Talk:Velociraptor/Archive 1

Deinonychus Antirrhopus

Moved this here from the main page:

I vaguely remember that "Deinonychus antirrhopus" is now considered correct, that better specimens found in the last 10 years or so show that it is really not in the Velociraptor genus. Do we have any real paleontologists here with an opinion? BTW the "velociraptors" in the Jurassic Park movies are probably supposed to be antirrhopus, they certainly aren't Velociraptor mongoliensis. (But in any case they are wrong in several ways.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clasqm (talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 September 2001 (UTC)

You're right, Deinonychus is the correct name. The differences - especially in the skull - are considered to be to big to make them Velociraptor. -- Riptor

Sinking Deinonychus into Velociraptor was suggested by Gregory S. Paul in his famous Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. This was never generally accepted. Lumping genera is not a good idea in cladistics...

MWAK--84.27.81.59 10:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

weight of velociraptor?

It seems to be very low. http://www.dinodictionary.com/dinos_uv.asp#VELOCIRAPTOR says 90 kg instead of 15 kg.

The 200 pounds mentioned there is probably a typo for 20. The 15kg is again from Paul's PDW.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 14:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems kind of odd that an animal that was almost nine feet long(2.7m) would only weigh about 40 pounds(15 kg)Shralk 02:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Velociraptor was 6ft long, not 9. I'll fix that. I suspect the confusion is from Paul's PDW where he considered V. and Deinonychus the same animal. Also, remember most of that length is in the tail, and that birds and bird-like dinosaurs had hollow, light weight bones.Dinoguy2 05:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Raptors suck"?

Someone seems to have removed a good-sized chunk of this article, and replaced it with the above statement

Maybe they had something against Toronto?Shralk 02:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Fossil fight

Can the opinion that a Velociraptor found a dead Protoceratops be considered valid when the spine of the latter shows it was pulling away from Velociraptor at the time of it's death?

Also, how does said opinion account for the Velociraptor lying on the floor in a struggle with it's supposed carcass? I just think it kind of strange that a carcass could put up such a fight.

Having recently seen this fossil again on the television I would have to concur. The fact that two animals could be caught in the intimacies of their death throes is an event on a Fortean level of weirdness. Nevertheless, this is what has happened, unless one explains their apparent juxtoposition as a freak occurence, maybe two corpses thrown together by a river. Unlikely really but I supppose its just possible.

I've come across a number of sources that compare Velociraptor and Utahraptor. As far as I know the remains of Utahraptor are very fragmentary. Has a skull ever been found? That would tell us a lot about how this creature relates to others in its class.

I seem to remember that Michael Crichton used the name Velociraptor antirrhopus in his novel. He probably played with the idea propounded in some quarters that these animals were in the same genus. But has mentioned above this lacks scientific credibility. Great when your an author with a plot device to resolve however.

Someone removed a paragraph from this section discussing various ideas of how the dinosaurs came to be buried in this pose, on the basis that they were all sand related and that "the Gobi was not a desert back then." While it was not as arid as it is today and sandstorms most likely did not kill and flash-bury any animals, it was a dune field, similar to the Nebraska sand hillstoday [1]. The authors of that study suggest a collapsing sand dune as the most likely explaination, and I don't know of any more recent research that contradicts this. The entire Claws and Teeth section needs an overhaul, and the fighting dinosaurs stuff probably should be placed in a seperate section with some of this information included. Dinoguy2 15:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Terrestrial vertebrates often curl up under dry, or other, conditions after their death. It's entirely plausible that these two died separately, and were brought together by some conditions before they had naturally curled up...they then curled around each other. Likewise the raptor could quite plausibly have died trying to raid the other animal's already dead body. The assumption that there was some magical snapshot of their deadly battle is romantic and fun, but otherwise is wild supposition. You'd need something along the lines of a clear set of toothmarks in a bone of each, perfectly matching the dental pattern of the other. If they'd encountered a fatal situation while actually struggling, the odds are that they could have moved from their "death struggle" pose to SOME degree. Take a collapsing dune, for example. Straightening and pulling away would have been a matter of reflex as the sand hit them. Kaz 03:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Feathered dinosaurs in Argentina?

Is there a source for this? As far as I know, only China has yielded non-avian dinosaurs with preserved feathers.--Rob117 04:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Many news articles report on dinosaurs being feathered by inference, not by fossil evidence. There were feathered dinosaurs living in SA, but no fossil feathers have been peserved there. I'll try to clarify this. Dinoguy2 20:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Megaraptor

I would like to see a new page devoted to the Megaraptor, as the two-line cameo appearance is either incorrect or (as I would like to believe) a new theory that deserves to be discussed in greater depth.

Sorry to dash your hopes, but the fact that Megaraptor is a carnosaur is no theory. Calvo et al 2002 found a complete, articulated forelimb that proved the big claw was from the hand of an allosauroid, not a dromaeosuar. I might make a stub about it for the time being just to avoid further confusion. Once it's done check Megaraptor.Dinoguy2 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Need A New Image

Even Mr. Srnka has updated his Velociraptor drawing (compare with the old version currently in the taxobox), so I think its high time a new image for this page is found.Dinoguy2 23:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the current image? ¦ Reisio 00:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Mainly the position of the hands. That artist has since updated the image (see link, fixed it) with correct hand position and feathering more like the typical dromaeosaur feather pattern. I'm not sure if the updated one can be used with the same fair use policy of the original, though.Dinoguy2 00:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Feathers?

"Recently, fossils of dinosaurs related to Velociraptor (coelurosaurs) have been found in China with downy feathers on their bodies, and some even have flight feathers on their arms. It is certain that Velociraptor bore feathers too, although no fossil evidence has yet confirmed this, just as no fossil evidence has confirmed the certainty that sabertooth cats had fur."

The last comment at the end there seems a bit out of NPOV, or at the very least unnecessary. We have a lot of feline descendants or relatives alive today, but no raptors...

Who says it's certain? Should stick to the fossil evidence here or put forward who argues that the raptors had feathers.

Despite the technicality of being slightly more primitive than Archaeopteryx (maybe), raptors are still birds and it's rediculous to think they didn't have feathers.Dinoguy2 14:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What you don't seem to realize is that all previous renditions of raptors were also based on incomplete evidence. Now, though, we have a lot more evidence than we did, and what was a lizard is now being corrected into a nice fuzzy birdzard. :p ¦ Reisio 18:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's entirely untrue. Birds are raptors, but that doesn't mean raptors are birds. The claim in the article that the feathered microraptorians were ancestors of mongoliensis and friends is wild speculation at best. The author, making his original research right here in wikipedia, seems to be implying, in multiple places, that being older means necessarily being an ancestor. This is, of course, absolutely fallaceous. Kaz 03:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Juravenator is another dinosaur that was cladistically supposed to have feathers (even more, I guess), even though there is no evidence for that yet. I think that the assertion that "there is no reason to suspect it of being an exception" (on having feathres) is a bit too bold/POV.. Whereas all extant birds have feathers, some are not feathered all over their body - such as ostriches. Could be that, inversely, some dinosaurs had feathers only in a few spots, somewhat analogously with the horse's crest. And also some bearing none at all, if not by wrong cladistics, by a different bodily distribution set of feathers prior to the exaptation to flight, in which they might not have had occupied almost all over the body in most speces in which they were present, and being absent in many related species. I do not have reference for any of that, but probably there are professionals on the field that sustain things like that, this range of possibilities is not wild at all, I think. --Extremophile 22:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The image posted recently is not a "compatible" 3D image

I try only to use Anachrome style "compatible images" so that the average reader gets a good image. This image is pretty good in 3D, but less than great in 2D. These "compatible" images always look better than this one.3dnatureguy 21:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The image is pretty out of date anyway, do we really need it?The Thagomizer 00:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't need it because it's ugly, and 99.9% of us don't carry the antique kind of red/blue 3d glasses around with us. I have a feeling that YOU think it's outdated because it lacks feathers...but, of course, that's your Original Research, again. Kaz 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"All Raptors are Birds" Original Research

We definitely need some good, hard references on these wild claims that the older microraptors were somehow ancestors of mongoliensis (and, elsewhere, deinonychus, et cetera), and that the big, purely terrestrial raptors with advanced front legs really are devolved birds. I'm unfamiliar with any literature backing this point of view as anything but speculation, yet here it's being stated as fact. It's romantic, but otherwise bravo sierra Kaz 03:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Original research? I wish. All published phylogenetic analyses so far find microraptorians to be basal to other droameosaurs. I've provided citations to one dealing specifically with the unenlagiines, I'll add references to the latest survey of dromaeosaur relationships (Senter e al 2004) shortly. If you publish a refutation to these papers in the literature, or find a paper which presents evidence that dromaeosaurids are not maniraptoran, or that they had scales, let me know.The Thagomizer 17:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So you're telling me that the 18 inch microraptor, 126 million years old, is ancestor to the 24 foot Utahraptor, which is 132 million years old.

Presumably, microraptor developed advanced technology, built time machines, and then went back to found their own line.

The oldest known dromaeosaur, Utahraptor, predates (of course) all microraptors. Deinonychus, 10 feet long, dates to within two million years of microraptor. One is clearly NOT descended from microraptor, the other probably is not.

I call "bullshit".

