Talk:Deinonychus/Archive 2

So what happened to those sketches?

I notice the puffin/chicken is still featured on this page, vs. some of the more traditional-looking dipictions such as those sketches above. It's been months since that was posited, so what happened?

Addendum, I thought the displays at the Natural History Museum in my native San Diego made quite a convincing argument for the "feathered dinosaur" argument. [1] MalikCarr 23:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The more "traditional" sketches are not scientifically accurate, and violate the rules for image inclusion of WP:Dinosaurs. The bird-like drawing is accurate both in anatomy and in extent of feathers, based on what's known of other dromaeosaurids like Microraptor, Sinornithosaurus, etc. The model you linked too is ok, but I don't like it much aesthetically--it looks unnatural, like a 'traditional' Deinonychus with feathers glued on a bit haphazardly (which is exactly what it is, by the way--I remember a story a few years ago about the 'feathering' of those old deinonych models). There's also no evidence that any dromaeosaurids lacked feathers on the head/face, and both known relevant feather impressions from this family have them, but that's more an artistic decision.

I'd love to see some pics of the life-sized Therizinosaurus they have in that display! :O Dinoguy2 03:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Running speed

The section on the running speed of Deinonychus cites the animal's low foot-tibia ratio when saying that it probably wasn't particularly fast. But what if Deinonychus was an ambush predator? I give the example of modern ambush predators: the big cats. These animals do not have the sort of foot-tibia ratio that would identify them as being particularly fast, but they can achieve the same speeds over short distances that more obviously fleet-footed animals such as ostriches and gazelles can. An extreme example is the cheetah - you wouldn't guess it could run at 60 miles per hour simply by looking at its foot-tibia ratio. The low ratio Deinonychus does not necessarily preclude it from being a fast runner (at least over short distances) - this should be mentioned in the article. 209.244.31.53 20:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, but it would be original research. The portion describing its slow speed is from a published source. Also, any source making this argument would have to account for the differences in locomotion between bipeds and quadrupeds. There are probably different leg ratio/speed correlations involved for big cats, etc. Dinoguy2 07:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Deinonychus (6 votes)

Nominated February 24th, 2007;

Support:

1. .Cas Liber 05:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
2. M&NCenarius 22:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Dropzink 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)]
4. Spawn Man 07:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Dinoguy2 03:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
6. ArthurWeasley 17:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments: Pros: loads of potential information, its role in the evolution of thought on warm-blooded dinosaurs is really interesting. Some nice images Cons:Needs alot of work and could be considered too close to Velociraptor I guess. Cas Liber 05:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Jurassic park raptors based on it, vital in evolution & warm blooded debates. An essential dinosaur that needs a proper article... "Oodles" of info too. ;) Spawn Man 07:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Theropod bias! I mean um... one of my personal favorites ;) Dinoguy2 03:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Righto then, a to-do list

OK, I feel a good thing to do would be try and elaborate some more on some of the controversy around the description of the critter...anyone have Hot-blooded dinosaurs? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

While we're speaking of to-do lists, this article is missing... well, a lot. I've just added very short sections for Description, Popular culture, and External links, the See also section was blank, and there are no Diet, Classification, Origins, or Discovery and species sections. Basically, this article is only 1/4th complete (almost no references, and missing half the sections our articles normally have). Firsfron of Ronchester 10:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, um, yeah, those too.......(thanks...) ;) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Adrian J. Desmond's Hot Blooded Dinosaurs? I have a copy of that, which citations do you need confirmed? Mistyschism 13:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm...cool. just going through it now. If you can see any obvious refs from book go right ahead.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 13:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: Bluelinked Cloverly Formation...but stubby as all get-out...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 13:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Skull image

I'm not sure what to make of the status of the skull image currently in the taxobox. That particular replica is a commercial product available from here.[2] Using Google, I also found that photo and other photos of the same model listed on a number of stock photo sites. Does any of this impact the validity of the public domain tag, or the inclusion of the photo in the article? Dinoguy2 09:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This will need looking into; thanks for catching this potential problem. The uploader was active as of January, so there is a chance we will have luck leaving a message on his talk page. However, his e-mail isn't enabled, so there may be no other way to contact him. Given the evidence, if more information isn't forthcoming, the image could be deleted. On a (completely unrelated) side-note, I hope things are going well for you in Australia. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really fussed about it. We coud ditch it if there's a doubt and use the photo of the skeleton halfway down the page.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't leave many images. The current JP image in the pop culture section also has to be replaced, because it does not appear to be an unmodified screen shot (it's chopped). I just added it as a place-holder until we find a more usable JP image. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Aerodynamic bones?

"Paleontologist John Ostrom's study of Deinonychus in the late 1960s revolutionised the way we think about dinosaurs ... Ostrom noted the aerodyamic bones and and stiffened tendons..." -- I don't think that "aerodyamic" is the word we want here (I could be wrong). "Pneumatized"? (Check the spelling, also.) -- Writtenonsand 07:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Or simply lightly built/bird-like, which is less technical. Dinoguy2 07:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Illos back to haunt us again

We currently have two life-restoration illos in the article.

1) Conway's is IMHO really Neornithe-oid, but apparently wiser heads here are convinced that it's adequately accurate. I would, however, like the caption to specify more exactly just where Conway did get that plumage from. (Scorpionman's puffin? - Which is, after all, a "related species" ...)

