Jump to content

Talk:Deinonychus/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Cassowary and Seriema analogy

I think Ottava Rima has one valid point here. The cassowary-seriema bit in the limb function section does not seem to belong there, unless it could be backed-up by a publication that explicitly makes a comparative study with Deinonychus and dromaeosaurids. Thoughts? ArthurWeasley (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I offer that section only as some data for comparison. Paleontology relies heavily on comparative Anatomy and comparative Zoology. I tried to be very careful not to draw any conclusions. I was also very careful to accurately summarize my citations. It just seems a shame that if, for example, we were discussing the uses of the horns on Triceratops, we would be afraid to mention a paper that shows that chameleons use their horns only for sexual competition, since that paper is not specifically referring to Triceratops. Especially if we could also include a paper showing that antelope do fight off lion attacks with horns. I would hope there would be some way to make that comparison available to readers, to enrich the subject, and to stimulate their thought and further reading, but not to make any editorial point. Also, I am open for suggestions.Jbrougham (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I totally understand your point but am afraid that this would be considered WP:OR by many people around here if the comparison is not supported by at least one published reference and the entry will be deleted sooner or later. Just want to be cautious. I'll look to see if I could find anything in the literature about this. Otherwise, keep up the good work on the article. Now, could you give us an opinion on OR proposal above about a section on the history of Deinonychus reconstruction? Does not sound like a bad idea to me but the paleo folks should decide... Cheers ArthurWeasley (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
According to the Roach & Brinkman paper, Ostrom made the analogy in his 1969 paper on Deinonychus. Unfortunately I don't have it, may be somebody can confirm. ArthurWeasley (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll be damned. You're right. It's on page 143. I had never noticed that before. Thanks, I'll revise.Jbrougham (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that fixes that problem. What about the ostrich comparison? What did Ostrom say? A sentence or so would complete that section. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Archived

Archived 2004-2006 and 2007. J. Spencer (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Pubes/pubis

The plural of "pubis" is "pubes". Ostrom reported "the presence of both pubes" in the specimen MCZ 4371 in his paper in Breviora from 1976.

That's correct. Maybe somebody assumed vandalism :P Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Review

I translated this article for the german Wikipedia, because I'm not able to write it on my own because I don't have many of the old Deinonychus-Papers. I found some issues, and I thought some of these points may help you to improve this article.

section Classification

  • Later Phil Currie included most of the dromaeosaurids – Phil Currie do not classify Deinonychus any longer as a Velociraptorinae, but outside of this group; see Longrich & Currie (2009): A microraptorine (Dinosauria–Dromaeosauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of North America

section Predatory behavior

  • First you say preserve fairly complete Deinonychus fossils and four adult Deinonychus and one juvenile, than you say Deinonychus skeletal remains found at these sites are from subadults, with missing parts consistent with having been eaten by other Deinonychus. This is a bit contradictory.
  • For the german Version, I added that Maxwell & Ostrom stated that Tenontosaurus was probably the most important food source (http://www.vertpaleo.org/publications/jvp/15-707-712.cfm). Senter (2006) stated that Deinonychus prayed on small as well as large pray. (Senter 2006: Comparison of Forelimb Function Between Deinonychus And Bambiraptor (Theropoda: Dromaeosauridae))
  • The new discovery of gut content in two Deinonychus-specimens, with implications on possible gastroliths and feeding behavior (Deinonychus feed as a opportunistic carnivore on small and on large pray), should be added. Abstract here: http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-activities/william-parsons/parsonsabstracts/
  • You could add that Carpenter (1998) stated that the evidence from the Yale quarry is equivocal, because the long bones were aligned with within a northwest to northeast arc does not rule out a taphonomic artifact. He stated, that it is equally likely, that Deinonychus only feed as a scavenger on Tenontosaurus-carcasses.