Note: utahraptor also was large enough to be endothermic without insulation. Volume increases faster, with size, than surface area, so that eventually animals begin to face heat release as a factor, regardless of their original metabolism type. It didn't need feathers, and might even have found such to be a disadvantage to its temperature regulation...this ancestral dromaeosaur. -- Kaz 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The presence in the late Jurassic of dromaeosaur teeth, a new un-named troodontid, and Archaepteryx mean that dromaeosaurs had to have appeared as early (at least) as the mid-Jurassic, unless they evolved from Archaeopterygids, in which case they're birds. "Note: utahraptor also was large enough to be endothermic without insulation." If any dromaeosaurs lacked a significant covering, its the big ones like Utahaptor and Achillobator. However this only means that they may have lost some feathers (ostriches have too, on their legs and necks, and evidence suggests that the large tyannosaurs also secondarily lost their feathers), not that their ancestors lacked them. Your comments suggest that you don't understand phylogenetic bracketing. I'd look it up. "Presumably, microraptor developed advanced technology, built time machines, and then went back to found their own line." So, ae you suggesting that microraptors are more derived than other droameosaurs? If so, you've got numerous published studies going against you, and it's you who is engaging in original research. Have you bothered to look at the sources I listed under References?Dinoguy2 18:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not necessarily original research (I haven´t read the whole article or the specific issue). There is the common, practical sense of "birds" in which a feathered bird-like would be a bird, but also there are those who defend (like Gregory S. Paul) that many or all dromaeosaurs are actually flightless birds, having a common ancestor with Archaeopteryx, but being more "advanced", not more basal, somewhat like earlier versions of ratites or Diatryma-like birds, prior to the evolution of modern avian features (the widening of the body due to swimming and flight adaptation, shortening of the tail, toothlessness, beak, for instance). Even though Utahraptor precedes Microraptor, both only appear after Archaeopteryx (late jurassic), the first known bird, much smaller, but that could be "the ancestor" of all dromaeosaurs that came after anyway, much like the tiny, early mammals are the ancestors of the blue whale and Baluchitherium. But even the time issue is not really an issue, since some lineages can conserve more basal forms after the branching and evolution of more "advanced" forms (an analogy would be that we "evolved from monkeys" even though there are still monkeys). I thought that wikipedia had an article on the several hypothesis of bird evolution, mentioning the one in with dromaeosaurs as flightless, but I couldn't find it. Perhaps it is on the Evowiki, I don't know. --Extremophile 22:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mayr, who described the latest Archaeopteryx specimen, also support Paul's secondary flightlessness hypothesis in a new published correspondance. I added text and cites to this effect the other day on the main Dromaeosauridae article.Dinoguy2 22:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Link I added

Hi all, there was no picture so I thought I'd do the right thing by add one, but didn't want to get wikipedia into copyright issues so provided the link instead. Then I came to this page and discovered that there is a discussion what image to use. Well I'll leave the change for now, but someone more experienced than me may want to delete it. I have to say that the two pictures that I linked look good and claim to have been done with Scientific merit, so at least check them out. -- Disco

The section called "Links to Images"? Should that just be part of an "External Links" section? At any rate, the images on that site show velociraptors with flight feathers - even if they were feathered I find it hard to believe that a non-flying dinosaur (especially one not evolved from a flying dinosaur, that we know of) would have "flight feathers." Ostriches, for example, do not have fully developed flight feathers. - Kevingarcia 07:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's speculaton, but I find it more reasonable that the small species lke Velociraptor would still have flight feathers, while the giants like Achillobator probably had ostrich-like wings. Velociraptor is more similar to the microraptoria than other dromaeosaurs (ostriches are reltively farther removed from their flying ancestors), so it's no too much of a stretch to imagine it as a kakapo-grade flightless bird.Dinoguy2 18:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In Pop Culture

The U.S. Airforce' F-22 Raptor Stealth Fighter Jet first flew in 1997. It's name "raptor" may be inspired by the popular film Jurrasic Park which featured the raptor as a stealthy, dangerous creature. I removed this line from the article. Looks like it's only the authors speculation, and I personally find it more likely that the plane is named for the *flying* birds of prey, like hawks. Feel free to put it back if there's something to back up the asscoiation with Velociraptor.Dinoguy2 14:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, feathered raptors showed up in later Jurassic Park movies (the third one?). Just FYI. -Kevingarcia 07:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Did everyone already forget the most recent "King Kong" movie? Speilbergian raptors attack the herd of brontosaurs.

Pronunciation

I've added the RP pronunciation however I'm pretty sure that the first vowel is an /ə/. Jimp 06:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Extinction

If the "Dinosaurs had not become Extint" what type of "Animals" would we have on Earth today ?

Dinosaurs. (Is this a trick question? ;) ) Dinoguy2 13:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Giant turkey?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060404.wdino0404s/BNStory/Science/home Is this giant turkey a raptor?--Sonjaaa 12:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The story is referring to Hagryphus, which is an oviraptorosaur. The Singing Badger 13:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration

Velociraptor is now the current Dinosaur Collaboration! If you like, please feel free to contribute at the collaboration subpage here. Thank you! Sheep81 10:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Protoceratops vs Velociraptor

I've made a story about the fight as if the two creatures weren't killed by a disaster.

A Velociraptor was looking for food. Suddenly, it saw a nest of Protoceratops eggs. But before it could snatch one to a safe distance, a Protoceratops came charging right at it! SLAM! The Protoceratops's bony head struck it squarely in the chest. Now the Protoceratops had the Velociraptor's arm in it's beak, tugging and pulling. The Velociraptor scratched weakly at the Protoceratops's face. It was dying from the head butt the Protoceratops gave on the first blow. It tightened it's hind legs, then slashed upward at the throat of the Protoceratops. In an instant, the desert sand was stained red. The lifeless weight of the Protoceratops came down on the Velociraptor. But the Velociraptor didn't feel it. It had already died.

So, does anyone have comments?211.72.108.3 14:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, has anyone seen a video of Protoceratops vs Velociraptor at the AMNH website. It's pretty good! Dora Nichov 06:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't find it - do you have a URL for it? Thanks - Ballista 07:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: Protoceratops vs Velociraptor Dora Nichov 03:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that prompt response. However, I can't play it - I just get a bleep when I click. What software does it require? - Ballista 04:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhh.... Quicktime, I think. not sure really. Dora Nichov 13:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I checked, it's Quicktime. If you open the video, there's a link at the top where you can download Quicktime. Dora Nichov 14:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear - sorry but this is proving to be a saga. All I get is a clong when I click the link. It won't let me in (anyway, I'm sure I have QuickTime!) - Ballista 17:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The link or the picture of the Velociraptor? Dora Nichov 08:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomy paragraph - help

Hi - I've a problem trying to edit the leading 'Taxonomy' paragraph of Velociraptor - I don't manage to read it well and therefore can't really see what was intended. Can anyone help? - Ballista 05:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice job Dinoguy - I get it now! - Ballista 00:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ankylosaur

What kind of ankylosaur did the Velociraptor fight in The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs? Ankylosaurus? Sachania?211.72.108.3 02:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We really need someone to watch the special or research that somehow as the back and forth editing is becoming quite annoying. Sheep81 08:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs article currently says it's an Ankylosaurus. Dora Nichov 06:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide

Is this really an asset to the article, in its current form? - Ballista 04:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

IPA

This is why IPA sucks. If I was unfamiliar with the IPA (fortunately I'm not) and went to the IPA chart for English to see how to pronounce /vɛˈlɑsɪˌɹæptəɹ/, I'd come out saying vellarsirraptor, which is quite wrong. On the other hand, I think it's a bit of overkill to add pronunciations for every dialect, especially for a word where the pronunciation really isn't different from the spelling.

Would it perhaps be better if it was removed? --Ptcamn 02:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Formations (link restoration but now blue)

Furthering another 'sub-project' (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs - Formations), I have just created 'mini-stubs' for various geological formations in Velociraptor, to avoid the loss of the links and to allow wider-radiating research from this article by visitors. Please xpand if able. - Ballista 06:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Image changes - congrats and query

Great job - the pictures are looking much better now, thanks to Firsfron's editing and Sheep's JP addition. However, am I alone in not enjoying the sculpture shot? It isn't very like him at all. - Ballista 03:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I kinda like the sculpture shot. It's something unique, that you don't see with most dinosaurs. It's noteworthy alone for the unusual style. As for the JP picture, no offence to Sheep or anyone, but the original picture was so much better. This one's awfully dark, and doesn't show the raptor on the left from a good angle. Also, the exit sign is distracting...--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well we are not allowed to use the original picture so it's kind of a moot point. I can try to find a different screenshot if necessary but you'd be surprised how rarely they actually showed the full body of the raptors in that movie. Sheep81 09:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still uncertain whether everyone wanted the 'foot' photo uploaded. If so, where to put it (exactly)? - :-) - Ballista 04:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find a place for it. Sheep81 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

About the JP images--could someone clarify why the old image is not fair use and the new one is? They both have the same copyright tag.Dinoguy2 20:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the old one was cropped: if it was really from the film, it would be in landscape format, not portrait. Someone cropped it. According to WP's Fair Use policy, you can use an image, but you shouldn't alter it from the original.--Firsfron of Ronchester 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I did think that was a press release photo, not an image from the film, though. I've seen JP about 37,000 times and don't remember that shot being in the movie.Dinoguy2 21:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. I don't remember that shot, either. If we can somehow prove the image is unaltered from the original, we can use it.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The image is definitely not a screenshot. In fact, that very image is on the sidebar of one of the special features on the DVD. If it is a publicity photo then it is very easy to make a claim of fair use... in fact if it was released for publicity then it is pretty much fair use by definition. But you have to prove that it is a publicity photo released for public consumption, and that it is unaltered. Meaning that you have to find the source and cite it. Sheep81 01:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Late Cretaceous or Cretaceous

The opening sentence could link to Late Cretaceous or Cretaceous. Which should it link to. I made this edit that liked to Late Cretaceous, but that got changed back here. What do people think?