2) We also have a "Velociraptor" built by InGen and featured in Jurassic Park. After the dogfights here defending the accuracy of Conway from its critics, IMHO we should be really embarrassed to include this, unless we include a caption in huge caps: "FICTIONAL INACCURATE DEPICTION OF A 'VELOCIRAPTOR' BEARING ONLY LIMITED RESEMBLANCE TO A DEINONYCHUS."

-- Writtenonsand 07:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Aww I think your latter description is a bit unkind, I thought it wasn't too bad really (pre feathers 'n'all....) :) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 08:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's wrong with the plumage. It has primary feathers on the wings and tail, exactly like all known feather impressions from dromies, troodontids, etc etc etc. It has slightly more primitive feathers on the body, which are even a different color, with rounded contours/breast area feathers that match Microraptor, Jinfengopteryx, Archeopteryx, etc etc. What exactly is Neornithine about it? It's not like it has an extensive beak or a fan tail in place of a frond tail (Chiappe and his useful descriptors!). Seriously. I'm really kind of tired of people criticizing this drawing without presenting any actual arguments, which makes it very frustrating to respond. I agree about the JP image--yes, the raptors in the book were meant to be Deinonychus, but I could swear I read a quote from Speilberg (maybe in the "Making Of..." book?) that, since the synonymy was dead about as soon as it was published, he went with Velociraptor for the film because it had a cooler name. Either way, the innacuracy of the models in JP are described on

Velociraptor, so maybe a quick mention and a pointer to that article would be enough. Dinoguy2 09:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. :-) I can believe that you're tired of this, and I didn't intend my comments as "criticizing without presenting any actual arguments" - as I wrote, "apparently wiser heads here are convinced that it's adequately accurate" - "wiser" intended respectfully and without sarcasm. To rephrase my point:

"Wow! It looks so modern-birdlike! But apparently it did look that "birdlike"! But apparently some other people are skeptical about whether it really did look that birdlike! And the caption says, "Plumage based on related species." So how do we make clear to the skeptics that their skepticism is unwarranted and that this reconstruction really should be accepted as accurate?"

Not only do extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, but when presenting apparently extraordinary claims, it's probably a good idea to show why aren't really as extraordinary as they seem. I'm not criticizing the reconstruction, I'm asking that critics be disarmed right from the start with a clear justification of this "surprising" image. Thanks! -- Writtenonsand 14:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I got the feathers from the fossils (!), informed by comparison to modern birds, but not one in particular. Again, feathers from the fossils, as dinoguy has pointed out (thanks Matt, I wouldn't have had the patience!). John.Conway 13:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for your reply! So we can change the current caption, which reads, "Plumage based on related species" - I.e., the plumage is simply what we see in Deinonychus specimens? (And somebody is probably going to ask "Which specimens?"). Thanks again. -- Writtenonsand 14:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It was based largely on Cryptovolans as it was known as at the time I drew the picture (2002 I think), with elements from Sinornithosaurus. It has proven to be pretty accurate in light of more recent discoveries, so I haven't had to revise it since then. I am surprised at the reaction it's had here, but I think it's almost entirely from two people -- Kaz and Scorpionman -- who don't seem to know an awful lot about biology, but have very fixed ideas nonetheless. I don't think the image needs a lot of qualification and defending, but if you'd like to change the caption I have no objections. John.Conway 17:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"I am surprised at the reaction it's had here, but I think it's almost entirely from two people -- Kaz and Scorpionman -- who don't seem to know an awful lot about biology." -- Newsweek / MSNBC March 31, 2007: "Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/ -- You may only have heard from Kaz and Scorpionman on this page, but they sure aren't the only ones out there who are leery about "dinobirds". To repeat: Many people will find this idea controversial or hard to accept. We have to make things clear for them. That's all. -- Writtenonsand 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This debate was settled a year ago, by folks who know what they are talking about. I'm not even sure the users who supported a feather-free image are still active, so I don't think it's an issue. If there is new evidence supporting the idea that dromaeosaurs didn't have feathers, that can be presented in the article, with an appropriate picture. Until then, Wikipedia's policy on Original Research applies: "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material." No reputable source was provided above, a full year ago when it was requested, so there's no need to resurrect this debate. I recently added a JP image to this article, but it had been present in this article previously (a couple of months ago), and was only moved out when the pop culture section was moved to a new article. The Velociraptor in JP, were, as far as I know, based on Deinonychus, so it seems to me a valid usage of the image (though the image itself may be a copyvio because it's been altered from the original). Firsfron of Ronchester 19:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey no, it wasn't me who didn't like it! (the above entries are close together)...now we've had Prehistoric Park and The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs both....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 20:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hope I'm not beating a dead Deinonychus here, but just to be clear, I wasn't supporting any feather-free image (in fact I criticized the Jurassic Park feather-free image). I'm simply saying that we need to make clear that we/dinosaurologists have excellent reason to believe that Deinonychus really did have such a modern-birdlike appearance. That's pretty much it. (Man. Mucho heat to try to get a little light. :-) ) The JP Velociraptor/Deinonychus image belongs in this article only in the way that Waterhouse Hawkins' reconstruction belongs in Iguanodon or Zallinger's would belong in Tyrannosaurus -- "Of historical interest only". Have a good one, all. -- Writtenonsand 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. The only thing that threw me off was your opinion that it looked neronithine, which struck me as very specific. I guess I've been conditioned to over react to anything involving images like that ;) As for a discussion in the article, the problem is that I don't know of any sources that discuss that sort of thing in relation to Deinonychus specifically, just dromaeosaurs in general. Any write-up on the new (not really, over 10 years old now) feather issue would be exactly the same on each dromaeosaur article, which is a problem. It should (and is, to an extent) discussed at Dromaeosauridae. I wouldn't mind discussing this on Deinonychus, but lets keep it to this, Dromaeosauridae, and maybe Velociraptor (probably the most well-known dromies) and leave it at that. If anybody wants to go ahead and incorporate this, you could probably pick and modify text from Dromaeosauridae and Velociraptor that should cover it. Dinoguy2 01:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem -- like I said above, I can empathize! "Any write-up on the ... feather issue would be exactly the same on each dromaeosaur article, which is a problem." Hmm, an article on Feathers in the Dromaeosauridae? Too specific? I dunno. Maybe not. And we already have Feathered dinosaurs and Dinosaur-bird connection. -- Writtenonsand 12:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a new article would be too specific. You know what I think was really problem with the image (given that the extent of the feathers is no different to a lot of other images out there these days): it doesn't look scary enough. That doesn't warrant a new article or a significant defence in my opinion, but as I said, I have no objections to someone(else) being more explicit. John.Conway 13:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation again

