the post references this vid of Real Parasaurolophus Calls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtpSOpUDCb8
not loud or anything but spooked my cat
Jurassic Park Dinosaurs Illustrated with Modern Science
31–39 of 39 posts
Re: Jurassic Park Dinosaurs Illustrated with Modern Science
#32Those "Long necks" probably didn't hold their neck that way, according to this highly informative article: https://svpow.com/2009/05/31/necks-lie/
Re: Jurassic Park Dinosaurs Illustrated with Modern Science
#33Nice 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…
But dinosaurs were modeled after lizards and reptiles, not mammals. And looking at their most related living descendants, birds and crocodiles, I think popular illustrations are close to reality.
Re: Jurassic Park Dinosaurs Illustrated with Modern Science
#34The 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.
That'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.
Re: Jurassic Park Dinosaurs Illustrated with Modern Science
#35Those "Long necks" probably didn't hold their neck that way, according to this highly informative article: https://svpow.com/2009/05/31/necks-lie/
The article discusses pretty recent developments, so I'm trusting OP over a 2009 piece.
Re: Jurassic Park Dinosaurs Illustrated with Modern Science
#36I 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 turke…
In 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.
The 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.
Re: Jurassic Park Dinosaurs Illustrated with Modern Science
#37Great 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.
How is the wikipedia page non-pedantic compared to the article? It says the same thing, just in more detail.
Re: Jurassic Park Dinosaurs Illustrated with Modern Science
#38Nice 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…
But dinosaurs were modeled after lizards and reptiles, not mammals. And looking at their most related living descendants, birds and crocodiles, I think popular illustrations are close to reality.
Yep. This schlub is making as much of an educated guess as anyone else.
Re: Jurassic Park Dinosaurs Illustrated with Modern Science
#39Those "Long necks" probably didn't hold their neck that way, according to this highly informative article: https://svpow.com/2009/05/31/necks-lie/
The article discusses pretty recent developments, so I'm trusting OP over a 2009 piece.
More than recent / old, I think the neck posture debate is still active.