Sorry, I didn't know you had changed that. I put the link as Cretaceous Period because the link for Late Cretaceous is immediately adjacent in the taxobox and again in the Provenance section. That was my reasoning anyway. Change it back if you think it's better that way. Sheep81 01:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A separate issue is whether or not "period" should be capitalised. I initially thought it should be, but there are many pages in Wikipedia that don't capitalise it, so I am now confused! See Jurassic period, Cretaceous period, etc. Maybe period (geology) is the best answer? So is there a definite convention on Wikipedia as to whether "period" is capitalised or not? Carcharoth 23:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's just by itself, then no, "period" is not capitalized. But when it is preceded by Cretaceous, it becomes part of a proper noun and has to be capitalized. If it is not capitalized on other pages, then the other pages are wrong. Look at Madison Avenue, for instance. The word "avenue" would not be capitalized on its own, but when it refers to a specific avenue named after James Madison, then it is. That's not really a Wikipedia convention, that's just English grammar. Sheep81 01:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Late Cretaceous is also the proper name for the specific epoch we're dealing with here (equivalent to Miocene, etc.). I've seen a few dinosaur pages with things like "late Cretaceous", "Late Cretaceous Period", "Mid Cretaceous" (capital 'M' implies an epoch that doesn't exist!), etc., in various places. So, be on the lookout :) Dinoguy2 02:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You are not mistaken. However, the way that sentence is currently written "...is a genus of dromaeosaurid theropod dinosaur for which fossils have been found dating from 80 to 75 million years ago in the Late Cretaceous Epoch of the Cretaceous Period." is just painfully cumbersome now in my eyes, and also seriously redundant. If we absolutely have to say "Cretaceous" twice in one sentence, can we at least get rid of "for which fossils have been found dating from" and replace it with "which existed" or "which lived"? I understand and appreciate the precision which we're going for there, but it's just not a good start to the article style-wise, in my opinion. Sheep81 02:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe just say "...is a genus of dromaeosaurid theropod dinosaur which lived towards the end of the Cretaceous Period, 80 to 75 million years ago"? The specific epoch is already listed and linked in the taxobox anyway. Dinoguy2 02:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I get the English grammar bits. Don't worry about that! The distinction would be "the Cretaceous Period is a geologic period..." or "the Cretaceous is a geologic period". I agree that "Epoch", part of the "Period", is a cumbersome way to put this, but the phrasing "which lived towards the end of the Cretaceous Period, 80 to 75 million years ago" has two problems as far as I can see:

• It doesn't make clear whether the "80 to 75 million years ago" refers to the length of time of the Cretaceous Period, to a time period at the end of the Cretaceous Period, or to when the dinosaur existed.
• Also, saying that the dinosaur existed at that time is too specific and should, in my opinion, be replaced by something saying that the earliest fossils discovered date from such a date, and the latest fossils discovered date from another date. The sentence shouldn't imply that the evolutionary origin of this dinosaur has been pinned down to 80 million years ago. Unless it has.

Carcharoth 11:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this sound better?

• "Velociraptor [...] is a genus of dromaeosaurid theropod dinosaur that existed 80 to 75 million years ago, being found in the fossil record of the later part of the Cretaceous Period."

I will add the link to Late Cretaceous further down, if it is not already there, as I feel that all information in infoboxes/taxoboxes should be replicated in the article text. Carcharoth 12:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Scale

A scale picture to a human would be useful Minglex 11:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I whipped this up using my Velociraptor sketch and the public domain image from the taxobox of Human. What say you guys?Dinoguy2 15:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! Now, where should in the article should it go? Carcharoth 20:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. When in the article, I assume you will make it bigger than seen here? I would say this size would be OK. Carcharoth 21:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Scale diagram comparing a human (left) and a Velociraptor (right).

Relationship with the word 'raptor'

Following the edits made to the bits about the fighter jet called a raptor, and that this refers to the word raptor in the sense of a bird-of-prey, rather than a shortened name for this dinosaur, I was wondering what the exact relationship is. I assume they come from the same Latin root, as the meaning would seem to suitably apply to both.

• "This name is derived from the Latin words velox (meaning 'swift') and raptor (meaning 'robber' or 'plunderer') and refers to the animal's cursorial nature and carnivorous diet."
• wiktionary:Raptor
• Raptor

That last link is particularly interesting, having several different uses in popular culture of the word 'raptor' as used in names. It might be a problem deciding whether the bird-of-prey sense or the dinosaur sense inspired them, but can the material on that page be incorporated here as well, or at least linked to? Maybe put Raptor in the "See also" section? Carcharoth 12:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In particular, Roboraptor should be mentioned here. That could have been found another way by looking through the "What links" here links (less than 250, including one from Yoshi!) to see if anything deserves to be linked from here as well as linking to here. Sadly, the telescope use [2] is for the bird of prey, as are many of the others. Carcharoth 12:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've now added Roboraptor and the image from that page, which seems to be free use. At least I hope it is. I tried to make the pics fit in the section, but in the end I removed

A highly stylized sculpture of Velociraptor.

to here, so that people don't forget about it, or can restore it if they want. Carcharoth 12:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent dates

While looking for the reference to Late Cretaceous outside of the summary or lead section, I found an inconsistency:

• "These geologic formations are estimated to date back to the Campanian stage of the Late Cretaceous Period, about 83 to 74 million years ago." (Provenance section)
• "80 to 75 million years ago" (Lead section)

I've assumed that the bit in the Provenance section, with a reference, is more reliable, so I changed the dates in the lead section. Please can someone check this. Thanks. Carcharoth 12:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not sure if Velociraptor fossils are known from the entire length of the campanian stage, we should probably use the dates listed at Campanian (and also at [3]: 83-70 Ma. Dinoguy2 14:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

For now, I'd say rephrase the two sentences (in the lead and in the Provenance) to make clear that the dates given refer to the times of the Campanian Stage, not the times of the Cretaceous Period, or the times of the Late Cretaceous Epoch, or the distribution of Velociraptor fossils within the Campanian Stage. Then find a source that can supply more detailed information on the timescale of Velociraptor fossils within the Campanian Stage, if that is even known/possible. Carcharoth 20:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Dinoguy is right, the Campanian lasted approximately 83 to 70 Ma, not 74. I am not sure where I got 74 from when I wrote that. Second, the reference cited in the Provenance section says nothing about the absolute dating of the fossils, just that they are most likely Campanian. It is unknown (and cannot be known using current techniques) what part of the Campanian Velociraptor was found in. In fact, technically nobody can prove that the Djadochta fauna (including Velociraptor) even belonged to the Campanian at all. ALL time estimates for Mongolian Late Cretaceous fossils are based on guesswork as there is no volcanic sediment in the area to use for dating purposes. There isn't even very much pollen to use. The best guess right now is Campanian (some say late Campanian), based on comparisons of the animals that lived there with ones in other parts of the world at the time.

Also, the first sentence still seems really awkward to me. As it's the very first sentence of the article, I think it is important that it be constructed well. I suggest removing reference to the fossil record entirely in the first sentence, since we mention fossils just two sentences later. I would suggest something like "...is a genus of blah blah blah which existed approximately 83 to 70 million years ago, in the later part of the Cretaceous Period." That is a verifiable statement which can stand on its own with very little ambiguity. Sheep81 02:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I have fixed our problems. Fixed the dates and the first sentence to avoid redundancy. I also added a new ref for the 2004 geologic timescale and Dinoguy's picture in the Description section. Ideally the current taxobox picture would be in the body of the article but it is the best we can do for now. Sheep81 02:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Extinct animals

I don't know what the convention is on dinosaur articles, or even extinct animals articles in general, so I thought I'd pop this question in here. Do you explicitly say that such-and-such a dinosaur is extinct? Or is that taken as implied by the dates given at the beginning of the article? Maybe it is also assumed that people know that dinosaurs are extinct? :-)

Also, there is quite a bit about the taxonomy and evolutionary characteristics (which was fascinating reading, thanks for that - I never realised the bird link was so strong), but is there any room to say whether or not it is thought Velociraptor went extinct before the end of the Cretaceous, or whether it went extinct during the extinction event? I realise this may not be posible to know, but this goes back to my worry about saying "existed approximately 83 to 70 million years ago". This is correct, but it says nothing about when Velociraptor may have evolved and when it may have gone extinct. I realise we probably don't know about those two things, but the current phrasing seems to imply that we do.