I'm afraid the pronunciation given for this dinosaur is a little out of whack. What is presented as a phonetic transcription (of an unspecified English dialect) appears to be a phonemic transcription of a general American pronunciation. I checked that dinosaur pronunciation guide website again, to confirm this (their transcription - unfortunately in a non-intuitive non-IPA format - is "die-NON-i-kus"). The main problem here is with the vowel in the second syllable: the above website shows it as "O", which, if you look up their explanation here, represents the vowel in American English "tot" (which they refer to as "short o"). This is realised phonetically in modern General American as [ɑ], and not as [a], as you can see at IPA chart for English, which furthermore reveals that GA has actually merged two phonemes - the /a:/ phoneme of "father" and the /o/ phoneme of "not" - whence an explanation for the misleading transcription given in this article (which results in a completely ridiculous pronunciation if attempted by a British or Australian speaker). About the best solution I can think of here is to recast the pronunciation to a phonetic representation that avoids the American vowel merger while still remaining comprehensible to those speaking the major dialects of English, which would make it [daɪ.ˈnɒn.ɪ.kəs] (this is actually an RP transcription, which is not my native dialect, but has the virtue of being used as a default quasi-phonemic transcription by several dictionaries; note also the shift to correct syllable structure and the change to the unstressed [ɪ] in the third syllable).

On a broader note, is there someone active in the dinosaur wikiproject who knows IPA and can interpret these pronunciations? I'm willing to assist in future if there is a need for this, but can't guarantee timeliness, I'm afraid. Thylacoleo 02:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We certainly should have somebody on board who can understand IPA... it might as well be a different language. I can't make heads or tails of it. Also, remember that there are no standard pronunciations for dinosaur names. remember hearing that Ostrom, who named it, had some odd way of pronouncing the name different from the usual standard listed on the DOL site. Dinoguy2 06:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

IPA is not that difficult in principle, as it involves a strict one sound:one symbol correspondence (although I'll admit the phonetic/phonemic distinction sometimes muddies the waters here); the major stumbling block for most people seems to be the need to learn a number of new symbols (and perhaps a fear that this means it's more complicated than it actually is?). Of course, I could be biased in that respect... And there are indeed "standard" pronunciations of dinosaur names - they are precisely those pronunciations that most native English speakers use when talking about them. (How else could the DOL site come up with its pronunciation guide?) That the original namer of a genus had some strange ideas about how ancient Greek/Latin morphemes should be rendered into modern English is, happily, entirely irrelevant. Thylacoleo 06:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"And there are indeed "standard" pronunciations of dinosaur names - they are precisely those pronunciations that most native English speakers use when talking about them." --- I disagree, I've come across an awful lot of variation in the way people pronounce dinosaur names, and not just relatively obscure ones. Old standards like Diplodocus are pronounced in wildly different ways: DIP-lo-DOH-kus, DIE-PLOH-dih-kus, DIE-PLOD-ih-KUS, etc. Seems to me that with some dinosaurs, there are as many pronunciations as there are people.John.Conway 10:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, as has been pointed out on the DML a few times, the "standard" English pronunciations don't always match the real pronunciation in Greek/Latin. For example, most English speakers say -saurus as SORE-us, rather than the more correct SAUR-oos. Most people say Centrosaurus as sent-ro-SORE-us, rather than the more correct kent-ro-SAUR-oos (which is actually why Kentrosaurus got its name). It's funny, but after anyone goes to a conference or SVP or something, there are always stories about how everyone has different ways of pronouncing the names. Oh, and I apologize, I must have been thinking of a different case, because Ostrom apparently said it the way I do -- die-NON-i-kus. Here's a thread with some IPA, which is good overall since it's about varying pronunciation [3] Dinoguy2 11:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The DOL site is nice because all the pronunciations are collected together, and are actually published (so no Original Research). Unfortunately, as both John and Dinoguy state, there is no "standard" pronunciation, and we don't pronounce things the correct Greek/Latin way anyway. Many people seem to pronounce Deinonychus Die-NON-ee-kus, but how many people pronounce Mononychus similarly? The only reason Kentrosaurus and Centrosaurus are both valid names is because they aren't pronounced the same, when "classical" pronunciation would make them homophones. Also: I'm clueless when it comes to IPA, and we still have hundreds of dinosaur articles which don't have any pronunciation scheme at all, so you've got your work cut out for you. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're (plural) getting confused between linguistic description and prescription (try reading linguistic prescription for a quick run-down on the difference). While the spelling of a word is a suitable case for prescriptivism (as written language is an artificial entity), when it comes to pronunciation, the only workable course of action is description. A "standard" pronunciation is indeed what most native English speakers use or find acceptable, and more than one pronunciation may be considered "standard" - think of the two ways of pronouncing "either". This works for dinosaur names too, as they are regular words like any other. If Diplodocus is indeed pronounced in multiple ways, then it's okay to list those alternative pronunciations, provided that we follow the general Wikipedia principle of having those pronunciations properly sourced, and not giving undue weight to pronunciations used by a small minority. The DOL site seems a reasonable source for dinosaur name pronunciations, although I would temper it where possible with other sources (such as the OED). The Greek/Latin matter is a red herring in all of this - we no more are required to give the "correct" Latin pronunciation than we are to give the French pronunciation or Swahili pronunciation. Thylacoleo 23:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"provided that we follow the general Wikipedia principle of having those pronunciations properly sourced," This is the problem. Other than the DOL, I don't know of any sources for dinosaur pronunciation, aside from a few children's books. One or two papers do provide a preferred pronunciation (e.g. Suuwassea, for which the authors provide "SOO-oo-WAH-see-uh", but no IPA). Most (all?) published pronunciations are in this non-IPA format, so I think following the DOL would be our best bet, but any conversion to IPA would then be original research, wouldn't it? Dinoguy2 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

