HOME | DD
abekowalski — Psuedoraptor
Published: 2012-01-21 20:09:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 3202; Favourites: 33; Downloads: 24
Redirect to original
Description
This is a diagram of a Velociraptor (Deinonychus) antirrhopus nublarensis sensu paul that I did up for the "Label the Pseudosaurs" game on JPL.Related content
Comments: 33
love Raptor Island, Carnosaur series, and its retooling as Raptor. can never find the films to watch though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Apparently jurassic park raptors where bulletproof and deinonychus where 5 foot high...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Funniest thing is, slow-ack humans can ALWAYS outrun cheetah-speed raptors.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Instead of "Peudosaurs," how about D.I.N.O--Dinosaurs In Name Only?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How about we call it a Retrosaur and leave it at that. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm going to be working on my full Pseudosaur piece this week. Do you mind if I use some of (all of?) your points. You'll be given credit for your help, of course.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nope, just remember to give credit where it's due!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very nice drawing and description. Very accurate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And you know that because...?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
more preserved fossils of velociraptors found had feathers surrounding and on the the body. they are more bird-like than reptile-like in anatomy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
None of the fossils had feathers surrounding it. The speculation that had feathers comes from a controversial theory based on the so called "quill knobs" on his ulna. Mind that those knobs are absent to the modern birds. Also mind that the theory about the feathered dinosaurs comes from a generalization of the traits of specific species and not the genus itself. As for the bird like anatomy, you are absolutely right but that doesn't mean anything in this case. Same internal anatomy doesn't necessary means same external characteristics. Mind that prim-apes and humans share almost the same internal anatomy, but thing how many different traits we have. Body hair is one of them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What does that suppose to be?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh, nice arguments you have there, how old are you, five?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
But it is the truth actually.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Okay, Mr. evidence-seeker, here: [link] [link] There! An early Microraptorian, which belongs in the same superfamily, dromaeosauridae-the same family containing Velociraptor mongoliensis, Utahraptor ostrommaysorum, Deinonychus antirrpohus, and others, that displays feathered imprints, IN THE ROCK.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First of all, I didn't deny the existence of feathered species of the so called "raptors", I just said that not all of them was feathered. Also I made my point by referring to others genus-species un-similarities, just as the Homo family. An other of these examples is the Equidae family, which contains the horse and the zebra. Now, spot the similar and the different traits and characteristics and you'll get the idea of what I'm talking about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm afraid using mammalian examples as a metaphor for sauropsids is not going to work. Mammalia are a lot less diverse than sauropsids, which include modern reptilia, aves, and their fossil ancestor-including dinosauria. Genetically, you and I are closer to a horse, than a common garter snake is to a bluejay. Let's take the current superfamily under debate: dromaeosauridae. There are no animals like them today. The closest we can compare them to are modern sauropsida, more specifically: certain birds and some reptiles. As birds are a direct line from dinosauria, and later animals of this superorder have been proven to have been feathered since the advent of coelursauria. This implies that most, if not all, of the descendents from the first coelursaurians would be feathered, or at least gad rudimentary feathering.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mammalian examples are not going to work? You know of course that mammals evolved from the archosaurs at the Late Triassic. And they used the same orifice to urinate, defecate and reproduce – as lizards and birds also do, plus they used to lay eggs which were leathery and uncalcified, like those of lizards, turtles and crocodilians. Evolution is not making exceptions my friend. What applies for one organism can apply for all.
You claim that birds are a direct line from dinosaurs - mind the time paradox here. But for the debate's sake I'll go with you on that. What is that supposed to mean? That just because modern birds have feathers, all their ancestors had also? Of course not. That is called evolution. Evolution that comes form mutations, which comes from so many factors (inbreeding, climatic changes, survival, mating, feeding and so on). Do you know any animal that hasn't evolved the last 2 million years? Or any animal that shared the exact same features as it's ancestor? They are very few, I assure you. And they have changed, even a little. They have evolved. So imagine a kind that was dominating the planet for 200 million years. We humans can't even understand how much it is. How many mutations they had, how much they evolved.
Finally, sauropsidae include reptiles as well. Were is the "reptilian" traits of dinosaurs? Certainly they weren't cold-blooded, they hadn't movement-based vision, and according to your theories they hadn't scaled skin. So.. any thoughts?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"mammals evolved from the archosaurs"
What?! No! Just, no! Mammals did not evolve from archosaurs, where the hell did you read that?! Mammals may have evolved at about the same time as archosaurs, but not from them! Archosaurs are sauropspids; mammals are synapsids.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes, but using the excuse that the metaphor fits just because they branched off at someplace is like saying humans are related to fish just because they branched off at some point. If you look at is as relative, sure verything is related to everything, but some things are more related to others. In this case, dinosaurs are more related to their fellow sauropsids such as birds (which are modern dinosaurs) and reptiles than they are to mammals. Specifically, the avian dinosaurs of which we are currently debating. By the time dromaeosaurs evolved, mammals were no longer analogous to sauropsids. Birds, evolved along with dinosaurs. Evolution isn't a ladder, it's a tree, with many different branches. While some species evolved into birds, others stayed more archaic in body structure than others, so effectively birds evolved along side dinosaurs, just like other apes evolved along side homonids. Features remain relatively the same over the eons, you said that yourself. The ceolacanth still features the same reletive body plan as modern fish. If you care to go even further, lung fish and horseshoe crabs haven't evolved at all since the mesozoic. Let's go back even further, to croodilians and sharks. These animals predate the dinosaurs, and their body structure is relatively the same. This leads me to where the the reptilian portion of dinosaurs come from. Dinosaurs evolved from early reptiles. The later ones, particularly Cretaceous animals, are the ones that are famous for having avian features. Early dromeaosaurs, which are the most likely candidate for bird ancestors, are the ones that have the largest amounts of avian features.
But look at the sauropds. These feature very little, if none, avian features. But by the time of the Mid to late Cretaceous, there are very few sauropods species left, while Ornithischian herbivores dominate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"But by the time of the Mid to late Cretaceous, there are very few sauropods species left, while Ornithischian herbivores dominate."
Actually, recent research suggests that during the Maastrictian, the sauropods are actually increasing in disparity, while the ceratopsians and hadrosaurs are declining at the time: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's the point. It's not velociraptor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1