It would, in my opinion, be clearer if it was explicitly stated in the article (and other dinosaur articles) that the given "million year ago" dates usually refer to the known fossil record dates (which may be altered by later discoveries of new fossils), rather than the actual dates when a species or genus evolved and went extinct. I know science articles and textbooks often fail to explicitly give these "according to the latest results" or "earliest known" qualifiers to such statements.

Oh, and the bit explaining why the dating cannot be more precise (lack of volcanism and pollen) was very interesting. Is it possible to find a source for that and work that into the article somhow? Carcharoth 10:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh. The extinction event was five million years later. Is the uncertainty over the dating of Velociraptor enough to say (after saying that the dates are uncertain) that it would definitely have gone extinct by the time of the extinction event, thus placing an upper boundary on the dates? Of course, such a statement would probably need a source. Carcharoth 10:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The generally accepted upper and lower boundary dates are those listed in the article. While it's possible that this dinosaur lived 5 Ma later and witnessed the dinosaur extinction, this is just speculation on our part. If it appeared in a published article, we could include it, but I don't think it ever has. Index fossils and such indicate it's Campanian, and there's really no good reason for anyone to suggest otherwise at this time. As for it's status as extinct, we used to use "Fossil" in conservation status, but the taxobox page now discourages that since Fossil is not a valid IUCN Red List category. I wonder if using "Extinct" with no year would be acceptalbe...Dinoguy2 13:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. No speculation. But equally, those dates shouldn't be presented as plain figures. It would be much better to explain in the article that they are upper and lower boundary dates that are based on existing data and that new data could change things. Make the link between the fossils and the dates clearer, and make clear that the dates come from the existing fossil evidence. Basically, we know that Velociraptor existed within this 7 million year time frame, but we are not sure whether it existed for longer than that, or for less time than that, though we can be reasonably certain it didn't survive the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. I think the only way to express this sort of thing clearly is to say that "the existence of this animal is known to us from the fossil record" right up front, and then expand from that point. Don't put the cart before the horse and say it "existed at such and such a time", and then later retreat from that bald position to say "the interpretation of the fossil record suggests that this dinosaur existed at such and such a time".

As for the conservation status thingy, though I appreciate it was a response to my "extinct" comment, I think it looks silly. I think a general comment somewhere in the article should explain that "no fossils for Velociraptor have been found outside this faunal stage, and it is thought that Velociraptor went extinct at some point during or after this faunal stage."

Though come to think of it, if you don't have an extinction event, can you have something surviving that evolved from Velociraptor? Like some kind of bird? Carcharoth 22:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

say that "the existence of this animal is known to us from the fossil record" right up front, and then expand from that point. This would be a bit obvious and redundant, since obviously any fossil animal is known only from the fossil record. Furthermore, the fact that under "fossil range" it lists a given time period carries the implication that it is unknown from outside that time period. It's counter-productive to discuss them yriad unlikely but theoretically possible scenarios in topics like this. Is it possible that Velociraptor existed outside the campanian and we just haven't found it's fossils yet? Sure. This is also possible for such a large number of fossil taxa (every single one, really) that there's no need to address it on such a specific article. If one wants to learn about the uncertainties in fossil dating and poor overall quality of sampling data in the fossil record, they should just read about it on fossil.Dinoguy2 22:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the explanation at fossil record :-) OK. It is not that important a point. Just for the record, I wasn't suggesting that theoretical scenarios be discussed, but just that it be made crystal clear that the date range is that of the faunal stage, and that no further precision is likely to be possible.

When I say "up front", I mean say this even before you mention fossils. You use the phrase fossil animal. Instead, I would talk about the fossils and the animal separately. The fossils are the starting point, and the reconstructions and hypotheses about the animal's lifestyle, etc, are based on the animal's fossils and other fossils.

Another point. I've noticed quite a few people talking about the taxobox as if they expect people to get information from there that is not in the lead section. I personally read the lead section, and just see the taxobox as an alternative way to present information given in the text. I carry this over to my editing where I try and make sure that information does not appear only in the taxobox and nowhere else. So the "fossil range" bit should appear in the text as well as in the taxobox.

Finally, you say that "obviously any fossil animal is known only from the fossil record". This sounds like "fossil animal" is a technical term for an extinct animal found in the fossil record, as I thought there were animals around today (ie. not extinct) who are found in the fossil record? Humans, for example? Carcharoth 23:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point, as not only are humans known from fossils, but in fact a lot of extant animals (and plants). Some of them (like Metasequoia are actually older than Velociraptor! I think it would be fine if the uncertainty was explained somewhere in the article, but I don't think the lead paragraph is the place to do it. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to introduce and summarize the article, not present complex concepts. In my opinion, saying that the animal lived "approximately" during a certain time period implies a certain amount of uncertainty which can be explained in greater detail in the body of the article, perhaps in the Provenance section. I am also with you 100% on your taxobox comments. I think the information in the taxobox should also be found in the article, and probably in the lead. I think most of it is, right? I also dislike the Conservation Status: Fossil tag, think it looks silly.

As far as Velociraptor surviving past the Campanian, that is considered pretty unlikely as there was a major shift in climate, habitat, and fauna in Mongolia at the time. The (probably) Campanian Djadochta/Barun Goyot fauna lived in an arid sandy desert, where most fossils are found in sand dunes. The overlying Nemegt Formation (probably Maastrichtian) in age) preserves a much wetter environment with most fossils found in muddy floodplain deposits. The Nemegt habitat could support more and larger species, and there was also an interchange with North America before the Nemegt was laid down, and the fauna is quite dramatically different (you start seeing hadrosaurs, sauropods, tyrannosaurs, etc). The Nemegt fauna also remains undated, but is definitely younger than the Djadochta. This is all explained in a seminal paper (Jerzykiewiez & Russell 1991) which is already cited in this article, and refined in later papers (which are not cited). I would absolutely love for this stuff to be on Wikipedia somewhere, but as it is pretty general and applies to hundreds of species, not just Velociraptor, maybe it would be better suited for the articles about the formation rather than each indivdual taxon article? Just a thought. Unfortunately our formation articles are still in their infancy. Perhaps you could flesh them out if you have time? I would definitely be willing to help out with that. I don't have a ton of time during the summer to sit down and write articles but I can help out with references and explain stuff as best I can, if you want.

BTW, are you already involved in WikiProject Dinosaurs, Carc? We (or at least I) would love to have someone like you who can hold an intelligent conversation and contribute knowledgeably to Wikipedia's dinosaur content. Or maybe even help out on our collaborations? Since both me, Spawn Man and Dinoguy are really busy at the moment, the process seems to be moving pretty slowly, as there are only a few others participating. Sheep81 10:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I afraid I probably won't have time to help write articles for WikiProject Dinosaurs, but I do have a minor interest in dinosaurs and extinct animals in general which has been aroused by this discussion, so I will try and help out and read around the articles. A lot of the background stuff on talk pages is really interesting, and it would be nice to get that stuff sourced and written into the articles in the appropriate points. As you can tell, the overarching geological and paleobiology concepets are what interests me more than specifics about individual dinosaurs. One problem is having, in some areas, to wait until a synthesis or guide is written, as finding and citing individual papers can be a problem unless you are involved or reading about the cutting-edge stuff. It also makes sense for something like Wikipedia to wait until the dust settles a bit, and a broad consensus has been reached, and I wouldn't be sure about what is new and possibly controversial, and what has become accepted. If you could point me to an authoritative webpage on faunal stages, I would be happy to summarise stuff at the articles and do some further online research (don't have easy access to a library). Carcharoth 15:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is one, but I'll try to find out. Sheep81 11:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This talk about extinct animals and fossils of living species reminded me of living fossil. Wonder if that article is any good? Carcharoth 15:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh my. That is rather a good article! I've now learnt aout Lazarus_taxon and Elvis_taxon! Fascinating stuff. Carcharoth 15:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

New skeletal

Scott Hartman has volunteered his skeletal reconstruction for use in the article. In my opinion it is superior to the one we have now. He says the skull is only based on Norell's velociraptorine in minor areas that are crushed in other specimens, and doesn't affect the overall *shape* of the skull, though the overall shape is based on undescribed specimens he is working on (which are definately V. mongoliensis anyway). If there's no objection I'll put this in place of the current skeletal. Dinoguy2 23:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

File:Velociraptor skeletal by Scott Hartman.jpg

I say we should definitely put the image in the article, but don't replace the existing anatomy pic with it. That anatomy pic is the only pic we have that can really go on the main page when it is featured. The writing on this pic could be seen as annoying when it appears on the main page, so I say until Velociraptor has appeared on the main page, do not replace the existing pic. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Scott has also agreed to give us a few photos of the fighting dinosaurs and Velociraptor skulls, but he's in Japan right now so it'll be a week or two.Dinoguy2 00:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great - thanks for that. - Ballista 03:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Although they're probably better, I still think we should keep our fighting dino photo over this guy's ones, as it will give us a sense of pride that we don't need to be a hotshot to take a photo of a vital piece of history... That sounded weird so.... Spawn Man 22:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Pssh, pride. I took that photo six years ago and it stinks. I'll swallow my pride, I think, if his are better ;) Dinoguy2 22:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Dates of Chinese discovery changed?