But DOL is an acceptable source for this, so I don't see the problem (now if there were no DOL site, then things would be difficult). There are other sources, which do give IPA pronunciations, the only problem with them is that they tend to be selective and only have the more well known genera. The OED online, for instance, has both "iguanodon" and "diplodocus" (it gives - in IPA - two different pronunciations for each), but not "deinonychus", a gap which is filled by the Oxford Dictionary of Pronunciation (which, however, doesn't have "mononychus"). Conversion of ad hoc pronunciation guides into IPA can only be considered original research if the guide didn't give a key to explain what their symbols mean. Fortunately the DOL does have such a key, so the task is as trivial as would be converting Russian from Cyrillic into the Latin alphabet using the standard transcription scheme. In contrast I can't reliably convert your "SOO-oo-WAH-see-uh" into IPA (although I could make an educated guess), because you haven't told me what sounds you mean by "WAH", and so on. The real problem is in ensuring the phonetic transcription is broad enough that it adequately covers the various major dialects of English without going into too much phonetic detail. The OED does a reasonable job of this (and it would appear the DOL makes enough distinctions to also work well - for instance, despite being based on an "American" pronunciation, they've avoided the GA /a:/~/o/ merger), while the Oxford Dictionary of Pronunciation errs on the side of phonetic detail. Thylacoleo 05:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem the discussants here are having is one that I've also seen in astronomical articles where names of classical origin are at issue. I'd like to make a couple of points. One is that while the pronunciations used are not correct for Greek and Latin as spoken in the ancient world, they are also not random; they are based on the conventional English pronunciation of Latin as continuously used down to the 19th (and in some places, early 20th) century, with a pedigree dating back to the Norman Conquest. As that pronunciation is no longer commonly taught, people often get confused when confronted with unfamiliar classical words that are not part of their everyday vocabulary. However, there actually are rules that will get you from the spelling to the proper pronunciation(s), as long as all the elements of the name are in fact classical. (Sorry no help on Suuwassea).

A further point is that while there are sometimes variable pronunciations of a given name -- based both on the speaker's dialect and personal preference (in the latter case, comparable to whether one chooses to pronounce "direction" die-rection, de-rection or duh-rection) there are also wrong pronunciations -- wrong in this case meaning not merely uncommon in usage, but being at odds with pronunciation conventions dating back over two hundred years, and rooted in historical facts about the elements of the word in question. For instance, whether to pronounce die-PLOD-uh-kus or duh-PLOD-uh-kus is a matter of preference (quite comparable to the pronunciations of "direction" above), and neither is more correct (both being variant evolutions of the same form), DIP-loh-DOH-kus is certainly wrong, because it puts the stress on the wrong syllable. Diplodocus must be Diplódocus and not Díplodócus, because the stress in a Latin word of that shape has to be on the antepenultimate syllable; and it has to be on that syllable, because in Greek, the first o in dokos is short. Now, there's no police office that enforces these conventions determining stress and pronunciation; but they do exist, and at least at the time Diplodocus was named, they were still known and used; why shouldn't people today be aware of them?

