What Species Are The "Velociraptors" From Jurassic Park? Answered!

[MightyDarkStar]

Pre-Note - This may not be all that sciency, but there are just about enough dinosaur genus names to get people interested.

Jurassic Park! Arguably Michael Crichton's greatest novel and Spielberg's greatest cinematic achievment. The book contained some of the most credible fictitious science involvement around and the film featured the most scientifically accurate Non-Avian Dinosaurs ever to be seen to date. But there has been one species featured in both the novel and film alike that have had people scratching their heads. The Velociraptor.

The film and book describe a birdlike creature as tall as a man and around 4 or 5 metres long. It has a long, tall and relatively rounded head which is about two feet in length.

In real life the most well known species of the genus, Velociraptor mongoliensisis barely three feet high and about seven feet in length. In real life it was covered in a downy plumage, with long, quill like feathers on the arms and tail.

How is it that the two depictions are so different? Most people say that Spielberg liked the size of larger dromaeosaurid relatives but preferred the name Velociraptor, over things like Deinonychus or Tsaagan or Utahraptor. The reality is far from this speculation.

The Book

In the novel, the amber and DNA was said to have been recovered from Mongolia, so this rules out Deinonychus or Utahraptor. The amber was said to contain the blood of a "giant species of Velociraptor". In the flaming cliffs region, where Velociraptor remains are normally found, there is only one over species of dromaeosaurid big enough to fit the description - Achillobator giganticus. Now at this time, since Velociraptor was the first dromaeosaur to be discovered it would be that all other similar dromaeosaurs were to be renamed Velociraptor. But this was considered for ALL dromaeosaurids, which were all renamed Velociraptor. So Deinonychus antirrhopus became Velociraptor antirrhopus and, Achillobator giganticus became Velociraptor giganticus. But this was for just a brief period. Even so the damage had been done and it had been Achillobator masquerading as Velociraptor giganticus that made its way into the novel.

The Film

The same short lived idea of synonymous dromaeosaurs made its way into the film too, but not as Achillobator. In the movie it is clearly stated that the Velociraptor remains Grant was excavating were in Montana. This narrows it down to two creatures - Deinonychus antirrhopus and Utahraptor.

Now if you are familiar with raptors, they clearly have the look of Deinonychus in the film, but almost the size of Utahraptor. So it is a mix and mash of two dinosaurs in the film it seems, but it sneaks through as Velociraptor antirrhopus.

I hope this has solved any confusions or misunderstandings about these creatures in the film, and it said science chat so this counts, right?...right?

[Scotius]

So, if Chichton did his homework on dinosaurs before writing the book...why in high heavens he had his genome-salvaging team plug the holes in recovered DNA with frog genes? Has he missed the fact that there is plenty of still living dinosaurs all around us? Namely, birds? And birds are closely related to dromaeosaurids. A chicken would be a better match than a frog, or even any reptile. Then again, gender swap plot twist would become even more implausible than it already was.

[Kryten]

A human would be a better match for dinosaur DNA than a frog.

[EdFred]

Also in the book, Chrichton had the Velociraptors flicking their tongues in and out like snakes do to smell the air - that really bugged me.

[KSK]

Rule 1 of reading Crichton novels - if you know anything about the science involved, be prepared to suspend disbelief even more than you normally would. Or at least be prepared to overlook some large logical loopholes.

Rule 2 is to suspend any and all business sense you may have.

With that said, I still enjoyed Jurassic Park, coming back to it after many many years. My favourite parts are the descriptions of the dinosaurs and the way he conveys the impression that these really are unknown animals, despite all that we've been able to deduce from fossil remains. That, and the 'what were they really like' parts - where the dinosaurs are shown as 'best guess' recreations.

If I could tear out all the chaos theory guff, I'd do it without blinking.

[Dkmdlb]

If I could tear out all the chaos theory guff, I'd do it without blinking.

Are you saying you would, uh, find a way?

[KSK]

Are you saying you would, uh, find a way?

Clever girl...

or boy as the case may be.

[KerikBalm]

Now at this time, since Velociraptor was the first dromaeosaur to be discovered it would be that all other similar dromaeosaurs were to be renamed Velociraptor. But this was considered for ALL dromaeosaurids, which were all renamed Velociraptor. So Deinonychus antirrhopus became Velociraptor antirrhopus and, Achillobator giganticus became Velociraptor giganticus. But this was for just a brief period. Even so the damage had been done and it had been Achillobator masquerading as Velociraptor giganticus that made its way into the novel.

Novel written: 1990

Deinonychus named: 1969

Dromeosaurus named: 1922

Velociraptor named: 1924

What were you saying.

Velociraptor was neither the first to be discovered, nor was Deinonychus considered to be a velociraptor in 1990, it had been given its own genus for 21 years when the book came out.

Crichton simply "Did not do his homework."