At 20:51, 11 July 2006 an anonymous user (12.206.237.180) who just prior had vandalized the page, changed the dates of the Chinese-Canadian team from "1988 and 1990" to "1987 and 1991" without citing a source. As I do not have access to the 3 referenced items, I am assuming the edit is the result of someone playing. While the new date range would be technically accurate (if the first one was true), it widens the date range unnecessarily. I have changed the dates back to their original value. If someone disputes 1988 and 1990 dates, please advise. Arx Fortis 03:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandals deserve to be flayed & thrown into boiling vats of magma..... Unless of course they have a pet frog... In which case it is just wrong.... Spawn Man 04:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we should protect this page?

Velociraptors being extremely popular is a factor of vandalism, and it being a featured article just increases the odds of it being vandalized. perhaps we should protect it? Also, I've noticed a bunch of vandalisms over the past few weeks... Abby724 04:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I say we protect the son of a gun & hope for the aliens to land.... Spawn Man 04:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, we do not protect the daily featured article Raul654 04:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I say we don't protect the son of a gun & hope for the aliens to land.... Spawn Man 05:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted the last 30 edits to this article. I realize that's pretty unorthodox, but 1/2 of it was vandalism like this, most of the remaining edits were reverts of said vandalism (but some of it was accidentally left in), and a few edits were well-intentioned mistakes (like removing the word "genera" as a typo). I reverted to the last "clean" version.--Firsfron of Ronchester 13:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I'm not a reg, sorry about bringing this yet another time. Abby724 17:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Poison Spitting

One of the scariest things the velociraptor did in Jurassic Park was spit on the computer geek before killing him. I assume this is dramatic license on Crichton's part. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the popular culture section? 66.42.111.199 15:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a velociraptor. Arvindn 15:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a Dilophosaurus; but yes, the fossil record shows no evidence of the ability to spit poison, and this was dramatic license by Crichton.David Fuchs 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Source for most well know

Is there a source for the claim in the intro that the Velociraptor is the "most well known among the general public"? Smells like original research to me. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on! Don't misuse the term "original research"! If anything, this is probably just a piece of speculation with no research or sources to back it up. Just flag it for removable as an unsourced statement. If anything, it would fall under Verifiability, as verifying this sort of statement is very difficult. It is really something that would appear in an opinion piece. Carcharoth 22:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well actually no it doesn't... I smells more like coffee at 5 am, but anyway, it would be far more close to being weasel words than original research... Read the following paragraph which demonstrates my research which I conducted on the general public last spring... Spawn Man 22:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that Velociraptor is well-known to the general public. Jerkov 11:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously well-known, but to state it's the "most" well-known implies that some kind of study has been done to determine this. I doubt it even is the most well known. Tyrannosaurus probably gets that honor, but it's all speculation anyway.Dinoguy2 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Watch for vandalism

I've found at least one bit of vandalism that escaped everyone's notice. See this edit that remained uncorrected for over 6 hours. When reverted an obvious bit of vandalism, do check that you don't miss any other bits of vandalism. The whole article should be checked over as well, once it is off the main page. Carcharoth 22:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I apologise unreservedly. I assumed because Chased by Dinosaurs was a red-link, that this was a vandal trying to be funny. It seems that Velociraptor didn't appear in Walking with Dinosaurs, but appeared in a spin-off series called Chased by Dinosaurs, so I restored this and made it a blue-link to the relevant section of "Walking with Dinosaurs". Sorry about all that. Carcharoth 22:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Gosh sake! You just wasted all those pixels with your nonsense.... ;) Spawn Man 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah. Thousands of people read it and learn from my mistakes. Don't they? ... Please tell me they do! :-/ Carcharoth 02:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Rice University

The Rice university comment is not part of popular culture, but an inside joke at a single university. It seems like a passing fad and not worthy of mention in this article. A better spot would be in the article about the university's paper. If nobody objects, I'll give it a day or two and remove it. Epachamo 15:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Beat you to it! : ) Thanks for pointing that out. Sheep81 01:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Qualifying statements about feathers

These have been in the article for some time, recently removed by John Conway, and then reverted by Dragon Helm. I think there should be some better way to handle this. It is a little weasly that we need to use qualifying statements with reconstructions here, while we don't use them anywhere else. Why not put a caption on Image:T. rex head rhs.JPG [4], which says "Reconstruction of Tyrannosaurus showing speculative scaley hide and coloration"? The scales from the head of T. rex, if it had scales on its head, are just as speculative and just as likely as the feathers of Velociraptor reconstructions here. I think the default assumption for dino reconstructions is that any exterior appearance is speculative unless otherwise noted. Seems unfair to make an exception for Velociraptor. I'm reminded of the argument on Dinosaur over qualifying statements to placate creationists. The same qualifiers about geological time and evolution would need to be placed on every single dinosaur article. Unless there's a modern source which argues with the idea that Velociraptor had feathers (which I sincerely doubt exists in any scientific context), such qualifiers might be considered weasel language as JC said in his edit summary.Dinoguy2 20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be an eminently well-reasoned argument. Can you propose a 'final' solution for the Velociraptor caption, that might stand the test of (foreseeable) time? - Ballista 06:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think one sort of all-inclusive discussion of the possibility of feathers in the text should do the trick. Maybe something from the general feathers section on Dromaeosauridae could be copied/modified here?Dinoguy2 16:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My vote is 'go for it'. - Ballista 17:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Subfamily in taxobox?

I thought we weren't going to get really detailed in our taxoboxes? I mean it's one thing, in my opinion, for Centrosaurinae and Lambeosaurinae to be in a taxobox, those are major subgroupings containing many species. But Velociraptorinae? It's been tossed around over the years, sure, but it's not really on the same level as Centro/Chasmo or Hadro/Lambeo, you know? It might even be identical in content with Velociraptor. Let me know if the mood has changed and we are now going to list every single subdivision in the taxobox. Sheep81 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that, since velociraptorinae is probably monotypic, it should be listed here. Other taxa which are contained in monotypic groups have those groups listed in their taxobox (for example, Archaeopteryx]] lists Archaeopterygidae and authority on its taxobox). While I agree that taxoboxes should not list every little group, I do think every little group should be listed somewhere at least, and as a monotypic taxa this is the only logical place for Velociraptorinae. Put another way, I think the bold, unlinked, and cited portion of the taxobox should include all the taxa under discussion on this particular page--that is, subfamily Velociraptorinae, genus Velociraptor, and species V. mongoliensis.Dinoguy2 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, if you say so! Sheep81 02:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Buitreraptor image?

The skeleton in the image that's just been added (the one with Buitreraptor) doesn't look like Velociraptor to me... My uess is it's either Deinonychus, or possibly a speculative reconstruction of Unenlagia (contemporary with Buitreraptor). Any ideas?Dinoguy2 14:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Turkey-sized?

Is this really an accurate size comparison? I live in an area with wild turkey, and they're about half the height listed for the V. mongoliensis, and not even close for mass. Admittedly, they're Florida wild turkey, which are slightly smaller than Eastern wild turkey, but even they only grow to roughly four feet tall, two-thirds the size of a Velociraptor. The mass wouldn't be that similar either, as 45 pounds is heavier than any turkey I've run across. (edit: I apparently forgot to sign this)The Dark 18:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this was meant to give the reader more of a general idea of size than represent a strict comparison. However, maybe changing it to "large turkey" would be better, unless there's another commonly-known bird that's around the same size as Velociraptor.Dinoguy2 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

the great bustard weights about the same of a velociraptor, but I'm afraid it's not so well known as to give a notion of the size or weight of the animal... perhaps, trying something outside the bird lineage for comparison, such as an ocelot, we have a comparison that encompasses both lenght and weight approximately? With extant birds that would be unlikely, I think, but I do not really know many bird species. --Extremophile 20:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem with extant birds is that any bird which weighs 45 lbs but stands only a few ft high would be flightless, and most flightless birds are not well known (actually, the dodo is very close in size and weight...). The best bet among living birds would be a mid-sized emperor penguin. Using ocelot actually might be the better option, since it's more "long" than "tall", like Velociraptor and unlike emperor penguins.Dinoguy2 20:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting in my pennyworth, I like 'dodo-sized'. - Ballista 03:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there enough name recognition? Do most people even know what a dodo is? Also, it may be hazardous to compare one extinct flightless feathered animal with another flightless feathered animal; people may become confused, and believe a relationship between the two is implied. Better, in my opinion, to leave the turkey reference. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the dodo is fairly well-known, although I agree that it may not be the best idea to compare one extinct flightless feather animal to another extinct flightless feathered animal, even if it is only on size. The closest for mass and height seems to be, as Dinoguy2 said, the emperor penguin, but it's a little shorter and heavier. I'll probably dig around a little this weekend and try to find a good comparison animal for size and build - 6 feet total height/length, 45 pounds weight.The Dark 18:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor correction--the Emperor Penguin is quite a bit taller than Velociraptor, because of its erect posture. The wiki article lists the penguin at 1.27-1.6 meters tall and 34 kg in mass, while Velociraptor was 0.6 - ~1.5 (if it were to rear up) m tall and only 20 kg.Dinoguy2 19:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed clause

Not wishing to antagonise anyone but I have removed the bracketed clause: "(though the fossil excavated was that of a "Utahraptor")", since the film was fiction and Utahraptor not yet described (as far as I know). - Ballista 16:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Raptor Claw

A study was done on TV this summer. (The discovery channel?) They created a mechanical raptor claw with pistons, springs to emulate a real raptor leg. They they used it on a side of beef I beleive. The end result was a small hole in the beef, not a large gash. The slashing, and diembolment theory is presented in this article, but the discovery channel documentary has in the very least thrown doubt onto this theory. Sadly I don't remember the name of the show, or even the correct channel for that point. If anyone else knows about the show I'm talking about, an alteration to the purpose of the claw would be greatly appreciated.