Both Deinonychus and Mononychus should be stressed on the antepenultimate syllable, btw. The first syllable of Deinonychus can be die- or di-, as you choose. Dino Nikus is right out. :) -saurus should be pronounced to rhyme with "Taurus" (which btw does not rhyme with "torus" for all speakers). RandomCritic 23:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Feathers

Am I the only one getting a bit tired of seeing every, single therapod depicted with big plumes of feathers now? While I'm willing to accept that some of them had feathers, I think it's a bit much to assume they all looked like brightly-colored birds with teeth and claws. It strikes me as oddly bandwagon-like that as soon as the possibility of any dinosaurs having had feathers arose, ALL the therapods did because of their relation to birds. That's just my take on it, though. Magicflyinlemur 08:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's called "phylogenetic bracketing" - it's 100% reasonable to assume that if birds have feathers, and primitive coelurosaurs like Sinosauropteryx had feathers, then their common ancestor and everything descended from it would also have feathers -- unless they were lost at some point. This may have been the case with very large coelurosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus, but for most other theropods in that group it is rather unlikely, especially in something as modestly-sized as Deinonychus. In other words it's not a "bandwagon", it's just knowing a thing or two about how evolution works. Kotengu 小天狗 08:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a religious man, but just let me say: OH PLEASE GOD NOT AGAIN! John.Conway 08:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Really. I think people should really check out the previous discussions here before making the same arguments ad naseum. Dinoguy2 11:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's a bit hyperbolic to say "every single theropod" is depicted with feathers, since I reckon around half our theropod images on Wikipedia are featherless. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you were going to put feathers on any dinosaur, troodonts, raptors, oviraptors, therizinosaurs, and to a lesser extent the other maniraptorans would be the ones to do so. While it is perfectly likely that all dinosaurs had feathers in some form or at some point in their lives, seeing how pterosaurs have "fur", the coelurosaurs and their near kin are the only ones that we can put feathers on with a lot of certanty. However, we have at least two raptor species (add more if you know them) Microraptor and Velociraptor, with definitive feather evidence.Metalraptor (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Grellet-Tinner and Makovicky, 2006

I have a PDF of this article, discussing an egg found with AMNH 3015. Since odds are I'm not going to get to work much on it, if someone would like to write it up, just ask me for the article. J. Spencer 02:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, I'd love a copy. I have a paper to finish for tomorrow but I'll be free for a while afterwards, so I'll be able to work on the article a bit. Dinoguy2 03:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing! We were having trouble with your email and my email last time, though, so maybe we'll need a middleman. J. Spencer 04:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd give it a try and see what happens--last time I had severe problems with my net connection which have since been fixed. The javasript Gmail stuff didn't seem to like that very much ;) Dinoguy2 07:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You could throw it my way too, if it isn't too troublesome. I'm on Dracontes[AT]gmail[DOT]com.

Thanks in advance, Dracontes 07:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get to it when I get back from work. J. Spencer 13:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just sent it to Dracontes. Dinoguy, when you get a chance, send me an email so I'll have your address. J. Spencer 21:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Roach and Brinkman, 2007

Hot off the presses, this paper claims that Deinonychus was not a cooperative hunter, and did not play well in groups. It gets into the phylogenetic bracket, which finds that cooperative hunting is very rare in diapsids (including crocs and birds), and bone markings, which suggest that the Deinonychus remains at the classic tenontosaur hunting localities were actually losers in intraspecific fights over carcasses, which were then cannibalized as fresher meat. Whosoever would like a pdf, you know what to do. :)

Roach, Brian T., and Brinkman, Daniel L. 2007. A reevaluation of cooperative pack hunting and gregariousness in Deinonychus antirrhopus and other nonavian theropod dinosaurs. Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History 48(1):103-138. J. Spencer 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As an aside (I haven't read the paper yet), it seems to me that using a phylogenetic bracket in this case is going to be near useless, as no modern diapsids have anything like the morphology or ecological niche of flightless dromaeosaurs. It think this is a case of bracketing gone mad -- the other evidence may be more compelling though. -- John.Conway 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That was an incomplete summary, too - only the first half is Deinonychus, and the rest discusses various sites where multiple theropods of the same species have been found, trackways, and so on. J. Spencer 19:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, this is getting out of hand. We know that Albertosaurus, Mapusaurus, Allosaurus, Deinonychus, and other theropods had some sort of pack social organization. I mean, if they were living in inter age groups, with no food to be found, they weren't sitting around and playing poker are they? But this Roach and Brinkman thing has gotten far out of hand. Now, almost all of the theropod pages on wikipedia are saying that dinosaurs are big, solitary lizards. And phylogenetic bracketing isn't very effective in distant relatives. Its like having whales and bats being the only living mammals, and people would say "Cheetahs eat small animals like rabbits, because dolphins eat small fish". I mean, if you look at our relatives, you would think we'd be terrified of water, seeing how chimps and gorillas hate the stuff. But humans love the water. So phylogenetic bracketing is good for physical traits, but not behavioral ones. We need more balance in the wikipedia articles, perhaps providing both opinions of the pack hunting and solo theory, not just the solo thoery based on Roach and BrinkmanMetalraptor (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Were they living in interage groups? Or were they just found dead in them? (rhetroical questions) J. Spencer (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"We know that Albertosaurus, Mapusaurus, Allosaurus, Deinonychus, and other theropods had some sort of pack social organization."

No, we don't. In fact the authors who described Mapusaurus said it's just as likely to be a coincidental accumulation of specimens. The media thinks they had social structure, because lot of reporters don't know enough about the subject they're reporting on and misinterpret the sound bites they're given. If you can find a recent paper that argues for pack hunting (or even social behavior of any kind) instead of coincidental accumulation or mobbing, by all means add it. But I don't think you'll find one that isn't very, very tentative about making such a claim. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of hunting...

