7 ms·
Jurassic Park Dinosaurs Illustrated with Modern Science
- mpercy 6y agoLovely article. Allosaurus is amazing and terrifying. Very cool factoids about the bunny hands, first time hearing they were incorrectly depicted.
- nkozyra 6y agoI'm still not sure I understand the logic of that; the only rotation I see is in the supine in the 'correct' version. The 'wrong' version doesn't require any rotation at all, even using the illustrations. It's simply lifting the front limbs up, allowing the hands to rest.
- brmgb 6y agoIf you want to bring it in front of you in the zombie like position most people use, you should have a notable rotation of both the elbow and the wrist.
- nkozyra 6y agoThis is true, but I notice similarly if I attempt a hands up position. I should mention how excellent and detailed this article is. Anyone with a young child knows how fascinating they find this stuff and I have some corrections from this article to share with mine.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- maxerickson 6y agoImagine a chicken flapping its wings forward at a cat or something.
- karatestomp 6y agoI remember having two Jurassic Park velociraptor toys as a kid. One had the arms positioned as in the film but, oddly enough, the other got it right, as in the article. Wrong: http://www.toydreams.co.uk/images/jurassicpark/loose/dinosaurs/velociraptor.jpg http://www.toydreams.co.uk/images/jurassicpark/loose/dinosau... Right: http://dinotoyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/JPRaptor-4.jpg http://dinotoyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/JPRaptor-4...
- dwighttk 6y agosecond is better, but you'd want the hands flattened out too, right? Claws extended straight instead of curved in.
- karatestomp 6y agoMaybe, but it's intended to be actively grabbing with them, not at rest (so having them turned correctly is probably just an accident, not a correction of the earlier pose) so the curved-in hands might make sense—I didn't get the impression from the article that their wrists and "fingers" can't bend. The toy would move the arms in a grasping motion when, IIRC, you pulled the legs a certain way. Something like that.
- baxuz 6y agoThat second image just triggered something in my brain. I remember the texture and the smell of the rubber after 20+ years.
- karatestomp 6y agoI remember 2 being harder plastic and 1 being the more rubbery one. Though I could well be wrong. Sold all that stuff years ago except three or four of the bigger ones, which my kids play with.
- brmgb 6y agoNice article indeed. There are actually less feathered species than I expected. It reminded me of one of my favourite article about how dinosaurs are drawn [1]. Two paleoartists draw modern animals like Hollywood draws dinosaurs. It was eyes opening to me. We mostly have skeletons of dinausors but fat and soft tissues play a very important role in how animals look. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/natashaumer/dinosaur-animals https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/natashaumer/dinosaur-an...
- KineticLensman 6y agoYour link is also excellent! I also think - when people ask- "but how did Tyrannosaurs manage with such stupid little arms" - just how well birds can manipulate objects (and in the case of some corvids, tools) with just two feet and a lipless pointy beak. Ever watch a parrot peel the skin off a grape? I've never managed that even with the advantage of opposing thumbs. In fact modern birds are my favourite dinosaur-like things.
- Swizec 6y agoFunfact: birds aren’t dinosaur-like. They are dinosaurs. Theropods specifically
- KineticLensman 6y agoExactly. I love this and sometimes think of the running birds in my garden as little velociraptors (or should I now say Deinonychus?)
- catalogia 6y agoYet for some reason nobody appreciates when I label the leftover chicken in the fridge "dino meat."
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 6y ago
- ncmncm 6y agoTo me the most surprising detail was how scrawny T. rex legs turn out to be.
- 29athrowaway 6y agoDinosaurs could have feathers for thermal reasons. e.g.: to keep baby dinosaurs warm.
- hoorayimhelping 6y agoI actually learned the bit about Raptors and Deinonychus from Calvin and Hobbes. Calvin would never mention velociraptors, but several times mentioned packs of hungry deinonychus. Being a 10 year old boy when Jurassic Park came out and being obsessed with dinosaurs, I looked up what Calvin was talking about and learned that raptors were modeled after this smaller dinosaur, and that they were about the size of a turkey, not the size they are in the movies.
- karatestomp 6y agoIn the book they're specifically Velociraptor antirrhopus (rather than mongoliensis), which, as I understand it, actually was a name for Deinonychus antirrhopus for a while before they settled on the current hame. So they (kinda) really are supposed to be Deinonychus. [EDIT] ah, I see the article covers that.
- mattbk1 6y agoThe larger _Utahraptor_ was discovered while the movie was being written/made, but only the consulting paleontologists knew they were making the raptors so large for the movie.
- bloopernova 6y agoThis article is great! I was completely absorbed the whole time I was reading it :) Thank you to the author and the people who shared it!
- dilippkumar 6y agoThis is my favorite talk on the T-Rex: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f-jD7kQvyPs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f-jD7kQvyPs I stopped being obsessed with dinosaurs 15 years ago. This was a great introduction to how our picture of the T-Rex has advanced since then.
- jiofih 6y agoGreat article. I was almost lost in the first section though, as I’m sure 99% of humans understand “dinosaur” to mean “all those huge ass animals that lived 200 million years ago” and not a particular biological group. The Wikipedia page on dinosaurs does a much better, non-pedantic job at explaining the distinctions.
- atombender 6y agoBut isn't the whole point about this article to be "pedantic" about popular misconceptions?
- phonypc 6y agoHow is the wikipedia page non-pedantic compared to the article? It says the same thing, just in more detail.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoThe thing about the motion sensitive vision was only hinted at in the movie but the book explains it as a result of the frog DNA used to fill in missing sequences.
- apple4ever 6y agoThat's probably the best way to explain the differences from the movie to real life. I think its a decent explanation that holds up upon suspension of disbelief.
- jger15 6y agothe post references this vid of Real Parasaurolophus Calls https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtpSOpUDCb8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtpSOpUDCb8 not loud or anything but spooked my cat
- jvanderbot 6y agoThose "Long necks" probably didn't hold their neck that way, according to this highly informative article: https://svpow.com/2009/05/31/necks-lie/ https://svpow.com/2009/05/31/necks-lie/
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y agoThe article discusses pretty recent developments, so I'm trusting OP over a 2009 piece.
- jvanderbot 6y agoMore than recent / old, I think the neck posture debate is still active.