Dont suppose you actually read the whole article did you?Sheep81 08:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha! The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs! I remember they made a Velociraptor fight an Ankylosaurus... Dora Nichov 13:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The most fossils

This article states that velociraptor has the most fossils of any Dromaeosaurid. But see Deinonychus. Totnesmartin 02:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hartman skeletal

File:Velociraptor skeletal by Scott Hartman.jpg

I know some people had objected to replacing the current skeletal diagram (which is ok, but has some innacuracies) with this one. I think the problem was the inclusion of text. Any thoughts now that the article is featured?Dinoguy2 03:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no problems whatsoever. :o) Could the same image, for which we should be very grateful, possibly be put on WikiCommons?--MWAK 14:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Resonating Chamber

The resonating chamber, as show in JP3, is not an actual velociraptor resonating chamber. In fact, no one knows what it actually looked like or even where it was located. The resonating chamber from JP3 was really a dogs resonating chamber. Based on the fossil records it is assumed that the resonating chamber was in the head of the Raptor, but it could very well have been in the windpipe of the Raptor like the vocal cords are for us humans. Since no one knows where or how the chamber looked, or even how the ancient Raptors sounded, it is our best guess that they made hissing, squaking, and roaring noises that made up a sord of language. The idea of the different noises came from modern animals that the Raptors may have become, if you believe that they became birds.

A Hawks squak and have been known to make hissing noises, and some hawks have been even known to make a sort of barking sound. Dinosour experts have taken all three of the noises and tried to find a resonating chamber that could produce all three sounds by adjusting the amound of air and the air pressure that moved through it. The closest they came was a dogs resonating chamber which was capable of creating the barking and squaking.

Again I state that we have no idea what the resonating chamber looked like or where it was located and we fly blind when we try to find out how the Raptors sounded like. All in all, the best guess is that a dog's resonating chamber was very similar to that of a velociraptor's resonating chamber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.80.194 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is unsubstantiated nonsense. "We" don't think they made the sounds you described, they were invented for a movie by Hollywood sound engineers, just like their color, etc. The idea that they had a language is complete invention of the movies, nothing to do with reality. Dogs do not have resonating chambers, they bark using vocal chords. Velociraptor did not have resonating chambers either, these are found only in some duck-billed dinosaurs and possibly sauropods. The whole concept as seen in JP3 is wrong. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dogma comment

Added to the article and reverted- While there is, as yet, no fossil evidence to confirm that Velociraptor had feathers, there is little reason to suspect it of being an exception, apart from avoiding scientific dogma, as some claim. I just want to share how surreal it is as somebody who grew up reading Bakker and Paul to find the concept of feathered dinosaurs being called "dogma" ;) Dinoguy2 06:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I reverted because it was a rather strange comment to stick in Velociraptor, of all places. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. To my knowledge, except for the Archaeopterix, all fossils with imprints of feathers have been found in the same area in northern China. There is a lively industry of fossil forging in that area:[5] An interesting specimen will sell for perhaps 20 times the average annual income of the area. At this time, feathered fossils are 'hot', because they support a theory that is very much in vogue at the moment (dinosaurs being warm blooded and bird-like). A number of years ago, before the first chinese feathered fossils started pouring in, I saw documentary in which a creationist attempted to discredit the Archaeopterix fossil by forging one. He added feather imprints to an unremarkable fossil of a lizard, that looked remarkably like the ones in the genuine fossil. Though he obviously did not convince me that the German Archaeopterix fossils were fake, he did demonstrate that feather imprints can easily be faked by a skilled artist. Not very long after that documentary was made, feathered fossils started appearing from northern China... Mzzl 05:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No-one needed fossil feathers from china. The relation between dinosaurs and birds is apparent in every theropod. Feather quills found on a velciraptor skeleton seal the argument over whether these sorts of creatures had feathers. T.Neo 15:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And the China fossils typically show no feather imprints...--MWAK (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Arm structure

I'm curious as to the arm structure of Velociraptor (and other maniraptorans) with semi-lunate carpal, the lack of pronation of the wrist and limited range of movement. I find it hard to see what advantages this would confer in terms of grabbing or holding prey. Could the limited range of arm movement imply secondary flightlessness in dromaeosaurids such as Velociraptor? (One of the images of Velociraptor, with the stubby wing-like appendages, certainly seems to suggest so). I've seen the mention of secondary flightlessness in this article, but without connection to the arm. 209.244.31.53 03:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul of course uses this as an argument. Most paleontologists believe in the predatory function of these adaptations. The "wing"folding mechanism would of course in any case be handy to protect the feathers and the lack of pronation seems to be very old. All this has little to do with Velociraptor per se though.--MWAK 13:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Raptor

I thought "Raptor" meant 'Bird of Prey', or is the meaning different in Latin? CJDickinson-Leeds, 18:40, 26/02/07—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.15.206 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, in Latin it simply means "robber". No special association with birds was present.--MWAK 07:23, 27 February 2007

(UTC)

Well, the dinosaur raptors are Dromeosaurs, meaning "robber" and the bird raptors are the birds of prey, but they have a different meaning. It's something like "hunter" or something like that. Paleo Kid (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

More species?

I have a personal record of other species, V. montanus and V. utahsiensis. Can anyone else verify these? Ninjatacoshell 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, neither of those are published, and I can't find them on Google, so they shouldn't be in the article. J. Spencer 22:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

They sound oddly familiar, and Velociraptor is an Asian genus, so they don't make much sense, which leads me to guess they may be "fanwanked" binomials for the creatures Grant was digging up in Jurassic Park... Dinoguy2 02:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As J states, no Google hits for "V. utahsiensis" (bad spelling?) or "Velociraptor utahensis" (more likely spelling). Without a reliable source (like a paper or mention in a reliable source), this cannot be added to the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"V. utahsiensis" sounds oddly similar to Utahraptor and "V. montanus" could be close to being Deinonychus. As mentioned above by Dinoguy2, those scientific names could have been "fudged" into fitting into Jurassic Park and Velociraptor was only found in Mongolia (nowhere near the U.S.). I thought I would just say what I was thinking. --Silverstag89 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Utahraptor and Jurassic Park

A disputed line has been added and reverted twice now to the pop culture section.

" (Ironically, at the time of the film's release, a new raptor had been discovered, Utahraptor, which was the size of the film's largest velociraptor, the "Big Female".)"

First of all, as far as I know even the smallest Utahraptor are at the very least 15ft in length. I don't have a cite for the length of the raptors in the movie, but I seriously doubt they were that big, and I usually hear a length of about 20+ ft for Utahraptor (and I understand new specimens may put this upwards of 30), so suggesting the JP raptors were "Utahraptor size" is simply false. Second, and I've seen the movie more times than I care to count, but all the raptors looked equal in size to me. I know there was a "big female" line from Muldoon, but was one seriously larger when the raptors actually appeared? Third, ironic doesn't mean that unless you're alanis Morrisett... ;) and fourth, I don't see any relevence here. This is an article about Velociraptor, not Utahraptor or Jurassic Park. Dinoguy2 12:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. Not really relevant here, for the reasons you've mentioned. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You can remove it if you wish as per that it's not strictly related to the article, but the information itself is quiet accurate. Robert Bakker talks about this in his novel Raptor Red. Jus' so you knows. David Füchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can cite his specific claims, and address how they relate to more modern science (Raptor Red is over a decade old isn't it?), it would certainly be welcome in Utahraptor. Bakker is, unfortunately, pretty infamous for his hyperbole and exaggerated claims in popular works, so this material should be treated carefully. Dinoguy2 03:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If a good citation can be found, I think it's quite relevant, since so many people's knowledge of dinosaurs is so influenced by Jurassic Park. There should be a brief mention in "In Popular Culture" saying that though the velociraptors in Jurassic Park are larger than real velociraptors, a related species was found around the time of the movie's release that more closely matches the movie's description; and have a link to Utahraptor or something. Professor Chaos 05:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

the deal???

whats the deal with every dinosaur suddenly being shown with feathers?? up until about 3 years ago i had heard almost nothing about feathered dinosaurs except about small flying ones, but now everybodies jumped on the bandwagon and dressin em all up in feathers. so can someone please tell me and prove that nearly all, or at least A LOT (in most cases it seems that), dinos had feathers?!??!@!//|#*%"$%:?!!£

Not most dinosaurs, just most coelurosaurian theropods. Check out phylogenetic bracketing. Sheep81 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Most people didn't know Brontosaurus had been "re-named" until decades after the fact. These things take time to sink in ;) Dinoguy2 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't even think most people know that now! Sheep81 16:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fossilized skin imprints of the Tyrannosaurs unmistakably show scales. Could its line have lost its feathers and regained scales? To my knowledge, apart from the Archaeopterix, the only place in the world where any indication for feathered dinosaurs has been found is this one area in China, a country which until not so very long ago produced stuffed mermaids and unicorns, and today produces many forged or artificially enhanced fossils. Not very surprising since an ordinary fossil can be worth the local equivalent of a new car, but a 'special' one, such as a missing link or a fossil with feather imprints, is worth the local equivalent of a lottery jackpot. --Mzzl 06:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of fakes do exist, but are usually weeded out (the one notable exception being Archaeoraptor, but even that was weeded out when it was actually studied by scientists). The fakes tend to be obvious--sculpted parts based on modern bird wings grafted onto real fossils so that the hands don't match, or the feet of a lizard combined with the body of a dromaeosaur. The actual feather impressions have never been faked, only combined with non-feathered animals in a pretty obvious way. Also, not all the fossils have been given to scientists by local farmers. Now that the beds are famous, a lot of scientists (Western and Chinese) are digging there themselves and finding the same stuff. Not to mention feather traces other than impressions from elsewhere (such as Shuvuuia and Velociraptor, from Mongolia.