Here's a link to a 1999 Natural History Magazine article on Deinonychus and group hunting (couldn't go directly to it; go to the first article). J. Spencer 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

Can we get a citation for the maximum height/length and weight estimates in this article? It seems to me that area is the only thing that desperately still needs a citation. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how reliable these are:

DinoDictionary.com and DinoDatabase.com both claim Height: 5 feet (1.5 meters), Length: 9 feet (2.7 meters), Weight: 175 lbs (79.4 kg)

--RazorICE 07:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not home at present but I think Dinosauria II may have something. Remind me if you don't see anything in several hours....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunno about skull length, but the rest of the numbers were simply found in Ostrom (1969). Sheep81 08:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd check Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, too, since that had dimensions for a few specimens. J. Spencer 14:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have put the article on hold until the following issues have been addressed.

1. "Nearly forty years later, in August of 1964, paleontologists John Ostrom and Grant E. Meyer prepared and studied Brown's small carnivore in detail, and published it in 1969 with the name Deinonychus antirrhopus." I think it should be reworded to "A little more than thirty years later" as (1964-1931 (if I selected the right dates) is only about 33 years. Also "published it", "it" should be replaced with "his findings".  Done
2. "Deinonychus including bones from the original (and most complete) specimen can be seen on display at the American Museum of Natural History, with another specimen on display at the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology." Add wikilinks for the two museums. AMNH is linked 2 paras previous, but other done.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
3. "The paleoenvironment of both the Clover Formation and the Antlers Formation in which remains of Deinonychus have been found, consisted of forests, deltas and lagoons, not unlike today's Louisiana." Add wikilink for Louisiana.  Done
4. "Based on the association of a number of Deinonychus skeletons in a single quarry, and and the fact that shed teeth of Deinonychus have been found along side skeletons of" Remove the second "and" and "along side" should be one word.  Done

---

(all addressed above this line. Gotta run) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

1. "will attack smaller komodos that attempt to butt in". Reword "to butt in" to something more descriptive.  Done I've replaced with "attempt to feed", as I agree "butt in" was perhaps too informal. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
2. "This was because Gregory S. Paul, in his book Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, concluded that Deinonychus was a species of Velociraptor and rechristened the species Velociraptor antirrhopus, a theory that has since been largely rejected." Add an inline citation.  Done Added several citations here, as from what I can tell ONLY Paul supported this, and there are about 20 primary references which have rejected it. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
3. "Dino-riders" Riders should be capitalized.  Done
4. If possible, add an inline citation for "These figures where deemed so accurate at the time, the Smithsonian Institution re-released the figures as part of their own toy line in 1990.". Done Let me know if anything else needs tidying. I actually don't like inserting the green check marks, as it seems to indicate it's clearly been done to your satisfaction, and I don't want to imply that, but since half was already done this way, I didn't want to confuse the issue. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Altogether, the article is very well-written. The above suggestions should be very easy to fix. I will leave the article on hold for seven days and will pass it if they are addressed. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 05:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's me, I'd remove the Dino-Riders reference altogether. The show was basically an advertisement for the toys, and it didn't last very long. Seems very trivial to me, especially the part about how accurate the toys were -- this last bit has virtually nothing to do with Deinonychus and if you have actually seen the Deinonychus, it's certainly not very accurate... it was big enough for an action figure to ride on, for one thing. Hands were in the bunny position, feet were basically big brown blobs with a giant, oversized sickle claw coming out of the top, and the head was this weird Pac-man shape. Feh.Sheep81 09:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing: that image of "Velociraptor" from the movie was found unsuitable for use in the Velociraptor article during its FAC, so it shouldn't be used here. Contrary to the fair-use rationale given, it is NOT a screenshot from any Jurassic Park movie, and I was unable to find it on any Jurassic Park poster either. The only place I was able to locate it was in the special features of the Jurassic Park DVD. So I am not sure if it is actually something we can use. Sheep81 10:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If source and copyright information is included then it can be used under fair use just the same. The template would need to be changed though. Mgiganteus1 11:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Dino Riders thing. I had left it in because I really didn't even know what Dino Riders was, and didn't want to cull material I knew nothing about. It seemed borderline to me, but I figured if the Smithsonian thought it was worthwhile... But if it was as crappy as Sheep is saying, it should not be here. As far as the images go, I've switched it out for now. Feel free to revert. The other image has copyright issues, probably easily corrected, but they haven't been so far: the template says it's a screenshot: Sheep confirms it's not; I had forgotten all about this. Thanks for the reminder. Once the issues with that image are solved, I guess it can be used, although my understanding is that poster-style images need a stricter Fair Use rationale or something (though I have no idea why). Firsfron of Ronchester 14:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I had all those Dino-Riders toys as a kid. The Deinonychus was horrible, something apparent even to an 8 year old in the '80s. Some of the other toys were quite good, and I remember hearing that Bakker had a hand in designing the later models (their Struthiomimus even had feathers!). Dinoguy2 02:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, man. I never knew about those. I just had those little '70s plastic dinosaur models, like little army men, but in dinosaur shapes, with their generic names written in small upraised print on their tails. I must have had a hundred of those things. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out Deinonychus. *shudder* Sheep81 02:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh. That's so weird. The whole thing, but especially the "Pac-Man" head and the ugly feet. The Smithsonian approved those? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a place somewhere in the depths of Wikipedia where we can ask about that image, O wise and powerful admin Firsfron? It is a much better picture than the one I made for Velociraptor after all. Sheep81 08:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Fair Use directs editor questions to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, which seems like a reasonable place to query. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. There are a few minor things that should still be fixed. The replaced image of the Velociraptor needs a detailed fair use rationale specifically for this article if it is to be used. Also, "Based on the association of a number of Deinonychus skeletons in a single quarry, and the fact that shed teeth of Deinonychus have been found alongside skeletons of the ornithopod dinosaur Tenontosaurus, indicating that Deinonychus fed on that species, and perhaps hunted it." "indicating" should be changed to "indicate". Also, I don't really mind how progress is checked off (using check marks, striking the information, a separate list, etc.) just as long as it gets done. Good job on addressing the issues raised above so quickly, the article was an interesting and informative read. Make sure to keep improving the article to maintain it's high quality and ensure that all new information is properly sourced. I'm sure this will be heading off to FAC eventually. If you have the time, please consider reviewing just one or two articles at GAC in a current drive to help eliminate the backlog. Each new reviewer helps to cut down on the waiting time for nominations. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia! --Nehrams2020 00:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sentence changed, Fair Use rationale added. I did a Good Article review yesterday. Thanks again for reviewing this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Feathers

