Never the same species. But back in the late 80s it was proposed that they were of the same genus. That's the next step up above species in the levels of classification. the scientific community never thought that was accurate so it didn't stick. But no one ever said they were the same species, ever. Not in any serious scientific matters anyway. Just the genus thing. Though what you quoted was correct in that the dinosaur called "velociraptor" in the Jurassic Park films was actually the deinonychus. I already made a post here about that. It never had anything to do with what we know as strictly being a velociraptor now. It always was the deinonychus. It was called velociraptor in the film mainly because it was supposed to be a theme park attraction and they simply went with what they thought was a better name and in common speech it's more common to use the genus name for an animal anyway instead of the species name. It technically was a unique species created specifically by the Jurassic Park scientists. Its full name is Velociraptor nublarensis. Though it was originally called the Velociraptor antirrhopus. The tiny velociraptor people always bring up was the Velociraptor mongoliensis. The deinonychus's full name was Deinonychus antirrhopus. Note that it is the same as the other name for the Jurassic Park Velociraptor with just a different genus.
Dinosaurs, Because Dinosaurs, That's Why.
- Thread starter AncientPoe
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2015
You can't arrive in a thread touting an unambiguously incorrect claim, provide zero support for your own point of view while accusing others of fraudulent thinking for supposedly providing no evidence (i.e. the same thing you are doing), and then cite some irrelevant major in an unrelated field as a proxy for authority on a topic. As someone with a more advanced scientific degree and demonstrable background of empirical research expertise than you, I am thoroughly unimpressed.
Ok everyone, "Me!" has withdrawn from the conversation. When I saw that the number of replies in this thread had ballooned from 10 to 40+, I got really excited because I thought I'd managed to spark excitement, interest and education. Imagine my disappointment when it turned out to be (almost) nothing but waring. For everyone left here who wants to just discuss dinosaurs, please stop replying to the irrelevant debate.
Now, I believe that someone a while back mentioned their surprise and curiosity about dinosaurs and feathers? Let me hand out a few cool factoids there.
First, yes, we now know that some dinosaurs had feathers. This trait was first heavily contested, because people didn't want to change their view of dinosaurs as looking like reptiles. Then, once it became more widely accepted, opinion started to swing wildly in the other direction. Suddenly people were putting feathers on all sorts of dinosaurs, usually in the wrong way. So let's go over a few famous cases.
We now know Velociraptor was entirely feathered. Specimens of this animal are found predominantly in China and Mongolia. Quill knobs can be found in bones all over their bodies. Quill Knobs are little holed knobs in the bones where ligaments that attach to feathers attach. However, velociraptor was in no way capable of a flight stroke, so it's entirely possible they were used for thermoregulation and not flight. At this time in earth's history, powered flight was exclusive to the Pterosaurs. Pterosaur wings are built very differently from the wings of modern birds and bats (the only extant animals to be capable of a Flight Stroke).
We also know that Tyrannosaurus Rex did not have feathers. This was one dinosaur that artists were quick to start re-imagining with feathers once the idea gained more acceptance, but that is not the case. However, a few specimens have been found with evidence of a partial feathered covering. There are two popular theories as to why. The first is that feathers were starting to emerge as an evolutionary trait at the eve of the destruction of the dinosaurs. This theory is weak, as it doesn't much more than speculation behind it. There is no evidence of an ecological or meteorological shift prior to the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event, so it's unlikely that T. Rex would have needed them. Also, unlike velociraptor, a much smaller theropod, Tyrannosaurus would have been capable of gigantothermy. This is a thermoregulation method somewhere in between ectothermy and endothermy (being cold-blooded or warm-blooded). As an animal gets larger, it's mass grows disproportionate to it's surface area. As a result, there is less surface to vent heat from, and more biomass committing cellular respiration and producing heat. If anything, thanks to its size, T. Rex would have needed help shedding heat, not keeping it (and feathers would not have been any real help here). The second theory is that they had feathers when they were young, and molted them prior to adolescence (or at least their first real growth spurt, around 3 years of age). it's very hard to find juvenile specimens. However if young rexes possessed feathers, they're more likely to have been short, soft, non-rigid downy feathers, and most likely have been a drab color. Just picture that, a cute li'l fluffy-baby T. Rex!
