the life-sized Therizinosaurus they have in that display! :O Dinoguy2 03:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Running speed

The section on the running speed of Deinonychus cites the animal's low foot-tibia ratio when saying that it probably wasn't particularly fast. But what if Deinonychus was an ambush predator? I give the example of modern ambush predators: the big cats. These animals do not have the sort of foot-tibia ratio that would identify them as being particularly fast, but they can achieve the same speeds over short distances that more obviously fleet-footed animals such as ostriches and gazelles can. An extreme example is the cheetah - you wouldn't guess it could run at 60 miles per hour simply by looking at its foot-tibia ratio. The low ratio Deinonychus does not necessarily preclude it from being a fast runner (at least over short distances) - this should be mentioned in the article. 209.244.31.53 20:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, but it would be original research. The portion describing its slow speed is from a published source. Also, any source making this argument would have to account for the differences in locomotion between bipeds and quadrupeds. There are probably different leg ratio/speed correlations involved for big cats, etc. Dinoguy2 07:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deinonychus (6 votes)

Nominated February 24th, 2007;

Support:

1. .Cas Liber 05:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
2. M&NCenarius 22:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Dropzink 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)]
4. Spawn Man 07:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Dinoguy2 03:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
6. ArthurWeasley 17:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments: Pros: loads of potential information, its role in the evolution of thought on warm-blooded dinosaurs is really interesting. Some nice images Cons:Needs alot of work and could be considered too close to Velociraptor I guess. Cas Liber 05:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Jurassic park raptors based on it, vital in evolution & warm blooded debates. An essential dinosaur that needs a proper article... "Oodles" of info too. ;) Spawn Man 07:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Theropod bias! I mean um... one of my personal favorites ;) Dinoguy2 03:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Righto then, a to-do list

OK, I feel a good thing to do would be try and elaborate some more on some of the controversy around the description of the critter...anyone have Hot-blooded dinosaurs? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

While we're speaking of to-do lists, this article is missing... well, a lot. I've just added very short sections for Description, Popular culture, and External links, the See also section was blank, and there are no Diet, Classification, Origins, or Discovery and species sections. Basically, this article is only 1/4th complete (almost no references, and missing half the sections our articles normally have). Firsfron of Ronchester 10:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, um, yeah, those too.......(thanks...) ;) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Adrian J. Desmond's Hot Blooded Dinosaurs? I have a copy of that, which citations do you need confirmed? Mistyschism 13:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm...cool. just going through it now. If you can see any obvious refs from book go right ahead.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 13:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: Bluelinked Cloverly Formation...but stubby as all get-out...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 13:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skull image

I'm not sure what to make of the status of the skull image currently in the taxobox. That particular replica is a commercial product available from here.[11] Using Google, I also found that photo and other photos of the same model listed on a number of stock photo sites. Does any of this impact the validity of the public domain tag, or the inclusion of the photo in the article? Dinoguy2 09:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This will need looking into; thanks for catching this potential problem. The uploader was active as of January, so there is a chance we will have luck leaving a message on his talk page. However, his e-mail isn't enabled, so there may be no other way to contact him. Given the evidence, if more information isn't forthcoming, the image could be deleted. On a (completely unrelated) side-note, I hope things are going well for you in Australia. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really fussed about it. We coud ditch it if there's a doubt and use the photo of the skeleton halfway down the page.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't leave many images. The current JP image in the pop culture section also has to be replaced, because it does not appear to be an unmodified screen shot (it's chopped). I just added it as a place-holder until we find a more usable JP image. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aerodynamic bones?

"Paleontologist John Ostrom's study of Deinonychus in the late 1960s revolutionised the way we think about dinosaurs ... Ostrom noted the aerodyamic bones and and stiffened tendons..." -- I don't think that "aerodyamic" is the word we want here (I could be wrong). "Pneumatized"? (Check the spelling, also.) -- Writtenonsand 07:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Or simply lightly built/bird-like, which is less technical. Dinoguy2 07:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illos back to haunt us again

We currently have two life-restoration illos in the article.

1) Conway's is IMHO really Neornithe-oid, but apparently wiser heads here are convinced that it's adequately accurate. I would, however, like the caption to specify more exactly just where Conway did get that plumage from. (Scorpionman's puffin? - Which is, after all, a "related species" ...)

2) We also have a "Velociraptor" built by InGen and featured in Jurassic Park. After the dogfights here defending the accuracy of Conway from its critics, IMHO we should be really embarrassed to include this, unless we include a caption in huge caps: "FICTIONAL INACCURATE DEPICTION OF A 'VELOCIRAPTOR' BEARING ONLY LIMITED RESEMBLANCE TO A DEINONYCHUS."

-- Writtenonsand 07:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Aww I think your latter description is a bit unkind, I thought it wasn't too bad really (pre feathers 'n'all....) :) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 08:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's wrong with the plumage. It has primary feathers on the wings and tail, exactly like all known feather impressions from dromies, troodontids, etc etc etc. It has slightly more primitive feathers on the body, which are even a different color, with rounded contours/breast area feathers that match Microraptor, Jinfengopteryx, Archeopteryx, etc etc. What exactly is Neornithine about it? It's not like it has an extensive beak or a fan tail in place of a frond tail (Chiappe and his useful descriptors!). Seriously. I'm really kind of tired of people criticizing this drawing without presenting any actual arguments, which makes it very frustrating to respond. I agree about the JP image--yes, the raptors in the book were meant to be Deinonychus, but I could swear I read a quote from Speilberg (maybe in the "Making Of..." book?) that, since the synonymy was dead about as soon as it was published, he went with Velociraptor for the film because it had a cooler name. Either way, the innacuracy of the models in JP are described on

Velociraptor, so maybe a quick mention and a pointer to that article would be enough. Dinoguy2 09:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. :-) I can believe that you're tired of this, and I didn't intend my comments as "criticizing without presenting any actual arguments" - as I wrote, "apparently wiser heads here are convinced that it's adequately accurate" - "wiser" intended respectfully and without sarcasm. To rephrase my point:

"Wow! It looks so modern-birdlike! But apparently it did look that "birdlike"! But apparently some other people are skeptical about whether it really did look that birdlike! And the caption says, "Plumage based on related species." So how do we make clear to the skeptics that their skepticism is unwarranted and that this reconstruction really should be accepted as accurate?"