why is it depicted with feathers in the drawings but not a lot is said about it. in the description nihing is said about it when thats sort of important. And at the bottom it says jurassic park is wrong by not giving them feathers but it doesnt properly say that they had and there should at least be a sub title for feathers

There's a discussion of why it probably had feathers under the heading Implications. There are no direct evidence of feathers since all Deinonychus specimens are very badly preserved, but as far as I know, all scientists today whether they think birds evolved from dinosaurs or not, think Deinonychus had feathers (the "not" group don't think Deinonychus is a dinosaur anymore). Dinoguy2 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh...check that and make it "most" scientists. Science doesn't involve universal statements. Scorpionman 05:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Which scientist in the field believes it doesn't have feathers? There's no basis for the claim that only "most" scientists believe it have feathers, as far as I can tell. The feather-free depictions are badly out of date (by about a decade) and fit in about as well as those old depictions of dinosaurs in tripod poses and sauropods living deep under the water... Firsfron of Ronchester 05:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point I'm pretty confident in saying that all scientists would say it had feathers, especially since Velociraptor was proven to have them. Except maybe creation "scientists", but even there, my bet is that they will start to argue that if evolution isn't real, raptors are birds and not dinosaurs. Dinoguy2 07:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, why would Deinonychus have feathers because Velociraptor did? Velociraptor evolved millions of years later. If Deinonychus had feathers but we weren't sure about Velociraptor, you could speculate Velociraptor had feathers because Deinonychus did, but not the other way around!68.107.57.242 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You're implying that Velociraptor may have evolved feathers independently of all other feathered animals? We're not saying Deinonychus had feathers just because Velociraptor did. We're saying it had feathers because Velociraptor did, and Microraptor did, and Caudipteryx did, and Jinfengopteryx did, and Archaeopteryx did, and sparrows do. All these animals are more closely related to one another than any of them are to anything with scales. Therefore there's no good reason to think any members of this clade (Avifilopluma) lacked feathers. Also, think of it this way: lions evolved millions of years after Smilodon, just as Velociraptor evolved millions of years after Deinonychus. Is it therefore reasonable to think saber-toothed cats did not have fur? Why? Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume Smilodons had fur because the fossil record shows their ancestors did, as well as their descendants. Microraptor, Caudipteryx, and Jinfengopteryx were all much smaller than Deinonychus and lived at around the same time as Deinonychus but nowhere near it, so none of them impress me as a possible ancestor. Sinornithosaurus does though because it preceded Deinonychus, and it does have some feathers. Do you think Sinornithosaurus was also more closely related to sparrows than to anything with scales? What does the relation with birds have to do with feathers anyway? Many theropods had feathers; all but one line of them did not evolve into birds. Deinonychus may have had feathers because its (possible) ancestor did, or because one was found with feathers (hasn't happened yet), but not because it is merely related to a number of dinosaurs that are feathered or otherwise bird-like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.57.242 (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? What are the ancestors of Smilodon? What are its descendants? How about this: how many members of the family Felidae lack fur? How many prehistoric forms would you say might have lacked fur? There is no evidence that any dromaeosaurs lacked feathers. There is no evidence any deinonychusaurs lacked feathers. There is no evidence any maniraptorans lacked feathers. Every skin impression from all these groups have shown feathers. Deinoncyhus is a member of all these groups. It is deeply nested within clades known to have had feathered members. Do you see why it's unscientific to assume any lacked them? To suggest the ancestors of Deinonychus lacked feathers is to suggest feathers evolved more than once (actually, given the spread shown on Feathered dinosaurs, feathers would have had to evolve at least 7 times!), which, given what we currently know, is beyond ridiculous. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we need a special talk page like they have over at evolution. Due to problems with creationists they created Talk:Evolution/FAQ so that in the future no discussion need take place. We need a feathered dinosaurs FAQ somewhere!!  ;) Steveoc 86 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, people. Most scientists think that Deinonychus had feathers. But not THAT many feathers! Look at the two pictures in the article. That's no dinosaur that's a BIRD. Deinonychus was a raptor, not a pigeon. Grand Moff Brian|Grand Moff Brian 13:07, 18 October 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand Moff Brian (talk • contribs)