In a documentary about the intelligent design movement, an artist demonstrated how simple it was to add convincing feather imprints to a fossil lizard in limestone, in an attempt to discredit Archaeopterix. While he obviously didn't convince me (even without the feather imprints, the Archaeopterix would have been convincing enough), a few months after that documentary aired, suddenly Therapod fossils with feather imprints and other 'missing links' started appearing from northern China and Mongolia, just as archaeolists were looking for evidence for the theory that Therapods were birds. It just doesn't fit the fact that far younger fossils have shown Therapods to have had scales.--Mzzl (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's possible to re-evolve scales after descending from feathered ancestors. I personally suspect it's not, and that basal coelurosaur/carnosaur/tyrannosaur relationships are more complicated than we think. Look at all the similarities between the basal carnosaur Monolophosaurus and the basal tyrannosaur Guanlong, or the ever-shifting phylo positions of compsognathids. It could be that Dilong is not a T. rex ancestor but something a bit more advanced. Dinoguy2 09:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is that maybe Velociraptor as a species was VERY diverse, with many races/breeds. as in dogs or humans.

Perhaps some Velociraptor races/breeds were fully covered in feathers, others partially covered, others none at all. ANd don't even get me started on the variety of colors that they could have come in. --69.14.74.155 16:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You realize there weren't any humans around in the Cretaceous to breed the Velociraptor version of the sphinx cat, right? Think about how often total loss of hair or feathers happens in modern animals that aren't extremely large, aquatic, burrowing, or artificially-selected, and then think again about how likely you think it was that any Velociraptor species was totally lacking in feathers. Kotengu 小天狗 19:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What you are failing to grasp is that in every species there are RACES. in other words, not every single member of the same species will be of the same colour or have the exact same minor physical features... it has been like that forever.. Look at humand. a black man looks nothing like a white one.. not just in color but in ohysical appearance. --69.14.74.155 05:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of feathers is a major, not minor, physical difference. It would be like one "race" (a concept that was scientifically disproven over half a century ago, in the sense you're using it) of humans having fins. Anyway, even if it's possible, there's no reason whatever to think it happened. It's possible some Velociraptor subspecies existed that had tiger stripes, while others had polka dots. Unless there's some kind of actual evidence, such pointless speculation has no place in an encyclopedia article. Especially when all modern scientists, including the ones who think birds are not dinosaur relatives, support the idea that Velociraptor and all dromaeosaurs had feathers. Dinoguy2 05:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You prefer this instead?_Dragon Helm 05:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Look at humand. a black man looks nothing like a white one.. not just in color but in ohysical appearance" what a load of racist crap. An albino black person could easily thought to be a white european. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the guy you're replying to is an idiot, but I have to point out that what you're saying is completely false. Take a look at some images of albino people of Sub-Saharan descent and you'll see they still look "black" in their facial features. There's nothing racist to point that out - if acknowleding differences in skin color isn't racist, why would doing the same for differences in facial features be? --81.158.148.64 (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also note, the Sphinx cat is not truly hairless, it has very, very short hair. Yes, not having feathers would be a major difference. And yes, there's probably a lot of people who still think about Brontosaurus...even after it was brought up in the movie Jurassic Park (film) by Lex (though IIRC she corrected her brother by identifying the dinosaur in question as a Brachiosaurus). VigilancePrime 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Raptors

The word 'raptor' refers also to a bird of prey. The Toronto Raptors are named after birds of prey, not dinosaurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.238.152 (talk)

Why do they have dromaeosaurids on their jerseys and a dromaeosaurid mascot, then? J. Spencer 05:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Not true, 70. Haven't you seen the team's logo? That's clearly not a bird of prey: it lacks feathers and has teeth. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I wonder if they will rethink that no-feather logo. Rekija 06:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias

This page is biased. It says nothing about Creationism Since Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased, we need a balance between Evolution and Creationism. I personally don't tink dinosaurs have feathers, and am loath to beleive an evolutionist claim, but we still should keep that in here.

What would you have the article include? Creationism attaches the creation of all life to a higher power. If you're going to mention it in this article, you should logically visit every article on a living thing and put something into all of them. Additionally, it's inaccurate to say that a balance is needed between Evolutionism and Creationism, since that incorrectly suggests that they are the two viewpoints opposing each other here. In reality, it's more like Creationism and Science.--72.130.143.25 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a joke the bible doesn't even mention dinosaurs! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you believe in evolution or creationism, there is fossil evidence that certain dinosaurs had feathers. 91.109.171.190 (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. From a creationist's viewpoint, logically, you should be arguing that Velociraptor is not a dinosaur at all but a bird. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Birds are dinosaurs. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

gustav, how would a book that was written at least 1600 years ago mention a type of creature which was unknown until the 1840s? even if the Bible talked about dinosaurs, you wouldn't know it from the text, since the word "dinosaur" was coined in 1842. a word like "dragon" or "behemoth" or "leviathan" would be used (the last two are used in the Book of Job.) beyond that, the original poster never stated anything about the Bible. he simply said that there should be information from both points of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.34.92 (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Behemoth of Job. Take a picture of an animal with a tail as large and wide as a cedar tree that lives today and tell me that God's repsonse to Job didn't talk about a dinosaur. Colonel Marksman (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't talk about a dinosaur. It says that the tail sways like a cedar. Scripture never says its as large as one. (yes, I realize the comment is several months old)Farsight001 (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

size estimates

I'm having trouble finding the size estimates in the linked citation. In Greg Paul's Predatory Dinosaurs of the World (p. 369-370), he estimates 2.07 m long, 0.5 m at the hips, and 15 kg for Fighting GI100/25. J. Spencer 15:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Norell (1999) provides detailed length data for several specimens (though not 100/25, unless the number is different when using the IGN label rather than GI?). Could we add these up and check to see if it matches the various cited sizes? Dinoguy2 00:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Why wasn't Norell (1999) cited then, instead of Norell and Mackovicky (1999)? J. Spencer 02:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Norell & Mackoviky 199 is the one I meant. I believe if you add up the skull and vert lengths listed in the various tables, the length ends up at 1.8m for the largest specimen, but I'll double check this (though, would that be original research? I'd lean toward no, since it's just simple math, like our metric to US unit conversions). Dinoguy2 06:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I check the vert length table, there are no complete specimens to add up, and I reckon it would be OR to extropolate up from the necessary bones in less complete specimens. So maybe going with Paul 1988 for stats would be best, unless a more modern source gives a concrete total length estimate for any specimens... Dinoguy2 06:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We can use PDotW as a placeholder for the time being; it's not particularly different from what's up there anyway. J. Spencer 00:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

replica of a velociraptor's skeleton

I've took this photo of a replica of a velociraptor's skeleton, do you think that it would be useful on this article? If so, feel free to use it at will, I'll be happy to give all the details needed :)

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/8922/dinossauroscantanhede3nno5.jpg

Ihatemornings 16:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely this is helpful

Velociraptor was just a scary turkey, at The Guardian online... make of it what you will. Enjoy. Seegoon (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• snicker* All of us that have seen the original Jurassic Park remember that.... "No, it's just a big, fat turkey!" Paleo Kid (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Manus / hand / arm / wing / birds

"Velociraptor, like other dromaeosaurids, had a large manus ('hand') with three strongly-curved claws, which were similar in construction and flexibility to the wing bones of modern birds." -- This seems an odd way to phrase this. Birds don't really have much of a "hand" to speak of, certainly IMHO not to compare with that of dromaeosaurines and velociraptorines. The "arms" are similar across the board. The "hands", not so much. Yes? No? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Take a look, birds have similar hands[6] Funkynusayri (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they're similar in flexibility, though. Dromies could do a rudimentary hooking/'grasping' motion with the fingers that I don't think most modern birds aside from hoatzin are capable of. Simplest solution: change "modern birds" to "primitive birds". Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

feathers/scales

can i confirm that it is not known whether velociraptors had feathers or scales (I say scales in the sense that dinosaurs in JP had scales, I don't know if there is another term for dinosaur scales)? I am still not sure on the feather situation, as a kid feathered dinosaurs were unheard of except winged ones can someone explain properly, with some external links maybe? cheers 86.151.175.184 (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the section of the article titled "Feathers," which discusses the recent discovery that Velociraptor had feather anchor points o its forelimbs. This means that not only did it have feathers, it had wings. One of the external sources cited is a news article available online, called "Velociraptor Had Feathers". Discoveries made since 1999 (see the article Feathered dinosaurs) show that representatives of every Maniraptoran group had feathers, and there's no reason to think other members found without skin impression evidence lacked them. An example of this kind of thinking: We don't have direct evidence that Smilodon had fur, but because other cats do, we think it probably did. There's no reason to think Smilodon lost its fur and had scales instead. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Ichabodcraniosaurus"