Not only do extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, but when presenting apparently extraordinary claims, it's probably a good idea to show why aren't really as extraordinary as they seem. I'm not criticizing the reconstruction, I'm asking that critics be disarmed right from the start with a clear justification of this "surprising" image. Thanks! -- Writtenonsand 14:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I got the feathers from the fossils (!), informed by comparison to modern birds, but not one in particular. Again, feathers from the fossils, as dinoguy has pointed out (thanks Matt, I wouldn't have had the patience!). John.Conway 13:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for your reply! So we can change the current caption, which reads, "Plumage based on related species" - I.e., the plumage is simply what we see in Deinonychus specimens? (And somebody is probably going to ask "Which specimens?"). Thanks again. -- Writtenonsand 14:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It was based largely on Cryptovolans as it was known as at the time I drew the picture (2002 I think), with elements from Sinornithosaurus. It has proven to be pretty accurate in light of more recent discoveries, so I haven't had to revise it since then. I am surprised at the reaction it's had here, but I think it's almost entirely from two people -- Kaz and Scorpionman -- who don't seem to know an awful lot about biology, but have very fixed ideas nonetheless. I don't think the image needs a lot of qualification and defending, but if you'd like to change the caption I have no objections. John.Conway 17:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"I am surprised at the reaction it's had here, but I think it's almost entirely from two people -- Kaz and Scorpionman -- who don't seem to know an awful lot about biology." -- Newsweek / MSNBC March 31, 2007: "Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/ -- You may only have heard from Kaz and Scorpionman on this page, but they sure aren't the only ones out there who are leery about "dinobirds". To repeat: Many people will find this idea controversial or hard to accept. We have to make things clear for them. That's all. -- Writtenonsand 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This debate was settled a year ago, by folks who know what they are talking about. I'm not even sure the users who supported a feather-free image are still active, so I don't think it's an issue. If there is new evidence supporting the idea that dromaeosaurs didn't have feathers, that can be presented in the article, with an appropriate picture. Until then, Wikipedia's policy on Original Research applies: "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material." No reputable source was provided above, a full year ago when it was requested, so there's no need to resurrect this debate. I recently added a JP image to this article, but it had been present in this article previously (a couple of months ago), and was only moved out when the pop culture section was moved to a new article. The Velociraptor in JP, were, as far as I know, based on Deinonychus, so it seems to me a valid usage of the image (though the image itself may be a copyvio because it's been altered from the original). Firsfron of Ronchester 19:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey no, it wasn't me who didn't like it! (the above entries are close together)...now we've had Prehistoric Park and The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs both....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 20:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hope I'm not beating a dead Deinonychus here, but just to be clear, I wasn't supporting any feather-free image (in fact I criticized the Jurassic Park feather-free image). I'm simply saying that we need to make clear that we/dinosaurologists have excellent reason to believe that Deinonychus really did have such a modern-birdlike appearance. That's pretty much it. (Man. Mucho heat to try to get a little light. :-) ) The JP Velociraptor/Deinonychus image belongs in this article only in the way that Waterhouse Hawkins' reconstruction belongs in Iguanodon or Zallinger's would belong in Tyrannosaurus -- "Of historical interest only". Have a good one, all. -- Writtenonsand 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. The only thing that threw me off was your opinion that it looked neronithine, which struck me as very specific. I guess I've been conditioned to over react to anything involving images like that ;) As for a discussion in the article, the problem is that I don't know of any sources that discuss that sort of thing in relation to Deinonychus specifically, just dromaeosaurs in general. Any write-up on the new (not really, over 10 years old now) feather issue would be exactly the same on each dromaeosaur article, which is a problem. It should (and is, to an extent) discussed at Dromaeosauridae. I wouldn't mind discussing this on Deinonychus, but lets keep it to this, Dromaeosauridae, and maybe Velociraptor (probably the most well-known dromies) and leave it at that. If anybody wants to go ahead and incorporate this, you could probably pick and modify text from Dromaeosauridae and Velociraptor that should cover it. Dinoguy2 01:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem -- like I said above, I can empathize! "Any write-up on the ... feather issue would be exactly the same on each dromaeosaur article, which is a problem." Hmm, an article on Feathers in the Dromaeosauridae? Too specific? I dunno. Maybe not. And we already have Feathered dinosaurs and Dinosaur-bird connection. -- Writtenonsand 12:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a new article would be too specific. You know what I think was really problem with the image (given that the extent of the feathers is no different to a lot of other images out there these days): it doesn't look scary enough. That doesn't warrant a new article or a significant defence in my opinion, but as I said, I have no objections to someone(else) being more explicit. John.Conway 13:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation again

I'm afraid the pronunciation given for this dinosaur is a little out of whack. What is presented as a phonetic transcription (of an unspecified English dialect) appears to be a phonemic transcription of a general American pronunciation. I checked that dinosaur pronunciation guide website again, to confirm this (their transcription - unfortunately in a non-intuitive non-IPA format - is "die-NON-i-kus"). The main problem here is with the vowel in the second syllable: the above website shows it as "O", which, if you look up their explanation here, represents the vowel in American English "tot" (which they refer to as "short o"). This is realised phonetically in modern General American as [ɑ], and not as [a], as you can see at IPA chart for English, which furthermore reveals that GA has actually merged two phonemes - the /a:/ phoneme of "father" and the /o/ phoneme of "not" - whence an explanation for the misleading transcription given in this article (which results in a completely ridiculous pronunciation if attempted by a British or Australian speaker). About the best solution I can think of here is to recast the pronunciation to a phonetic representation that avoids the American vowel merger while still remaining comprehensible to those speaking the major dialects of English, which would make it [daɪ.ˈnɒn.ɪ.kəs] (this is actually an RP transcription, which is not my native dialect, but has the virtue of being used as a default quasi-phonemic transcription by several dictionaries; note also the shift to correct syllable structure and the change to the unstressed [ɪ] in the third syllable).

On a broader note, is there someone active in the dinosaur wikiproject who knows IPA and can interpret these pronunciations? I'm willing to assist in future if there is a need for this, but can't guarantee timeliness, I'm afraid. Thylacoleo 02:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We certainly should have somebody on board who can understand IPA... it might as well be a different language. I can't make heads or tails of it. Also, remember that there are no standard pronunciations for dinosaur names. remember hearing that Ostrom, who named it, had some odd way of pronouncing the name different from the usual standard listed on the DOL site. Dinoguy2 06:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

IPA is not that difficult in principle, as it involves a strict one sound:one symbol correspondence (although I'll admit the phonetic/phonemic distinction sometimes muddies the waters here); the major stumbling block for most people seems to be the need to learn a number of new symbols (and perhaps a fear that this means it's more complicated than it actually is?). Of course, I could be biased in that respect... And there are indeed "standard" pronunciations of dinosaur names - they are precisely those pronunciations that most native English speakers use when talking about them. (How else could the DOL site come up with its pronunciation guide?) That the original namer of a genus had some strange ideas about how ancient Greek/Latin morphemes should be rendered into modern English is, happily, entirely irrelevant. Thylacoleo 06:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"And there are indeed "standard" pronunciations of dinosaur names - they are precisely those pronunciations that most native English speakers use when talking about them." --- I disagree, I've come across an awful lot of variation in the way people pronounce dinosaur names, and not just relatively obscure ones. Old standards like Diplodocus are pronounced in wildly different ways: DIP-lo-DOH-kus, DIE-PLOH-dih-kus, DIE-PLOD-ih-KUS, etc. Seems to me that with some dinosaurs, there are as many pronunciations as there are people.John.Conway 10:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, as has been pointed out on the DML a few times, the "standard" English pronunciations don't always match the real pronunciation in Greek/Latin. For example, most English speakers say -saurus as SORE-us, rather than the more correct SAUR-oos. Most people say Centrosaurus as sent-ro-SORE-us, rather than the more correct kent-ro-SAUR-oos (which is actually why Kentrosaurus got its name). It's funny, but after anyone goes to a conference or SVP or something, there are always stories about how everyone has different ways of pronouncing the names. Oh, and I apologize, I must have been thinking of a different case, because Ostrom apparently said it the way I do -- die-NON-i-kus. Here's a thread with some IPA, which is good overall since it's about varying pronunciation [12] Dinoguy2 11:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The DOL site is nice because all the pronunciations are collected together, and are actually published (so no Original Research). Unfortunately, as both John and Dinoguy state, there is no "standard" pronunciation, and we don't pronounce things the correct Greek/Latin way anyway. Many people seem to pronounce Deinonychus Die-NON-ee-kus, but how many people pronounce Mononychus similarly? The only reason Kentrosaurus and Centrosaurus are both valid names is because they aren't pronounced the same, when "classical" pronunciation would make them homophones. Also: I'm clueless when it comes to IPA, and we still have hundreds of dinosaur articles which don't have any pronunciation scheme at all, so you've got your work cut out for you. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're (plural) getting confused between linguistic description and prescription (try reading linguistic prescription for a quick run-down on the difference). While the spelling of a word is a suitable case for prescriptivism (as written language is an artificial entity), when it comes to pronunciation, the only workable course of action is description. A "standard" pronunciation is indeed what most native English speakers use or find acceptable, and more than one pronunciation may be considered "standard" - think of the two ways of pronouncing "either". This works for dinosaur names too, as they are regular words like any other. If Diplodocus is indeed pronounced in multiple ways, then it's okay to list those alternative pronunciations, provided that we follow the general Wikipedia principle of having those pronunciations properly sourced, and not giving undue weight to pronunciations used by a small minority. The DOL site seems a reasonable source for dinosaur name pronunciations, although I would temper it where possible with other sources (such as the OED). The Greek/Latin matter is a red herring in all of this - we no more are required to give the "correct" Latin pronunciation than we are to give the French pronunciation or Swahili pronunciation. Thylacoleo 23:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"provided that we follow the general Wikipedia principle of having those pronunciations properly sourced," This is the problem. Other than the DOL, I don't know of any sources for dinosaur pronunciation, aside from a few children's books. One or two papers do provide a preferred pronunciation (e.g. Suuwassea, for which the authors provide "SOO-oo-WAH-see-uh", but no IPA). Most (all?) published pronunciations are in this non-IPA format, so I think following the DOL would be our best bet, but any conversion to IPA would then be original research, wouldn't it? Dinoguy2 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

