Talk:Velociraptor/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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.)

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).
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.
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)

Image:Velociraptor skeletal by Scott Hartman.jpg
150px
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)