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

[tater]

Paul drew a few (sketches, anyway) with feathers in the 90s as I recall, but not many. It will be interesting to see pop culture come up to speed on current restorations.

[-ctn-]

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 thought that was only for the Procompsognathus species, for which it could be plausible as it would give them a way to take down larger prey. The venomous bite is a local anesthetic filled with dopamine (or similar) so that the animal doesn't realize it's being eaten and feels "elated." Similar to a vampire bat.

IIRC, the only dinosaur which shows evidence of being venomous is Sinosauropteryx. I think the theory was they found platypus spurs in it's gut, and could have absorbed the toxins from said platypus. Would make for a nasty little bugger of a dinosaur.

[NERVAfan]

I thought that was only for the Procompsognathus species, for which it could be plausible as it would give them a way to take down larger prey. The venomous bite is a local anesthetic filled with dopamine (or similar) so that the animal doesn't realize it's being eaten and feels "elated." Similar to a vampire bat.

The only dinosaurs that are described as venomous are the Procompsognathus and Dilophosaurus.

EDIT: I think those people at the tropical disease lab say something about reptile saliva being allergenic or something early on, but they don't even know that they're dealing with dinosaurs.

[Camacha]

It saddens me the new Jurassic World dinosaurs are more in line with the updated view of dinosaurs. I think this article explains why fairly well. I know I would have been disappointed if they did the same back then.I could not eat up enough dinosaur information when I was younger and was elated to see the knowledge I had come to life. This has the feel of a Michael Bay move - everything for the ratings, no matter how silly things get because of that.

[vexx32]

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

You have clearly not been a victim of a cassowary. Those things are terrifying, in every​ sense of the word.

[Scotius]

No sir! Happily living in a nice, safe Central Europe country - no killer birds here. Well, except for geese in rural neighbourhoods - they can pinch you like nobody's business

[MightyDarkStar]

Something that is annoying me is that in the upcoming Jurassic World the Deinonychus are naked as they had always been.

Here is a picture of one of the new animatronics, the raptor looks different i.e. skull-shape-wise but it is quite feather-less.

Oh and Starlord.

[Camacha]

You have clearly not been a victim of a cassowary. Those things are terrifying, in every​ sense of the word.

That was exactly what I was thinking. I even looked for an image to post, before I apparently got distracted by something that was probably shiny.

[Scotius]

Something that is annoying me is that in the upcoming Jurassic World the Deinonychus are naked as they had always been.

Here is a picture of one of the new animatronics, the raptor looks different i.e. skull-shape-wise but it is quite feather-less.

http://www.jurassicworld.org/news/uploads/AnimatronicRaptor.jpg

Oh and Starlord.

Easy. It's not a dinosaur. It's just a genetically engineered reptile. A carnival attraction not meant to live in the wilds, and compete with real, Nature-made predators on daily basis. Probably some gene-splicer in a lab thought "Feathers? We not need no stinking feathers."

[MightyDarkStar]

Easy. It's not a dinosaur. It's just a genetically engineered reptile. A carnival attraction not meant to live in the wilds, and compete with real, Nature-made predators on daily basis. Probably some gene-splicer in a lab thought "Feathers? We not need no stinking feathers."

That almost works. I guess they have more DNA of some dinosaurs than others. For example, the T. rex in the movies is identical in looks, size and power to the real thing, while dilophosaurus is 1/4 the size and has a frill and spits venom.

[Camacha]

Easy. It's not a dinosaur. It's just a genetically engineered reptile. A carnival attraction not meant to live in the wilds, and compete with real, Nature-made predators on daily basis. Probably some gene-splicer in a lab thought "Feathers? We not need no stinking feathers."

There are plenty of reasons to explain away the lack of feathers, it is not going to change the (lack of) impact treated in the article that was posted earlier. A whole generation of potential palaeontologists might go to waste, to become telephone sanitizers instead.

[problemecium]

I heard from a friend that the reason they used frog DNA might not have been due to its similarity with dinosaur DNA but due to the ease with which they could splice it in and otherwise manipulate it. 'Course I have no idea how easy it really is or isn't, but it's certainly a marginally better excuse.

Anyway, the reason I'm posting here despite the thread title saying "answered" is because I don't see the "answer" - is there actually a consensus on what IS the "velociraptor" in Jurassic Park (or at least, given that it's been genetically engineered, what dinosaur it was intended to be)?

[MightyDarkStar]

What dinosaur they are intended to be.

[Superluminaut]

Question is will this movie at least be better than jpiii. I think so... but it still won't hold a candle to jp, or even jpii. Movies just really suck these days.