But DOL is an acceptable source for this, so I don't see the problem (now if there were no DOL site, then things would be difficult). There are other sources, which do give IPA pronunciations, the only problem with them is that they tend to be selective and only have the more well known genera. The OED online, for instance, has both "iguanodon" and "diplodocus" (it gives - in IPA - two different pronunciations for each), but not "deinonychus", a gap which is filled by the Oxford Dictionary of Pronunciation (which, however, doesn't have "mononychus"). Conversion of ad hoc pronunciation guides into IPA can only be considered original research if the guide didn't give a key to explain what their symbols mean. Fortunately the DOL does have such a key, so the task is as trivial as would be converting Russian from Cyrillic into the Latin alphabet using the standard transcription scheme. In contrast I can't reliably convert your "SOO-oo-WAH-see-uh" into IPA (although I could make an educated guess), because you haven't told me what sounds you mean by "WAH", and so on. The real problem is in ensuring the phonetic transcription is broad enough that it adequately covers the various major dialects of English without going into too much phonetic detail. The OED does a reasonable job of this (and it would appear the DOL makes enough distinctions to also work well - for instance, despite being based on an "American" pronunciation, they've avoided the GA /a:/~/o/ merger), while the Oxford Dictionary of Pronunciation errs on the side of phonetic detail. Thylacoleo 05:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem the discussants here are having is one that I've also seen in astronomical articles where names of classical origin are at issue. I'd like to make a couple of points. One is that while the pronunciations used are not correct for Greek and Latin as spoken in the ancient world, they are also not random; they are based on the conventional English pronunciation of Latin as continuously used down to the 19th (and in some places, early 20th) century, with a pedigree dating back to the Norman Conquest. As that pronunciation is no longer commonly taught, people often get confused when confronted with unfamiliar classical words that are not part of their everyday vocabulary. However, there actually are rules that will get you from the spelling to the proper pronunciation(s), as long as all the elements of the name are in fact classical. (Sorry no help on Suuwassea).

A further point is that while there are sometimes variable pronunciations of a given name -- based both on the speaker's dialect and personal preference (in the latter case, comparable to whether one chooses to pronounce "direction" die-rection, de-rection or duh-rection) there are also wrong pronunciations -- wrong in this case meaning not merely uncommon in usage, but being at odds with pronunciation conventions dating back over two hundred years, and rooted in historical facts about the elements of the word in question. For instance, whether to pronounce die-PLOD-uh-kus or duh-PLOD-uh-kus is a matter of preference (quite comparable to the pronunciations of "direction" above), and neither is more correct (both being variant evolutions of the same form), DIP-loh-DOH-kus is certainly wrong, because it puts the stress on the wrong syllable. Diplodocus must be Diplódocus and not Díplodócus, because the stress in a Latin word of that shape has to be on the antepenultimate syllable; and it has to be on that syllable, because in Greek, the first o in dokos is short. Now, there's no police office that enforces these conventions determining stress and pronunciation; but they do exist, and at least at the time Diplodocus was named, they were still known and used; why shouldn't people today be aware of them?

Both Deinonychus and Mononychus should be stressed on the antepenultimate syllable, btw. The first syllable of Deinonychus can be die- or di-, as you choose. Dino Nikus is right out. :) -saurus should be pronounced to rhyme with "Taurus" (which btw does not rhyme with "torus" for all speakers). RandomCritic 23:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feathers

Am I the only one getting a bit tired of seeing every, single therapod depicted with big plumes of feathers now? While I'm willing to accept that some of them had feathers, I think it's a bit much to assume they all looked like brightly-colored birds with teeth and claws. It strikes me as oddly bandwagon-like that as soon as the possibility of any dinosaurs having had feathers arose, ALL the therapods did because of their relation to birds. That's just my take on it, though. Magicflyinlemur 08:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's called "phylogenetic bracketing" - it's 100% reasonable to assume that if birds have feathers, and primitive coelurosaurs like Sinosauropteryx had feathers, then their common ancestor and everything descended from it would also have feathers -- unless they were lost at some point. This may have been the case with very large coelurosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus, but for most other theropods in that group it is rather unlikely, especially in something as modestly-sized as Deinonychus. In other words it's not a "bandwagon", it's just knowing a thing or two about how evolution works. Kotengu 小天狗 08:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a religious man, but just let me say: OH PLEASE GOD NOT AGAIN! John.Conway 08:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Really. I think people should really check out the previous discussions here before making the same arguments ad naseum. Dinoguy2 11:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's a bit hyperbolic to say "every single theropod" is depicted with feathers, since I reckon around half our theropod images on Wikipedia are featherless. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grellet-Tinner and Makovicky, 2006

I have a PDF of this article, discussing an egg found with AMNH 3015. Since odds are I'm not going to get to work much on it, if someone would like to write it up, just ask me for the article. J. Spencer 02:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, I'd love a copy. I have a paper to finish for tomorrow but I'll be free for a while afterwards, so I'll be able to work on the article a bit. Dinoguy2 03:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing! We were having trouble with your email and my email last time, though, so maybe we'll need a middleman. J. Spencer 04:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd give it a try and see what happens--last time I had severe problems with my net connection which have since been fixed. The javasript Gmail stuff didn't seem to like that very much ;) Dinoguy2 07:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You could throw it my way too, if it isn't too troublesome. I'm on Dracontes[AT]gmail[DOT]com.

Thanks in advance, Dracontes 07:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get to it when I get back from work. J. Spencer 13:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just sent it to Dracontes. Dinoguy, when you get a chance, send me an email so I'll have your address. J. Spencer 21:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roach and Brinkman, 2007

Hot off the presses, this paper claims that Deinonychus was not a cooperative hunter, and did not play well in groups. It gets into the phylogenetic bracket, which finds that cooperative hunting is very rare in diapsids (including crocs and birds), and bone markings, which suggest that the Deinonychus remains at the classic tenontosaur hunting localities were actually losers in intraspecific fights over carcasses, which were then cannibalized as fresher meat. Whosoever would like a pdf, you know what to do. :)

Roach, Brian T., and Brinkman, Daniel L. 2007. A reevaluation of cooperative pack hunting and gregariousness in Deinonychus antirrhopus and other nonavian theropod dinosaurs. Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History 48(1):103-138. J. Spencer 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As an aside (I haven't read the paper yet), it seems to me that using a phylogenetic bracket in this case is going to be near useless, as no modern diapsids have anything like the morphology or ecological niche of flightless dromaeosaurs. It think this is a case of bracketing gone mad -- the other evidence may be more compelling though. -- John.Conway 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That was an incomplete summary, too - only the first half is Deinonychus, and the rest discusses various sites where multiple theropods of the same species have been found, trackways, and so on. J. Spencer 19:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of hunting...

Here's a link to a 1999 Natural History Magazine article on Deinonychus and group hunting (couldn't go directly to it; go to the first article). J. Spencer 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

Can we get a citation for the maximum height/length and weight estimates in this article? It seems to me that area is the only thing that desperately still needs a citation. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how reliable these are:

DinoDictionary.com and DinoDatabase.com both claim Height: 5 feet (1.5 meters), Length: 9 feet (2.7 meters), Weight: 175 lbs (79.4 kg)

--RazorICE 07:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not home at present but I think Dinosauria II may have something. Remind me if you don't see anything in several hours....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunno about skull length, but the rest of the numbers were simply found in Ostrom (1969). Sheep81 08:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd check Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, too, since that had dimensions for a few specimens. J. Spencer 14:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have put the article on hold until the following issues have been addressed.