I think the point is that the line between "bird" and "dinosaur" is practically non-existent with the discovery of more bird-like dinosaurs and dinosaur-like birds... Stating "that's no dinosaur, that's a bird" misses the point, just as it would if you said the same about Archaeopteryx. These links bridge the gap between the groups. Not that there ever was a true gap (only in our understanding of the relationships). Firsfron of Ronchester 17:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there must be a line between "bird" and "dinosaur" because only one dinosaur species evolved into the first birds. All these feathered dinosaurs lived at different times; they did not all evolve together into birds generally. There must be a distinction, and it may never be known, but it has nothing to do with feathers.68.107.57.242 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. In the old days, when things were classified based on characteristics (like feathers), Deinonychus would have been reclassified as a bird by now. But nowadays "bird" just means "more advanced than Archaeopteryx (which Deinonychus may yet turn out to be, by the way). If you're going to use a simplified and outdated sorting system then yes, Deinonychus is a "bird", not a "dinosaur". In reality, there's not really a difference. Deinonychus may not be a member of the clade Aves, but it can still be said to be both a "bird" and a "dinosaur", as can Archaeopteryx, as can a pigeon. They're all dinosaurs, and if anything with feathers and wings is a bird to you, then they're also all birds. My one big beef with the total switch to cladistics is that it confuses people this way. Just define Aves as "presence of feathers as in Passer domesticus" and preserve some semblance of the original meaning. :P Dinoguy2 01:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

its very confusing to me cos i grew up learning they had lizard skin, then all of a sudden they have feathers, why such a sudden change, for a dramatic change like this surely there must have been very convincing evidence. Which i would like to see please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.35.129 (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It was only discovered that this group of dinosaurs had feathers in the late 1990s (though a lot of people expected that they would at least ten years before that). Check out the articles on Sinornithosaurus and Microraptor, for example, which have photos of the feathered specimens. Feathers were discovered on the larger raptors (Velociraptor, specifically) just last month. Dinoguy2 05:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! I'm starting to feel like Sisyphus here... ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Home stretch before FAC

OK add to to-do list here: cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Bluelink Potomac Formation  Done - but very stubby! cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Refs 7 and 13 need fixing;  Done Found them. J. Spencer 22:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[7] Paul, G.S. (1988). Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. New York: Simon and Schuster, 366-369.

[13] Paul, G.S. (1988). Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. New York: Simon and Schuster, 464 pp.

If reference 13 references something on pages 366-369, it can be combined with ref 7. If it doesn't, the page number of what it does cite should be provided. I don't have the book, or I'd fix it myself, naturally. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

............Right - we all set then? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is reference 30 correct?

[30] ^ Parsons, W. (2003-2005) list of conference proceedings abstracts

The link leads to the Buffalo Museum of Science, with some abstracts, but no publisher information, or date last accessed. The title of the page also differs from the citation considerably. I'd fix it myself, but I'm worried that I don't really know what I'm "fixing". Firsfron of Ronchester 23:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the abstract in 31, we could get away with deleting #30. J. Spencer 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK...I guess anything else can be fixed within 7 days....Ready to jump in? (Haven't heard from Arthurweasley yet) :)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's ready. And now would be a good time for me, as I'm officially on vacation starting tomorrow. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, go for it, Cas, and have a nice vacation, Firs. ArthurWeasley 05:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

All nominated now as a massive co-nom, so bombs away.................... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

Cool! Thanks, Cas! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 06:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

JP look alike.

Hello out there! I just wondered how many people would agree that the "velociraptor" in JP looks and acts more like a Deinonychus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverstag89 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The shape of its head is certainly closer to Deinonychus, and it's certainly a lot bigger than Velociraptor. But I'd say the similarities end there. It's also quite a bit bigger than Deinonychus. I think they designed it to look like a generic dromaeosaur (or at least, what people thought dromaeosaursl ooked like 15 years ago, which we now know is completely wrong). Dinoguy2 01:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dinoguy2. Any reasons for why Deinonychus wouldn't hold it's hands under it's arms like JP's Velociraptor? --Silverstag89 03:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No archosaurs can move their arms that way, not even crocs, except some highly specialized four-legged dinosaurs like sauropods and to some degree ceratopsians. In mammals like humans, the two bones in the forearm (radius and ulna) can rotate around each other, allowing the palms to point down or backward. If you put your hands on the floor with fingers pointed forward, that's what you're doing--same if you put your hands in the 'bunny pose', as the JP raptors did. Archosaurs can't do that--the reason croc fingers point forward is because their legs are splayed out into that position, and most dinosaurs didn't do that. It's hard to describe in print--to really see this, just look at a chicken wing. Maniraptoran hands were built exactly the same way, just with separate fingers. Play around with it, and see which positions make the tendons rip apart ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting!! I'm wondering if Deinonychus actually had feathers? I would think the bigger the dino is, the less feathers it would have. --Silverstag89 01:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody knows for sure but a lot of its relatives did. You're correct that bigger animals tend to have less body covering, at least in warm-weather mammals, but there are living birds (ostriches) that are larger than Deinonychus which still have plenty of feathers. Sheep81 02:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the giant Moa, which was about the same size as Utahraptor and by all accounts had a very dense feather covering. The authors who described the Velociraptor quill knobs argued against the idea that larger size equated with loss of feathers in general. Dinoguy2 03:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)