Also, theropods are the only group to have ever shown evidence of feathers. They do not appear in any other dinosaur species. It is largely believed that Theropods (bipedal, carnivorous dinosaurs) are the only saurian ancestors to modern birds.
Now, I believe that someone a while back mentioned their surprise and curiosity about dinosaurs and feathers? Let me hand out a few cool factoids there.
First, yes, we now know that some dinosaurs had feathers. This trait was first heavily contested, because people didn't want to change their view of dinosaurs as looking like reptiles. Then, once it became more widely accepted, opinion started to swing wildly in the other direction. Suddenly people were putting feathers on all sorts of dinosaurs, usually in the wrong way. So let's go over a few famous cases.
We now know Velociraptor was entirely feathered. Specimens of this animal are found predominantly in China and Mongolia. Quill knobs can be found in bones all over their bodies. Quill Knobs are little holed knobs in the bones where ligaments that attach to feathers attach. However, velociraptor was in no way capable of a flight stroke, so it's entirely possible they were used for thermoregulation and not flight. At this time in earth's history, powered flight was exclusive to the Pterosaurs. Pterosaur wings are built very differently from the wings of modern birds and bats (the only extant animals to be capable of a Flight Stroke).
We also know that Tyrannosaurus Rex did not have feathers. This was one dinosaur that artists were quick to start re-imagining with feathers once the idea gained more acceptance, but that is not the case. However, a few specimens have been found with evidence of a partial feathered covering. There are two popular theories as to why. The first is that feathers were starting to emerge as an evolutionary trait at the eve of the destruction of the dinosaurs. This theory is weak, as it doesn't much more than speculation behind it. There is no evidence of an ecological or meteorological shift prior to the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event, so it's unlikely that T. Rex would have needed them. Also, unlike velociraptor, a much smaller theropod, Tyrannosaurus would have been capable of gigantothermy. This is a thermoregulation method somewhere in between ectothermy and endothermy (being cold-blooded or warm-blooded). As an animal gets larger, it's mass grows disproportionate to it's surface area. As a result, there is less surface to vent heat from, and more biomass committing cellular respiration and producing heat. If anything, thanks to its size, T. Rex would have needed help shedding heat, not keeping it (and feathers would not have been any real help here). The second theory is that they had feathers when they were young, and molted them prior to adolescence (or at least their first real growth spurt, around 3 years of age). it's very hard to find juvenile specimens. However if young rexes possessed feathers, they're more likely to have been short, soft, non-rigid downy feathers, and most likely have been a drab color. Just picture that, a cute li'l fluffy-baby T. Rex!
Also, theropods are the only group to have ever shown evidence of feathers. They do not appear in any other dinosaur species. It is largely believed that Theropods (bipedal, carnivorous dinosaurs) are the only saurian ancestors to modern birds.
- Joined
- May 7, 2015
Is there a double-like button? 
I admit when I first started hearing about feathered dinosaurs, it gave me some cool mental images. I'll keep those in mind.
I admit when I first started hearing about feathered dinosaurs, it gave me some cool mental images. I'll keep those in mind.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2015
Snip
Going by that logic of yours, it seems that we have ourselves a dunce-hat wearer.
Back on topic, I believe that while a bit on the farfetched end, the idea that the Troodon would have evolved into the Dinosauroid is a very interesting idea. They are said to have had highly developed set of eyes and intelligence, in a way the Troodon could be said to be somewhat of a primate of dinosaurs. Had the dinosaurs prevailed in the stead of Homo sapiens, they may have had become the conqueror of Earth.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2015
If you look at the length of the reign of dinosaurs, compared with the comparatively tiny length of the reign of homo sapiens, and then keep in mind that dinosaurs were undone by a random natural event whereas humans are likely going to lead to their own demise, I don't think it's a stretch to say dinosaurs were the conquerors of Earth. Although I understand you're talking more specifically about intelligence, ability to manipulate the environment, etc., which dinosaurs obviously didn't do to nearly the extent of humans....but perhaps that is an argument against the level of intelligence of humans for long-term species survival.