1. "Nearly forty years later, in August of 1964, paleontologists John Ostrom and Grant E. Meyer prepared and studied Brown's small carnivore in detail, and published it in 1969 with the name Deinonychus antirrhopus." I think it should be reworded to "A little more than thirty years later" as (1964-1931 (if I selected the right dates) is only about 33 years. Also "published it", "it" should be replaced with "his findings". Y Done
2. "Deinonychus including bones from the original (and most complete) specimen can be seen on display at the American Museum of Natural History, with another specimen on display at the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology." Add wikilinks for the two museums. AMNH is linked 2 paras previous, but other done.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
3. "The paleoenvironment of both the Clover Formation and the Antlers Formation in which remains of Deinonychus have been found, consisted of forests, deltas and lagoons, not unlike today's Louisiana." Add wikilink for Louisiana. Y Done
4. "Based on the association of a number of Deinonychus skeletons in a single quarry, and and the fact that shed teeth of Deinonychus have been found along side skeletons of" Remove the second "and" and "along side" should be one word. Y Done

---

(all addressed above this line. Gotta run) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

1. "will attack smaller komodos that attempt to butt in". Reword "to butt in" to something more descriptive. Y Done I've replaced with "attempt to feed", as I agree "butt in" was perhaps too informal. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
2. "This was because Gregory S. Paul, in his book Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, concluded that Deinonychus was a species of Velociraptor and rechristened the species Velociraptor antirrhopus, a theory that has since been largely rejected." Add an inline citation. Y Done Added several citations here, as from what I can tell ONLY Paul supported this, and there are about 20 primary references which have rejected it. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
3. "Dino-riders" Riders should be capitalized. Y Done
4. If possible, add an inline citation for "These figures where deemed so accurate at the time, the Smithsonian Institution re-released the figures as part of their own toy line in 1990.".Y Done Let me know if anything else needs tidying. I actually don't like inserting the green check marks, as it seems to indicate it's clearly been done to your satisfaction, and I don't want to imply that, but since half was already done this way, I didn't want to confuse the issue. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Altogether, the article is very well-written. The above suggestions should be very easy to fix. I will leave the article on hold for seven days and will pass it if they are addressed. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 05:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's me, I'd remove the Dino-Riders reference altogether. The show was basically an advertisement for the toys, and it didn't last very long. Seems very trivial to me, especially the part about how accurate the toys were -- this last bit has virtually nothing to do with Deinonychus and if you have actually seen the Deinonychus, it's certainly not very accurate... it was big enough for an action figure to ride on, for one thing. Hands were in the bunny position, feet were basically big brown blobs with a giant, oversized sickle claw coming out of the top, and the head was this weird Pac-man shape. Feh.Sheep81 09:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing: that image of "Velociraptor" from the movie was found unsuitable for use in the Velociraptor article during its FAC, so it shouldn't be used here. Contrary to the fair-use rationale given, it is NOT a screenshot from any Jurassic Park movie, and I was unable to find it on any Jurassic Park poster either. The only place I was able to locate it was in the special features of the Jurassic Park DVD. So I am not sure if it is actually something we can use. Sheep81 10:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If source and copyright information is included then it can be used under fair use just the same. The template would need to be changed though. Mgiganteus1 11:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Dino Riders thing. I had left it in because I really didn't even know what Dino Riders was, and didn't want to cull material I knew nothing about. It seemed borderline to me, but I figured if the Smithsonian thought it was worthwhile... But if it was as crappy as Sheep is saying, it should not be here. As far as the images go, I've switched it out for now. Feel free to revert. The other image has copyright issues, probably easily corrected, but they haven't been so far: the template says it's a screenshot: Sheep confirms it's not; I had forgotten all about this. Thanks for the reminder. Once the issues with that image are solved, I guess it can be used, although my understanding is that poster-style images need a stricter Fair Use rationale or something (though I have no idea why). Firsfron of Ronchester 14:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I had all those Dino-Riders toys as a kid. The Deinonychus was horrible, something apparent even to an 8 year old in the '80s. Some of the other toys were quite good, and I remember hearing that Bakker had a hand in designing the later models (their Struthiomimus even had feathers!). Dinoguy2 02:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, man. I never knew about those. I just had those little '70s plastic dinosaur models, like little army men, but in dinosaur shapes, with their generic names written in small upraised print on their tails. I must have had a hundred of those things. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out Deinonychus. *shudder* Sheep81 02:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh. That's so weird. The whole thing, but especially the "Pac-Man" head and the ugly feet. The Smithsonian approved those? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a place somewhere in the depths of Wikipedia where we can ask about that image, O wise and powerful admin Firsfron? It is a much better picture than the one I made for Velociraptor after all. Sheep81 08:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Fair Use directs editor questions to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, which seems like a reasonable place to query. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. There are a few minor things that should still be fixed. The replaced image of the Velociraptor needs a detailed fair use rationale specifically for this article if it is to be used. Also, "Based on the association of a number of Deinonychus skeletons in a single quarry, and the fact that shed teeth of Deinonychus have been found alongside skeletons of the ornithopod dinosaur Tenontosaurus, indicating that Deinonychus fed on that species, and perhaps hunted it." "indicating" should be changed to "indicate". Also, I don't really mind how progress is checked off (using check marks, striking the information, a separate list, etc.) just as long as it gets done. Good job on addressing the issues raised above so quickly, the article was an interesting and informative read. Make sure to keep improving the article to maintain it's high quality and ensure that all new information is properly sourced. I'm sure this will be heading off to FAC eventually. If you have the time, please consider reviewing just one or two articles at GAC in a current drive to help eliminate the backlog. Each new reviewer helps to cut down on the waiting time for nominations. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia! --Nehrams2020 00:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sentence changed, Fair Use rationale added. I did a Good Article review yesterday. Thanks again for reviewing this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feathers

why is it depicted with feathers in the drawings but not a lot is said about it. in the description nihing is said about it when thats sort of important. And at the bottom it says jurassic park is wrong by not giving them feathers but it doesnt properly say that they had and there should at least be a sub title for feathers

There's a discussion of why it probably had feathers under the heading Implications. There are no direct evidence of feathers since all Deinonychus specimens are very badly preserved, but as far as I know, all scientists today whether they think birds evolved from dinosaurs or not, think Deinonychus had feathers (the "not" group don't think Deinonychus is a dinosaur anymore). Dinoguy2 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh...check that and make it "most" scientists. Science doesn't involve universal statements. Scorpionman 05:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Which scientist in the field believes it doesn't have feathers? There's no basis for the claim that only "most" scientists believe it have feathers, as far as I can tell. The feather-free depictions are badly out of date (by about a decade) and fit in about as well as those old depictions of dinosaurs in tripod poses and sauropods living deep under the water... Firsfron of Ronchester 05:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point I'm pretty confident in saying that all scientists would say it had feathers, especially since Velociraptor was proven to have them. Except maybe creation "scientists", but even there, my bet is that they will start to argue that if evolution isn't real, raptors are birds and not dinosaurs. Dinoguy2 07:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, why would Deinonychus have feathers because Velociraptor did? Velociraptor evolved millions of years later. If Deinonychus had feathers but we weren't sure about Velociraptor, you could speculate Velociraptor had feathers because Deinonychus did, but not the other way around!68.107.57.242 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You're implying that Velociraptor may have evolved feathers independently of all other feathered animals? We're not saying Deinonychus had feathers just because Velociraptor did. We're saying it had feathers because Velociraptor did, and Microraptor did, and Caudipteryx did, and Jinfengopteryx did, and Archaeopteryx did, and sparrows do. All these animals are more closely related to one another than any of them are to anything with scales. Therefore there's no good reason to think any members of this clade (Avifilopluma) lacked feathers. Also, think of it this way: lions evolved millions of years after Smilodon, just as Velociraptor evolved millions of years after Deinonychus. Is it therefore reasonable to think saber-toothed cats did not have fur? Why? Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume Smilodons had fur because the fossil record shows their ancestors did, as well as their descendants. Microraptor, Caudipteryx, and Jinfengopteryx were all much smaller than Deinonychus and lived at around the same time as Deinonychus but nowhere near it, so none of them impress me as a possible ancestor. Sinornithosaurus does though because it preceded Deinonychus, and it does have some feathers. Do you think Sinornithosaurus was also more closely related to sparrows than to anything with scales? What does the relation with birds have to do with feathers anyway? Many theropods had feathers; all but one line of them did not evolve into birds. Deinonychus may have had feathers because its (possible) ancestor did, or because one was found with feathers (hasn't happened yet), but not because it is merely related to a number of dinosaurs that are feathered or otherwise bird-like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.57.242 (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? What are the ancestors of Smilodon? What are its descendants? How about this: how many members of the family Felidae lack fur? How many prehistoric forms would you say might have lacked fur? There is no evidence that any dromaeosaurs lacked feathers. There is no evidence any deinonychusaurs lacked feathers. There is no evidence any maniraptorans lacked feathers. Every skin impression from all these groups have shown feathers. Deinoncyhus is a member of all these groups. It is deeply nested within clades known to have had feathered members. Do you see why it's unscientific to assume any lacked them? To suggest the ancestors of Deinonychus lacked feathers is to suggest feathers evolved more than once (actually, given the spread shown on Feathered dinosaurs, feathers would have had to evolve at least 7 times!), which, given what we currently know, is beyond ridiculous. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we need a special talk page like they have over at evolution. Due to problems with creationists they created Talk:Evolution/FAQ so that in the future no discussion need take place. We need a feathered dinosaurs FAQ somewhere!!  ;) Steveoc 86 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, people. Most scientists think that Deinonychus had feathers. But not THAT many feathers! Look at the two pictures in the article. That's no dinosaur that's a BIRD. Deinonychus was a raptor, not a pigeon. Grand Moff Brian|Grand Moff Brian 13:07, 18 October 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand Moff Brian (talk • contribs)