[Scotius]

Which painfully shows On the other hand - if dinosaurs were properly pictured in the movie, they would look like...this:

I guess Rule of Cool dictates that slick, scaly terrors are much more watchable than fluffy mutated chicken-terrors

[KSK]

Which painfully shows On the other hand - if dinosaurs were properly pictured in the movie, they would look like...this:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/finding-feathered-fossils/00354b459f6.jpg

I guess Rule of Cool dictates that slick, scaly terrors are much more watchable than fluffy mutated chicken-terrors

I dunno - you could get some serious hackles on that. Plenty of scope for Dilophosaurus style scariness.

[Tex_NL]

Please keep in mind the Jurassic Park book dates from 1990 and the movie from 1993. In those years it was widely believed dinosaurs were scaly reptiles. It was not until a few years later in the mid '90's there was clear evidence many had feathers. Crichton's description was in line with what was generally known.

[MightyDarkStar]

Novel written: 1990

Deinonychus named: 1969

Dromeosaurus named: 1922

Velociraptor named: 1924

What were you saying.

Velociraptor was neither the first to be discovered, nor was Deinonychus considered to be a velociraptor in 1990, it had been given its own genus for 21 years when the book came out.

Crichton simply "Did not do his homework."

I don't think you read what I said correctly. For a brief period in the late 80s early 90s almost all dromaeosaurids were considered subspecies of Velociraptor and were all thus renamed accordingly.

Initially, dromaeosaurus was thought to be in the coelurosaurid group, but when Velociraptor was discovered and compared to dromaeosaurus it was found out that a new group had been discovered.

Crichton did his homework well.

[Kulebron]

So, if Chichton did his homework on dinosaurs before writing the book...why in high heavens he had his genome-salvaging team plug the holes in recovered DNA with frog genes? Has he missed the fact that there is plenty of still living dinosaurs all around us? Namely, birds? And birds are closely related to dromaeosaurids. A chicken would be a better match than a frog, or even any reptile. Then again, gender swap plot twist would become even more implausible than it already was.

This particular dinosaur should really be close to modern reptiles or birds.

But also, from what I read, there were two branches of dinosaurs: amphibias and reptiles. The evolution tree that we saw in the schoolbook (based on 1960s or 1970s material) was:

fishes => amphibia => reptiles => mammals
                              \=> birds

But more recent studies show that there was and still is a huge difference between mammals and birds, and it starts from the separation of amphibia and reptiles.

fishes => amphibia => mammals
      \=> reptiles => birds

Amphibia use water energy cycle, have soft skin with glands. Reptiles use acidic energy cycle, need very little water, and have hard skin cover. Same distinction continues for mammals and birds: mammals use water, birds use acid.

Studies show that many dinosaurs (like Diplodocus) were amphibia, not reptiles.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Kulebron

[Kryten]

Which painfully shows On the other hand - if dinosaurs were properly pictured in the movie, they would look like...this:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/finding-feathered-fossils/00354b459f6.jpg

I guess Rule of Cool dictates that slick, scaly terrors are much more watchable than fluffy mutated chicken-terrors

Actually that's not feathery enough. We know Dromeosaurs weren't just fluffy, they had full primary and secondary feathers, including wings. Try this one for size;

EDIT: Also the hands are pronated and the proportions are very odd.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Kryten

[KerikBalm]

This particular dinosaur should really be close to modern reptiles or birds.

But also, from what I read, there were two branches of dinosaurs: amphibias and reptiles. The evolution tree that we saw in the schoolbook (based on 1960s or 1970s material) was:

fishes => amphibia => reptiles => mammals
                              \=> birds

But more recent studies show that there was and still is a huge difference between mammals and birds, and it starts from the separation of amphibia and reptiles.

fishes => amphibia => mammals
      \=> reptiles => birds

Amphibia use water energy cycle, have soft skin with glands. Reptiles use acidic energy cycle, need very little water, and have hard skin cover. Same distinction continues for mammals and birds: mammals use water, birds use acid.

Studies show that many dinosaurs (like Diplodocus) were amphibia, not reptiles.

Your cladogram is horrible.

They used to think it Amphibia branched from the fish, then reptiles branches from the amphibia, then mammals and birds branched from the reptiles...

But... There were two branches of the bony fish: the ray finned fish, and the lobe finned fish (Sarcopterygii)

The one branch of the lob finned fish resulted in the Tetrapods.

One branch of the tetrapods lead to the Lissamphibia

Another branch lead to the amniotes.

The amniotes branched into the reptiles, and the synapsids

The only surviving synapsid lineage is the mammal lineage

The reptiles diversified into many forms, of which birds are one

I don't think you read what I said correctly. For a brief period in the late 80s early 90s almost all dromaeosaurids were considered subspecies of Velociraptor and were all thus renamed accordingly.

Citation please - any peer reviewed publication advocating this change?

Edited January 6, 2015 by KerikBalm

[Kryten]

But also, from what I read, there were two branches of dinosaurs: amphibias and reptiles.

That's... not quite right. Here's a modern consensus evolutionary tree (cobbled together by me in 5 minutes, sorry for the crowding)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77142205/Achtes%20RP/New%20folder/Tech/phylo.png

The basic split within tetrapoda (anything closer to us than amphibians) is between synapsids and sauropsids. Synapsids are mammals and their extinct relatives, whereas sauropsids are a good bit more diverse. Living sauropsids can be divided into two more groups; squamates, which are the lizards and snakes, and archosaurs which are currently birds and crocodiles (don't ask about turtles). Dinosaurs are on the archosaur clade, and birds are deeply nested within dinosauria.