According to Olshevsky's Dinosaur Genera List, "Ichabodcraniosaurus" *is* a nomen nudum, although no synonymy is suggested. Should it be mentioned in the article? Mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Olshevsky is dead wrong here, as has been pointed out numerous times on the DML and elsewhere--Ichabodcraniosaurus was clearly not intended as a new taxon name and can't be a nomen nudum, just as Sue can't be a nomen nudum synonymous with Tyrannosaurus and Elvisaurus can't be one for Cryolophosaurus. Ovoraptor, now that's a nomen nudum. But we're using him as the source, so... *shrug*. Anyway, I added a mention in the History section. will add the cite for coining the nickname shortly. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Raptors didn't have feathers...or wings for that matter....they wern't even birds....not to mention the fact that they were aquatic creatures...preying on eskimos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.109.226 (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

popular culture

This is an outrage! "In popular culture" doesn't contain a single reference to XKCD. I mean, Randall Munroe is obsessed with velociraptors. He's even got a t-shirt for sale at the store. I've seen people wear it. Jurassic Park is well and good, but it's not very recent. -) Fry-kun (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems to have a lot more to do with XKCD than it does with Velociraptor, making it [Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Connective trivia|Connective Trivia of the Second Kind]. Just because multiple topics are involved in a trivia reference (Randall Munroe, XKCD, Velociraptor) does not mean the item is important to all or any of them.

I'm a big XKCD fan myself, and I remember a few comics involving Velociraptor, but it's even less notable that Dinosaur Comics. That is, not very. You're better off pushing for a discussion of Get Fuzzy in Cat ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, inspired by xkcd, there was a "velociraptor awareness day" arranged on 18 April, mainly organised via Facebook; http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=57142076128. Not saying it's a major popular culture happening ut more than 200k people signing up for it should say something. Worth mentioning the velociraptor theme in xkcd and the stuff resulting from it imho, xkcd is among the most popular webcomics and the event referred to above shows that it's for lack of a better word inspiring people. Heck, there were even posters up about Velociraptor Awareness Day both at my university and at various places around in my city. Pegster (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Feathers!

I read that it says it had feathers but as I believe it had none could someone better clarify this for me?

Joey3r (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It had feathers. The proof was found last year in the form of wing-feather anchor points found on an arm bone. This is talked about in the article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I read this but until this dinosaur can be touched and the real skin of the amazing beast can be felt I remain undecided, because how can we know for fact it had feathers if it's 75 -72 million years old, other rocks may have rubbed against it over time or in fossilization and caused it to look like it had feathers.

Joey3r (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's never going to happen, so you'll be undecided forever. I'll stick with what literally every piece of scientific evidence tells me. ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I will be undecided forever then it is better than assuming. Joey3r (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really assuming... you're saying rocks rubbed up against a bone in such a way as to carve exact replica of feather quill knobs into the bone. That would take a one in a trillion miracle to happen. You might as well say the whole skeleton was randomly carved by rocks rubbing together and Velociraptor never even existed. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I see where your coming from even though anything is possible I don't think the hole skeleton was randomly carved but the feathers may have been but being on more than one it more than likely had feathers but we are all entitled to an opinion, sorry for any trouble. Joey3r (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We are all entitled to an opinion on abstract things. Not concrete ones. If my opinion is that lions eat only watermelon, well, that's my opinion, and it's flat-out wrong, period. ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But it is not concrete if it has been dead for 80 million years. Joey3r (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Just because it happened a long time ago doesn't mean hard evidence is more open to opinion than modern evidence. If I find a fossil sea shell, I know it probably housed a mollusk at some point in time, because modern ones do and there's no reason to think prehistoric ones were any different. If I find fossil quill knobs, I know they probably supported feathers for the same reason. If someone's opinion is that maybe in the Cambrian period, seashells housed cats instead of mollusks, well that's their opinion, but it's not based on any facts.

Another thing to remember--on Wikipedia, even if you did have a valid opinion on this, unless you publish it in a scientific paper, we can't change the article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

But I never said to change it I just asked for a better explanation. Joey3r (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it at all possible that the so-called "quill knobs" might be anchor points for collagen frills? I read some articles regarding the Sinosauropteryx and the Psittacosaurus, which were believed to have protofeathers based on similar evidence to the Raptors, but now it's beginning to look like they may have actually had collegen frills instead. The Bald Truth About Dinposaurs Bird-dinosaur link questioned Yeah, I know that the general consensus amongst scientists is currently that raptors had feathers, but is it possible we could mention the possibility that it may have been collagen frills? This is going to sound kind of shallow, but I really hate the way feathered raptors look. They don't look anything like the ones I grew up seeing in movies and with toys, and it just depresses me to see one of my favorite kinds of dinos looking like a giant parakeet. The possibility that the paleontologists mistook collagen frill roots for quill nubs is pretty much all I have left to hold on to. (Timstuff (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Nope. The 'collagen frills' ideas (believed by about 3 people in the world, by the way, with very good press agents) suggests they're just that, frills on the dermis reinforced with collagen. Collagen is soft tissue of the skin only and never involved the bone. It's also more of a web of fibers, so there are no 'points' to anchor, as in the quill of a feather. And we shouldn't mention the frill hypothesis here, because it doesn't apply to maniraptorans. The people who belive birds did not evolve from dinosaurs believe that raptors are not dinosaurs at all, but true birds with feathers.

Sorry if you're disappointed with the modern view. I'm sure there were people who grew up in the 50s disappointed when it turned out T. rex had a horizontal posture instead of vertical Godzilla pose. But you're gonna have to get with the times--I literally read a box of macaroni and cheese yesterday that talked about the fact raptors had feathers. Macaroni and cheese! Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK... question: How do we know that these animals had feathers? Has anyone SEEN them? Or are they the fabrications of art developed by scientists? For all we know, their skin could be white, black, or yellow, with stripes of all the colors. They might have even had fur in some places. You can't look at bones and decide for yourself with speculation that they must have had feathers simply because you believe them to be the intermediate species between birds and mammals.

Wikipedia requires PROVEN, VERIFIED FACTS ONLY (that's different from quoting a scientist and saying that is true when the scientist could be wrong). Of course, that means Evolution should be left out because it isn't a verified, proven thing that can be observed or studied, but nobody's following that knowledge. Colonel Marksman (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what the scientists say in peer reviewed science journals. If you want to have this changed, publish a paper on it, then we can cite it here. Nobody has published any paper disputing the fact they had feathers. Ever. Maybe you can be the first. Until then, it stays. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable to post the fact that they discussed it; its completely wrong to post that is IS a fact rather than a discussion scientists had with their own speculation. You quote it, "So-and-so believes that this species had feathers based on..." as opposed to: "this species had feathers."

But I looked through the article, and the word "may", and "could" show up. What they found were six evenly separated "quill knobs", or what they think are quill knobs. If a feather impression or a feather isn't attached, you can't say for sure. The article being used as a source is not a hard-fact article. As of yet, there has been no evidence that this dinosaur had scales, feathers, or skin. For now, we can only guess. Colonel Marksman (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's the standard, we need to qualify every single statement in the article. Every on.e Every sentence will read like "so and so believes Velociraptor to have had feet, based on the presence of pedal phalanges and metatarsal bones similar to those that form the feet of modern animals. According to these authors, Velociraptor used these feet to walk." Do you see how pointless this is? Quill knobs mean feathers the same way caudal vertebrae mean a tail. Get over it already. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's funny how people don't comment on the Edmontosaurus article, regarding the statment that it has scales, (which are clearly visable in the fossils)......but get in an uproar at the idea of kool raptors having feathers, (which are also clear in fossils of its relatives), [7], [8].... sigh 00:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot's gone on since I've been gone, but how can we tell if the scientists didn't use a computer and put the markings there, technology has advanced so much even a six year old could add it to the picture. Joey3r (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point--in fact, maybe all fossils are hoaxes, made out of plaster or carved out of stone by evil scientists. Is there really any proof dinosaurs existed? Until you find one personally, Joey, to confirm it, we should probably delete all the dinosaur articles. (That was sarcasm in case you didn't pick up on it). Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I did catch on, I'm not an idiot ya know, but has anyone actually been there when they scanned them and watched them scan them, is there any proof that they didn't do it? Film, photographs, etc. Joey3r (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Watch this old documentry, [9]. (Warning, it is old, so there are depictions of non-feathered velociraptors.) It shows some of those evil fossil hunters finding fossils. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I can only agree with it not having feathers in that video, but I still can not believe it had feathers, so if it needs come to it I will find a way to publish a scientific article against it. Joey3r (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This has to be the dumbest conspiracy theory I've ever seen. 86.28.197.238 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)