I think the point is that the line between "bird" and "dinosaur" is practically non-existent with the discovery of more bird-like dinosaurs and dinosaur-like birds... Stating "that's no dinosaur, that's a bird" misses the point, just as it would if you said the same about Archaeopteryx. These links bridge the gap between the groups. Not that there ever was a true gap (only in our understanding of the relationships). Firsfron of Ronchester 17:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there must be a line between "bird" and "dinosaur" because only one dinosaur species evolved into the first birds. All these feathered dinosaurs lived at different times; they did not all evolve together into birds generally. There must be a distinction, and it may never be known, but it has nothing to do with feathers.68.107.57.242 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. In the old days, when things were classified based on characteristics (like feathers), Deinonychus would have been reclassified as a bird by now. But nowadays "bird" just means "more advanced than Archaeopteryx (which Deinonychus may yet turn out to be, by the way). If you're going to use a simplified and outdated sorting system then yes, Deinonychus is a "bird", not a "dinosaur". In reality, there's not really a difference. Deinonychus may not be a member of the clade Aves, but it can still be said to be both a "bird" and a "dinosaur", as can Archaeopteryx, as can a pigeon. They're all dinosaurs, and if anything with feathers and wings is a bird to you, then they're also all birds. My one big beef with the total switch to cladistics is that it confuses people this way. Just define Aves as "presence of feathers as in Passer domesticus" and preserve some semblance of the original meaning. :P Dinoguy2 01:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

its very confusing to me cos i grew up learning they had lizard skin, then all of a sudden they have feathers, why such a sudden change, for a dramatic change like this surely there must have been very convincing evidence. Which i would like to see please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.35.129 (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It was only discovered that this group of dinosaurs had feathers in the late 1990s (though a lot of people expected that they would at least ten years before that). Check out the articles on Sinornithosaurus and Microraptor, for example, which have photos of the feathered specimens. Feathers were discovered on the larger raptors (Velociraptor, specifically) just last month. Dinoguy2 05:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! I'm starting to feel like Sisyphus here... ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Home stretch before FAC

OK add to to-do list here: cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Bluelink Potomac Formation Y Done - but very stubby! cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Refs 7 and 13 need fixing; Y Done Found them. J. Spencer 22:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[7] Paul, G.S. (1988). Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. New York: Simon and Schuster, 366-369.

[13] Paul, G.S. (1988). Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. New York: Simon and Schuster, 464 pp.

If reference 13 references something on pages 366-369, it can be combined with ref 7. If it doesn't, the page number of what it does cite should be provided. I don't have the book, or I'd fix it myself, naturally. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

............Right - we all set then? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is reference 30 correct?

[30] ^ Parsons, W. (2003-2005) list of conference proceedings abstracts

The link leads to the Buffalo Museum of Science, with some abstracts, but no publisher information, or date last accessed. The title of the page also differs from the citation considerably. I'd fix it myself, but I'm worried that I don't really know what I'm "fixing". Firsfron of Ronchester 23:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the abstract in 31, we could get away with deleting #30. J. Spencer 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK...I guess anything else can be fixed within 7 days....Ready to jump in? (Haven't heard from Arthurweasley yet) :)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's ready. And now would be a good time for me, as I'm officially on vacation starting tomorrow. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, go for it, Cas, and have a nice vacation, Firs. ArthurWeasley 05:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

All nominated now as a massive co-nom, so bombs away.................... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

Cool! Thanks, Cas! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 06:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JP look alike.

Hello out there! I just wondered how many people would agree that the "velociraptor" in JP looks and acts more like a Deinonychus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverstag89 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The shape of its head is certainly closer to Deinonychus, and it's certainly a lot bigger than Velociraptor. But I'd say the similarities end there. It's also quite a bit bigger than Deinonychus. I think they designed it to look like a generic dromaeosaur (or at least, what people thought dromaeosaursl ooked like 15 years ago, which we now know is completely wrong). Dinoguy2 01:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dinoguy2. Any reasons for why Deinonychus wouldn't hold it's hands under it's arms like JP's Velociraptor? --Silverstag89 03:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No archosaurs can move their arms that way, not even crocs, except some highly specialized four-legged dinosaurs like sauropods and to some degree ceratopsians. In mammals like humans, the two bones in the forearm (radius and ulna) can rotate around each other, allowing the palms to point down or backward. If you put your hands on the floor with fingers pointed forward, that's what you're doing--same if you put your hands in the 'bunny pose', as the JP raptors did. Archosaurs can't do that--the reason croc fingers point forward is because their legs are splayed out into that position, and most dinosaurs didn't do that. It's hard to describe in print--to really see this, just look at a chicken wing. Maniraptoran hands were built exactly the same way, just with separate fingers. Play around with it, and see which positions make the tendons rip apart ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting!! I'm wondering if Deinonychus actually had feathers? I would think the bigger the dino is, the less feathers it would have. --Silverstag89 01:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody knows for sure but a lot of its relatives did. You're correct that bigger animals tend to have less body covering, at least in warm-weather mammals, but there are living birds (ostriches) that are larger than Deinonychus which still have plenty of feathers. Sheep81 02:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the giant Moa, which was about the same size as Utahraptor and by all accounts had a very dense feather covering. The authors who described the Velociraptor quill knobs argued against the idea that larger size equated with loss of feathers in general. Dinoguy2 03:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should There Be a Picture Change

This concerns me. Should the picture of Deinonychus be changed to one without feathers since there is no evidence what so ever that this particular species had feathers like a few of the smaller dromeosaurs that did have some form of feathers or dino fur as some call it. Or should a picture of the animal in two different forms one without feathers and the other with feathers.Mcelite (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite

No. All scientists now agree that it had feathers, especially since they were found on Velociraptor. And they didn't have dino fuzz, but true avian feathers (remiges and retrices) exactly as in modern birds. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

However, no specimen with feathers has been found. For example That's like saying we've found a fossilized lion and since all cats are extinct and we keep finding lion fossils with a mane imprint then all species of cat must have had manes since they are of the same family. Am I right.Mcelite (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite

No, it's really more like saying all fossil cats had fur. Nobody's asserting anything definite about specific display structures. A scaley Deinonychus is about as likely as a Smilodon with wrinkly naked elephant skin. Kotengu 小天狗 (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well ok but I still thinks it's a little assumptive. If they find fossilized scales on a deinonychus I'm sorry but it's gonna be funny to me, and it will probably hurt some people's feelings who believe fully that birds evolved from this specific dinosaur family and that there is no other possibility.Mcelite (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite

Why would one member of this family have scales when all skin impressions and evidence from bone that's ever been found from them and their ancestors shows that the others had feathers? Even Velociraptor, which was very closely related to Deinonychus? Even if birds didn't evolve from dromaeosaurs, the fact remains they had feathers. End of story. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

True I respect that and it's true what you said. It's just a fact that in some families there is that one exception that may come up not specifically dromeosauridae family, but in the animal kingdom in general you do come across animals that are unique in their family. :) Mcelite (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite

That's true to some extent, but can you give any examples of one family member being that unique? Body covering is a big deal trait. Any scaly members of the cat family, or the ostrich family? Any furry trout? ;) The fact is, any time there are even minor exceptions (like naked mole rats, which aren't scaly, they just don't have hair anymore) there's always an ecological reason for it. There's no evidence the behavior or ecology of Deinonychus was any different from Velociraptor, that would lead anyone to believe it would have needd to lose its feathers or re-evolve scales (something never seen in any animal family ever. Hair or feathers can be lost, but scales have never taken their place). Is it possible Deinonychus lost its feathers? Yeah, as you point out, there can be exceptions, though for the reasons above I gauruntee it wasn't scaly. Is there any logical reason to think that it actually did? Nope. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I understand that. It would be something else to actually find that in the fossil record. Your right behavior or ecology does make a difference in the animal's anatomy.Mcelite (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite

Perhaps the case of Juravenator would be useful for your discussion. This taxon is usually placed in the compsognathidae, along with the protofeathered Sinosauropteryx, yet Juravenator has no preserved feathers. In fact, it has well - preserved skin on the posterior portion of the body, and this skin has tubercles but no follicles. In Nature, (Vol440 16 March 2006. pp.287-288) Xu suggests that this may imply a complex pattern of feather evolution and/or secondary loss of feathers in dinosaurs. He also suggests that Juravenator may not really belong in the compsognathidae, but he does not strongly support this possibility. Thus, the best evidence suggests that, at least in some non-avian theropods, two members of the same family may have and not have feathers. Though one can strongly infer that Deinonychus had feathers, and there is less (no) evidence supporting a scaly reconstruction, it is still possible. I would not agree with anyone who claimed that they could "guarantee" what the skin of an extinct animal with unknown skin was like. I would feel that this is the sort of methodological overconfidence that leads researchers to make big mistakes and to ignore new evidence. I feel that, to be a good reader of science, one must remain open to the evidence, and I feel that there is little value in declaring an "end of story".Jbrougham (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it's not really comparable to compare a derived family like the dromaeosaurids, heavily nested within forms that show fully modern patterns of feathers, and a "family" of very basal coelurosaurs that only seem to form a monophyletic clade about 50% of the time. I agree that it's possible one or two dromaeosaurs had scales--just as possible as some unknown extinct species of kiwi or ostrich having scales. That is, not likely, and the opposite assumption should hold until some kind of evidence lets us suspect otherwise. In this vein I'd say it's a 50-50 shot whether something like Compsognathus had feathers. Juravenator has given us room to speculate. Nothing comparable has happened in maniraptorans. "End of story" refers more to the use in this article. It would be irresponsible to suggest anything else, especially since no other researchers have chosen to do so with regards to this taxon. My personal experience is that the singling out of things like Deinonychus for these "possible exceptions to the rule" have far more to do with nostalgia for outdated pop culture depictions than any kind of science. Maybe what I should have said was "End of story (for now)." Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While you are 100% right that we'll never know for sure without a time machine or Deinoncyhus skin impressions, you can say that about almost anything in science. Juravenator, if it was even a coelurosaur, was a very basal one. "Protofeathers" had just started to appear and indeed Compsognathus itself bears no feathers. However, Deinoncyhus was not basal but a derived member of an extremely bird-like family, all of whose members for which integument is preserved have feathers, including basal members. In addition, members of groups "leading up" to dromaeosaurids all have feathers as well. In fact, the only coelurosaurs we know did without feathers are European Jurassic compsognathids... the basalmost group in many analyses. I would assume Deinonychus had feathers the same way I would assume a fossil moa had feathers... because living members of its clade do, and because its ancestors did. Feathers are no different than any other anatomical feature really... while Alioramus premaxillary teeth are unknown, I'd bet any amount of money that they were D-shaped in cross-section. While holding out the possibility that anything scientists assume might turn out to be false, some assumptions are better supported than others, and this is one of them.

Also, a picture can't have scales AND feathers. It has to be either one. So we have to choose, and if we are responsible, we make the choice that would have something approaching unanimous support from the experts in the field. Sheep81 (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nitpick time! "Compsognathus itself bears no feathers. " The two specimens of Compsognathus bear no skin at all. While I may have been hasty in guaranteeing Deinonychus didn't have scales, I'll go out on a limb and bet Compsognathus had soft tissue, despite the total lack of direct fossil evidence for it ;)

Also, don't forget the presence of scales on T. rex. We've either got a situation where two distinct lineage reverted to scales during the very early evolution of proto-feathers (possible), we have feathered animals with scaly tails (improbable for parsimony and development reasons), or we've got cladograms that are a bit out of sequence around the extremely poorly known and under-represented basal coelurosaurs (I'd put money on this one myself, especially with the widely-fluctuating positions of Jura and compsognathids as a whole). Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you have Pelecanimimus, another animal right near the origin of the maniraptora (probably) with preserved smooth (tubercle-less) skin on the head. I think we are all pretty much in agreement about the overwhelming likelihood that Deinonychus had feathers and the lack of any need and questionable motive for doing recons of one with scales. I dig that Juravenator's affiliation is not certain. I just try to keep in mind alternate possibilities - including mosaic evolution, mass homeothermy, secondary loss, and even the possibility of imperfect or incomplete homeothermy, as all possible reasons why distinct lineages of dinosaurs could lose feathers when no birds ever did. And my real point is just this; Dinoguy2 has taught me to be judicious when writing on wikipedia, and to cite studies rather than editorialize on my own opinions. It was hard to get used to, but I now that it is crucial to putting good content on these pages. I think there's a lot more value in documenting what evidence has been published for or against something, and giving refs on it, than saying what reasoning we used to make up our minds, or how sure we are we're right.Jbrougham (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. It can hard at times not to express your own opinion on an important subject. I always try to keep in mind that the animal kingdom is extremely diverse,and some follow patterns and others go completely against the laws of nature. For example if you ask a phycist can a dolphin swim based on its anatomy they would say it's impossible, yet we all know that all species dolphins are excellent swins, and very acrobatic. The best thing to do is to just go by the evidence we have for now, for the longest scientist thought T.Rex's arms were weak, but now we know they were actually quite strong. I personally have the issue of saying Giganotosaurus is larger than T.Rex based on fossil evidence when they both have basically the same hip height, with Giga just being slightly longer and some scientist say T. Rex is more heavily built. I guess you could say it's one of God's ways to challenge are minds. :) Mcelite (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite

"Then you have Pelecanimimus, another animal right near the origin of the maniraptora (probably) with preserved smooth (tubercle-less) skin on the head."

Now here, I think, is an excellent candidate for secondary loss of (something). Probably feathers--any known examples of a scaled animal losing its scales in favor of naked skin? Remember that scales != naked skin... they're a distinct form of integument just like hair and feathers are. It's not enough to invoke sya, mass homeothermy in the scales of T. rex. You need a valid evolutionary and developmental reason why an animal would lose one type of integument (feathers) and re-evolve a more primitive one (scales, rather than naked skin). It would be like finding that Dimetradon had fish scales, or a rhinoceros re-evolving reptile scales for protection (assuming the synapsid line ever had reptilian scales, no evidence for that as far as I know). I guess it's possible that early coelurosaurs retained scaly skin under their feathers, but I don't know of any evidence for this and I'm not sure there could be a developmental explanation for such a thing. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The other issue here is that the use of images on Wikipedia basically are OR. Unless they're copied from a paper, illustrations contain original interpretation by the artist. We do have the whole peer review thing for that reason, but maybe we should take this farther and include cites for our images? Would such a thing be possible? I doubt you'd find a cite for a scaly Deinonychus, but most papers don't bother to speculate about life appearance at all... Maybe Tracy Ford's articles? Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, will this shite never end?? - anyhoo, it would be nice to have a citeable resource on dinosaur (or palaeo-critter) appearance. I smell a website. -- John.Conway (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's true that it would be weird if we were to find fish scales. However, ever animal has it's own pattern and sometimes they do go different pathes because it is more suitable for them then their relatives. Also the fact that not everything goes on a pattern like we wish they did somethings in the animal kingdome are complicated and we may never find out the full story. As one person said to me it's foolish to belief everything is in plain english God like diversity and change so it can be hard at times to see what has changed and what hasn't. God forbid if an animal in the permain time line be found with fur. Way before any bird fossil that we've found so far. lol Gathering images is a pain especially when you have people on wikipedia that like to have images deleted for fun or they're very by the book people.Mcelite (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite

Well, of course, a maniraptoran would not be "re-evolving" scales. It is most likely that all maniraptorans retained scales on their feet, since all living birds do. The genes for scales were thus contained intact in every skin cell in every maniraptoran ever, and they would only need to be reactivated in those locations. Anyway, once more, I'm not arguing Deinonychus had scales, nor that it should be illustrated that way. I'm saying it is not impossible. I feel like there is not much value to trying to figure out armchair reasons that something can't evolve, especially based on negative evidence. One could even imagine that, since the velociraptorinae include the largest known dromaeosaurs, Deinonychus could even have descended from an ancestor that used mass homeothermy and lost feathers as adults. Then, if they ever do turn up a fossil of a complete and scaly dromaeosaur skin, I won't have to gasp in amazement. Again, that is the opposite of what i would predict, but Biology does not conform to prediction very well.Jbrougham (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Such a find would cause me to gasp in amazement from development standpoint--I don't pretend to even be close to well versed in developmental biology, but my understanding is that certain swathes of body integument are controlled by the same group of genes in reptiles and birds. The way I had it explained to me: "There's a good reason to assume that Juravenator didn't have feathers. It's the same reason why birds always show feather development in the same spot every time. See:

Alibardi, L. Thompson, M. 2001. Fine structure of the developing epidermis in the embryo of the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis, Crocodilia, Reptilia). J.Anat. 198 : 265-282

Scale formation occurs in two main waves (probably three). The first wave is the formation of scales over the entire axial body (sans head), and proximal limbs. The second wave incorporates the distal limbs, and the head. Thus the second wave responds to a different stimulus than the first (main) wave of scale formation. It is this secondary cascade that was probably effected somewhere along feathered dinosaur evolution; turning off feather formation in favour of scales in this region." I guess then there must have been some mutation to allow scale formation on the hind limbs and blocking it on the front limbs? This appears to be the case in all maniraptorans at least. Developmental biology is something almost completely ignored in discussions of feather evolution. I think Prum and Brush are the only ones who have done anything with it in regards to non-avian dinosaurs. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So you think that maniraptorans evolved from scaled theropod ancestors, then they evolved feathers which covered their entire bodies, then they all lost feathered feet and re-evolved scaled feet due to "some mutation"? Isn't it more parsimonious to assume that they RETAINED scale forming genes on their metatarsals and toes from a scaled common ancestor? Moreover, I believe there are fossils which show scales on the fingers of some maniraptorans as well as their feet. Microraptor gui comes to mind. I could check for you if you like?Jbrougham (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No no--said that wrong. I think, based on the way I had embryonic scale development explained to me, there must have been some mutation to the process that allowed scales to be retained on the hind feet while feathers developed on the hands. By "formation" I meant in the embryo, not evolutionarily. Unless of course retrical feather development is controlled by a different stimulus completely. I'm also not sure when this would have occurred, phylogenetically. Obviously Caudipteryx had feathers on its hands, not sure what it had on its feet. Microraptor had feathers on both hands and feet, obviously--do you have a cite for the scales? The presence of feathers and scales on the same area of the body would probably throw a wrench into this whole argument ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Update for anybody interested: "In the case of the hind limbs, there appears to be an active block to this cascade, which doesn't occur in the rest of the body. This block seems to involve the delta (cell-cell) pathway, and the BMP pathway. By deactivating the former, and stimulating the latter, feathers get suppressed, and scales develop. When this is (experimentally) reversed, scales turn into feathers (e.g. the infamous: Zhou and Niswander experiments). ... The key thing to remember in all of this is that it is feather development that is being suppressed. Without active suppression, the "natural" result is for feathers to occur all over the epidermis. On a side note, it would be neat to see a study done on feather development in snow owls, to see if they achieved their feathery feet by a deletion event, or by suppressing their suppressors."

I suspect the snow owl situation would parallel Microraptor--I can't find any evidence it had scales on its feet, and from a developmental standpoint we should assume the entire foot was feathered. Same with hands of other maniraptorans that have primary feathers. I know at least Sinornithosaurus preserved scales on the feet, so we can assume the genetic block that allowed scales to develop on the feet is at least basal to the deinonychosauria/aves split. Again, the presence of scales and feathers on a dinosaur forelimb would seem to blow this whole "developmental biology" thing apart. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was actually "Dave" (NGMC-91), the Sinornithosaurus, that I was thinking of. The tuberculate scales on the feet are visible in Fig. 4 of the paper "The distribution of integumentary structures in a feathered dinosaur" Nature vol 410 26 April 2001 pp. 1084 - 1088. Pedopenna, named for the feathers on the feet, also has them "Near phalanx III-3, some tuberculate impressions are also preserved". "A new maniraptoran dinosaur from China with long feathers on the metatarsus" Naturwissenschaften (2005) 92:173-177. Epidendrosaurus (scansoriopteryx) also preserves tubercles on its tail. I don't know who you are quoting above about snow owl feet, but I fear that your thinking is too all - or nothing about scale and feather development. You seem to believe that either enormous tracts of the body must be feathered or scaled with no intermixture or variegation. I think that supression or expression can happen in a very complex, cell by cell, pattern. As evidence I am looking at photos of an elf owl, Micrathene whitneyi, in "Owls", Floyd Scholz, 2001. On page 150 I can cllearly see the left metatarsus and toes, and they are clearly covered by tuberculate scales with wispy feathers sticking out in between them. The feathers grow denser and fuller as we proceed proximally until the tibial portion of the leg is entirely feathered. There may be rules of thumb in developmental biology, but most rules have exceptions and I wouldn't use them to preclude the possibility of a different pattern evolving. A teacher of mine once told me that every vertebrate spinal cord forms the same way in early emryonic development - as a hollow tube, with one exception; tuna, where it forms as a solid cylinder. That is the kind of thing one could never pedict from theory. I think it is more valuable to observe nature carefully than to make predictions about what nature should or should not contain.Jbrougham (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

" Pedopenna, named for the feathers on the feet, also has them "Near phalanx III-3, some tuberculate impressions are also preserved"" Well as I said, that does it for the all-or-nothing development argument ;) Incidentally, do you have a specific ref for the claim that Epidendrosaurus had scales on its tail? I can't find this in my copy of the Epi or Scansor paper, though I've read it in several online sources (like Mortimer's comments on the DML). Though I think my Scansor paper might be abridged. I've asked about this in a few places and never gotten a response. This almost seems to be a meme that came out of thin air, unless I missed it someplace. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's no air-meme. It's in Czerkas' 'Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight'. You have that book, don't you? I don't have it here with me to give you a page number, but go to the figure that shows a close - up of the tail, and the illustration. it is also written in the text about the tail, I believe.Jbrougham (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's the problem--I only have pdf versions of a few chapters, which I suspect are abridged or not complete. As long as I know it's definitely in that book, I'm happy. Thanks! Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have it here now. The scales are labelled in Figures 1, 2, and 13, on pages 68, 69, and 76, respectively. You were right, though. There are far fewer instances of preserved scales in maniraptors than I thought.Jbrougham (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scale

I've not been up to date on the seeming size revision displayed here, but the majority of my (admittedly 10+ year old) texts use a scale reference close to the ones displayed here[13] and [14] than the one in this article. Of course we're running the Natural History Museum of London and Encyclopedia Britannica websites that may also not be up to date. I think perhaps the image that has been used as a silhouette is possibly lending a somewhat confusing/misleading scale reference? I stand to be corrected. Cheers.Koncorde (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The second looks reasonably close (sans feathers), but for some reason the Natural History Museum seems to inflate its dinosaurs (check Thescelosaurus, which is monstrously large for some reason); the problem is that dinosaurs are inconvenient for scaling because shoulder height is useless for many, hip height is variable because their legs were permanently flexed outside of the sauropods and stegosaurs, and body length is subject to the curves of the tail and neck and the unknown size of the intervertebral discs. Be that as it may, Gregory S. Paul has estimated the hip height (neutrally flexed leg) of two specimens of Deinonychus as 0.76 meters and 0.87 meters, with respective body lengths of 3.04 m and 3.43 m. The individual in the scale box looks to be within those figures, although it does have an action pose that shortens it at the hips and raises the tail. The feathers are disguising the size somewhat; this could be worked around by comparing a skeleton of Deinonychus to a skeleton of a human, I suppose. It would certainly look bigger if it was just standing there, instead of going for the legs of the blissfully oblivious human. J. Spencer (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The first one is certainly incorrect--it looks like they scaled that outline to about 3 meters without taking into account the upright pose, not to mention the fact that the proportions are way off (tail is far too short compared to the body, etc.). I'm not exactly happy with the scale we have now, I'd prefer one in a more neutral pose. I used that because it was based on my own drawing. As this is an FA I'd prefer to re-do it with a completely free base image in lateral view, but I don't think we have any. Maybe I'll scale down Steve's or Arthur's Utahraptor for now and get a better version up. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one of those two gentlemen or one of our other awesome artists can make something we can use? Sheep81 (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Good good good. An image similar to these[15], [16] would be a better size comparison. The Utahraptor image mentioned is also a potential candidate if resized as it would lend a more static pose for actual size comparison. As for the Natural History Museum yes it's inflated, but still closer to what I've understood (regarding posture rather than scale). Cheers all. --Koncorde (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The posture is based on the image shown there, which is a fairly outdated concept of Deinonychus that still persists in some places, despite the fact it's from the 1960s and about as current as most dino illustrations from that era. A more modern interpretation of Deinonychus is GSP's skeletal from Dinosaurs of the Air, which can be found here: [17] Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much the image used in the text book, except a little more robust and with a sub 'concept' of the dinosaur with feathers.--80.194.170.170 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Scale is much better now. Certainly gives it a more menacing size compared to the 'in action' pose previously. Cheers Dinoguy2. --Koncorde (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency re foot claw and short metarsus