EDIT:

Citation please - any peer reviewed publication advocating this change?

It was mooted in multiple papers written in the 80s by Gregory S. Paul. Very few paleontologists went along with it, but GSP was one of the scientific consultants on the film, so it went it.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Kryten

[Klingon Admiral]

Which painfully shows On the other hand - if dinosaurs were properly pictured in the movie, they would look like...this:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/finding-feathered-fossils/00354b459f6.jpg

I guess Rule of Cool dictates that slick, scaly terrors are much more watchable than fluffy mutated chicken-terrors

This Dinosaur is so woefully wrong.

[Superluminaut]

The species never existed. They go into this in the book but not the movie. The "dinosaurs" are not clones, the genetic material was not complete enough for cloning. Even if it were it would be impossible to definitively recreate the factors required for accurate embryonic development. The animals on the island where genetically engineered monsters designed to resemble what we belived dinosaurs to be like.

Also in the book all the "dinosaurs" secreted saliva containing protein that is toxic to all current life on earth... because that makes sense.

[Klingon Admiral]

The species never existed. They go into this in the book but not the movie. The "dinosaurs" are not clones, the genetic material was not complete enough for cloning. Even if it were it would be impossible to definitively recreate the factors required for accurate embryonic development. The animals on the island where genetically engineered monsters designed to resemble what we belived dinosaurs to be like.

Also in the book all the "dinosaurs" secreted saliva containing protein that is toxic to all current life on earth... because that makes sense.

I think part 3 actually bought this up, I think Dr. Grant calls the Ingensaurs "Genetic created constructs, not dinosaurs" or something.

[KerikBalm]

The basic split within tetrapoda (anything closer to us than amphibians) is between synapsids and sauropsids.

You appear to have confused Tetrapoda with Amniota. Tetrapoda is basically anything closer to us than to Lungfish. Amphibians are most definitely tetrapods

Very few paleontologists went along with it, but GSP was one of the scientific consultants on the film, so it went it.

Not really relevant when discussing the book, not the film. Still, I'd like to see a citation of one of those papers.

[Kryten]

Not really relevant when discussing the book, not the film. Still, I'd like to see a citation of one of those papers.

He formally tried to synonymise them (and Sinornitholestes) in his 1988 paper 'The small predatory dinosaurs of the mid-mesozoic', available here.

[Leszek]

Ever since the movie, people forget how it was done in the book.

The DNA wasn't filled in with frog DNA. In the movie they just simplified to frog so they wouldn't have to do a long lecture.

The DNA gaps where filled in by searching all samples of DNA from ALL life, birds, fish, mammals, ETC... When they found a match that had the same start and finish sequence they filled in the gap with what the modern animals had. Issues of who is more closely related to who is only relevant when they have competing samples of DNA with different gap fillers. Even then (as was pointed out earlier) they had to make revisions and the dinosaurs even had version numbers to match what version of Dino they had.

In the book, not all the dino's reproduced and those that did happened to have frog DNA in them. But they didn't realize that until it was pointed out by DR. Grant well after fecal matter started hitting the fan.

[-ctn-]

I was under the impression that the fan community had named them "Velociraptor Nublarensis" as they are genetic "close enough" mutations and not exactly dinosaurs.

[KerikBalm]

Ever since the movie, people forget how it was done in the book.

The DNA wasn't filled in with frog DNA. In the movie they just simplified to frog so they wouldn't have to do a long lecture.

The DNA gaps where filled in by searching all samples of DNA from ALL life, birds, fish, mammals, ETC... When they found a match that had the same start and finish sequence they filled in the gap with what the modern animals had. Issues of who is more closely related to who is only relevant when they have competing samples of DNA with different gap fillers. Even then (as was pointed out earlier) they had to make revisions and the dinosaurs even had version numbers to match what version of Dino they had.

In the book, not all the dino's reproduced and those that did happened to have frog DNA in them. But they didn't realize that until it was pointed out by DR. Grant well after fecal matter started hitting the fan.

Its been a long long time since I read the book, but that approach likely wouldn't work for anything but the amino acid encoding sequences - and the parts that do match, you'd probably find many species matching (depending on how highly conserved it is), and then its still a matter of choice.

[Leszek]

Its been a long long time since I read the book, but that approach likely wouldn't work for anything but the amino acid encoding sequences - and the parts that do match, you'd probably find many species matching (depending on how highly conserved it is), and then its still a matter of choice.

Yes they had that issue and others, hence the version numbers. Some of the first dino's they made were not viable ETC... It has been a long time since I read the book too but I remember version numbers such as 4.73 and such. Implying several versions of non viable dino's with the current version itself having much revision since the baseline V4. But the point is that it was a long drawn out process with lots of trial and error and many best guesses.

The whole thing was much more complicated and sophisticated then "we use frog DNA to fill in the gaps."