The article quotes recent research that actually suggests the foot clwa was not a slicing weapon (one article's title includes "crampon") but the analysis of D.'s short metarsus is based on Ostrom, who thought of the claw as a slicing weapon. This looks inconsistent. Philcha (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This could probably be clarified--my reading of Ostrom is that he correlated the function of the specialized claw with the shortening of the metatarsus. It doesn't really matter what the function of the claw was--Ostrom thought slicing, but even if that changes, the correlation would still be valid. I don't think the 'crampon' theory has even been published though, has it? I thought it was just from that TV show. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Manning, P. L., Payne, D., Pennicott, J., Barrett, P. and Ennos, R. A. (2006) Dinosaur killer claws or climbing crampons? Royal Society, Biology Letters, 2 (1), 110-112. doi=10.1098/rsbl.2005.0395

Now don't say I never gave you anything. :) J. Spencer (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taxobox image

The image in the taxobox shows the arm covered in feathers which increase in length towards the hand. This is not credible, since all analyses claim that the hand was used for grappling, so long feathers would have been a hindrance and would have got broken. Do we have a better image? Philcha (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And the other image is even less credible (D. looking like a baby parrot waiting to be fed). Philcha (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing incredible about the 'parrot' picture. It’s a modern view of what it ‘may’ have looked like. As far as I can see it breaks no rules. As for feather length and grasping....I'm not shure that all analysis say that, apparently this paper (which I haven’t read) suggests that they had benefits in locomotion. 'Hartman, Scott. 2000. Primary and caudal feathers as locomotory adaptations in maniraptoran theropods. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 20, Supplement to No. 3. pp. 47A. Having not read it, I don't know whether it says anything about grasping or feather length. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the cite offhand, but there is one recent paper that demonstrates (for Deinonychus specifically even) that primary feathers would not get in the way for prey capture, mainly because the hand faced perpendicular to the feathers. All known dromaeosaurs have remiges on the arms, including Velociraptor, which we have direct evidence for grappling predatory behavior in the form of the fighting dinosaurs. So obviously, feathers didn't get in the way that much. The "parrot" thing has been done to death, see the archives. Why people can't get past this animal looking natural and (gasp!) unthreatening is beyond me. It's not a freaking bloodthirsty monster that kept it's talons fully extended at all times. Yes, sometimes, Deinonychus actually sat down! Shocking, right? Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually... right now I'm reading Senter (2006), linked to in the references. The image in the taxobox is incorrect in that both wrists appear to be fully extended at the same time. Senter demonstrates that the wrists of Deinonychus automatically supinate when extended, and taking into consideration the likely presence of feathered wings, only one wing could be extended in this way at a time, as the supination causes the remiges to cross the front of the body (see figure 7). I'll see if AW can try to modify the image at some point to address this. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It links to BioOne which my university and I arn't members of. So alas! I can't see it. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realize it was subscription only access. I can send you the paper if you need it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the paper Dinoguy2 referred to is "The function of the manus and forelimb of Deinonychus antirrhopus and its importance for the origin of avian flight." Alan D. Gishlick. in "New perspectives on the origin and early evolution of birds", 2001, Yale. pp.301-318. Figure 10, on page 314, shows how the feathers would be held clear of prey being gripped. It's a great paper for visualizing dromaeosaur arm function.Jbrougham (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Do we know if the primary feathers would really be so long? Take a look at this image for example, where they're shorter, and the fingers look like they are capable of gripping:[18] Still pretty damn bird-like, if not more. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't know exactly how long they'd be in these species, it's up to informed artistic license. The ones in the taxobox image just about match the length drawn for Deinonychus in the Senter paper though, so this speculation at least has a published backup. I like Rey's vulture-like interpretation too, though the naked limbs look a little bulky to me. The skeleton is pretty gracile. The quill knobs on Velociraptor also suggest the secondaries, at least, would be larger than he shows, though they could be vestigial or something and of course this is a different genus. One impression I get from these papers is that the fingers are not capable of single-handed gripping to a significant extent, by the way, or at least of manipulating in any way, but the hands could sort of 'bluntly' hold things between them or against the body. Bambiraptor is the only dromie that, when the hands 'gripped', the outer fingers sort of formed a pincer that could potentially be used to hold/manipulate things. This is discussed in Senter. And yeah, the Gishlick paper is what I was thinking of. It was a chapter in a book, however, so it doesn't look likely to be available online. Though he has a new paper out covering what looks like some of the same material I'm asking around for copies of... (Gishlick 2007). Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OMG You guys..why does Deinonychus look like a pigeon??

HI! I understand the possibilty that Deinonychus had feathers, but omg isn't that picture over doing it? I understand that a velociraptor skeleton was found with some feathers but was the whole body in feathers or just a partial. Also I did some digging and their is no fossil evidence what so ever that Deinonychus in particular had feathers like some of it's relatives did. Also what if one gets found with scale impressions then you have to change the picture. lol But seriously isn't that too much feathers? They couldn't fly and from what the fossil records show Archteopteryx was the first bird so doesn't that kinda kill the thought that birds didn't evolve from Dromeosaurids?? That's All Thank YOu Please Reply98.206.116.222 (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Le sigh.

isn't that picture over doing it?

No.

but was the whole body in feathers or just a partial

The whole body.

their is no fossil evidence what so ever that Deinonychus in particular had feathers like some of it's relatives did

There's no fossil evidence Smilodon had fur like it's relatives, the other cats. But you can bet your life it did anyway.

But seriously isn't that too much feathers

No, probably not.

fossil records show Archteopteryx was the first bird

Only under certain definitions. It's also possible dromaeosaurs evolved from Archaeopteryx. Most scientists don't care how much feathering an animal had when they're defining what a bird is. If they did, even T. rex might be a bird.

what if one gets found with scale impressions then you have to change the picture

Yes indeed, but don't hold your breath. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Slightly related, isn't the skull of the pictured skeleton in the article wrong? It seems to be identical to the one I based the drawing on. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have to mostly agree with Dinoguy2. Dromaeosaurs may have evolved from Archaeopteryx, but we don't know for sure. Just as we are not 100% sure that Deinonychus had feathers or not. I honestly think the feathers may be overdoing it a little on the arms and legs, but since there is no fossil evidence it is hard to say.Mcelite (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

Since htere's no fossil evidence, the best bet is to base restorations on close relatives that we have fossil evidence for. We know that Velociraptor had well-developed secondary flight feathers on the arm. We know that several smaller dromaeosaurids did as well. We know of no dromaeosaurids that lacked this feature. We know dromaeosaurids had feathers comperable to or more advanced than Archaeopteryx, and we know they covered the body in a way similar to modern birds. Any restorations that do not take this evidence into account becuase there's no evidence for this particular species are engaging in speculative fiction, not science. I would disagree just as much with somebody putting any kind of feathers on a baby Giganotosaurus. There's no evidence either way but there's plenty of reasons why, logically, it probably was not the case. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's one of those were the commonly accepted view a la Jurassic Park is now being challenged and the response is somewhat stubborn. Personally I'm not one for the bright colours and such that effectively turn dinosaurs into 3 million year old parakeets, but we're none of the wiser on colouration and likely never will know. So, as Dinoguy says, we go with the current mode of thinking.--Koncorde (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)