section limbfunction

  • The discovery of an arboreal lifestyle (see Manning et al, 2009) is not in this article yet as well: Parsons (2009) found a keel on the penultimate metatarsal on digit 2, that resembles that of woodpeckers. He stated that juvenile Deinonychus may live on trees and became terrestrial when the animal gets bigger. (see this pdf here: PDF
  • Ostrom suggested that this difference in the size and shape of the sickle claws could be due to individual, sexual, or age-related variation. – see the pdf above: Parsons stated that this difference is because of age-related variation.

section description

  • triangonal skull – What does this mean? I cant see that a Allosaurus-like skull is triangonal.
  • In the comparison with Velociraptor, perhaps this is important as well: Deinonychus-Mandibles more robust than those of Velociraptor. See The Dinosauria, 2004.
  • The description of the postcrania does not say anything that is specific for Deinonychus. Thats why for the German version I added, that the Ischium is shorter in relation to Pubis than in other dromaeosaurids, because this is a visible feature (see The Dinosauria, 2004).
  • I added: Manus 40 % of forearm-lengh, forelimb 70 % of hindlimb-lengh (see The Dinosauria, 2004). This is a bit more precise than just say big manus etc.

section Further findings I had problems with this: A skeleton of Deinonychus including bones from the original (and most complete) specimen can be seen on display at the American Museum of Natural History,[26] with another specimen on display at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University.

  • Does with another specimen on display at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University mean, that this is another specimen with original material, too? Here a citation is needed, I think. Does you now the specimen number?
  • The skeleton mount in the AMNH includes bones from the first specimen that was collectet by Barnum Brown in 1931. Because this specimen is mentioned several times elsewhere in the text, it would be good to add this.
  • Even after all of Ostrom’s work, several small blocks of lime-encased material remained unprepared in storage at the American Museum. Again – you should add that this is the specimen collectet by Barnum Brown in 1931. See introduction of Grellet-Tinner, G.; and Makovicky, P. (2006). "A possible egg of the dromaeosaur Deinonychus antirrhopus: phylogenetic and biological implications".

section speed

I hope this helps a bit – and thanks for this great article. Cheers, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Deinonychus feathers

I was reading the Theropoda blog today and it mentioned Deinonychus being found with a side shelf on its second finger that's supposed to be homologous with those of birds with the implication that Deinonychus definitely had primary feathers. (Taking a look at the original article itself, however, feathers aren't specifically mentioned, only whether or not the shelf equates to aerodynamic ability, which is no.) Albertonykus (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is what Paul said in DoA, that the shape of the phalanges correlated with primary feathers. However this is debatable as the paper suggests and not equivalent to having quill knobs (or a "quill ridge" as in Avimimus). MMartyniuk (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I asked Andrea about the subject and he said that it was the most plausible conclusion as only species known to have primary remiges have the flange. But I guess we'll just have to wait for an official scientific study to confirm that if it's to be added here. Albertonykus (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems likely that Andrea's right on that but, as you pointed out, this is not hat the paper says so it's OR. For the record, Paul was specifically talking about the phlange being present in volant species or secondarily non-volant ones, not just ones with primary feathers (as plenty of fossil animals with primary feathers seem to lack it). MMartyniuk (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Including Velociraptor, as the paper pointed out. Albertonykus (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Functional anatomy issue with AW's life restoration

It just occurred to me that AW's drawing of Deinonychus has both hands in a forward-extended position. According to anatomical studies, extending the wrists in this manner would cause obligatory supination of the hands (palms up, reverse bunny style) which is not illustrated. Additionally, the presence of primary feathers would have made it impossible to extend both wrists simultaneously as the wings would interfere with each other. All of this makes it very unlikely the animal would ever adopt such a pose and, anyway, makes the drawing anatomically incorrect. But is this a big enough issue to remove it pending a better reconstruction? (It also has tertials and a visible groove on the sickle claw, but these are easily photoshopped). Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, didn't notice this section until now, three years after! But since you've modified the image in the meantime, there's no problem. I always wondered why you changed it, but now I see, heheh. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Height

Deinonychus seems too long to have been only 2.85 feet tall. A height of 4.5 feet makes more sense. How is an 11.5-foot long animal less than three feet tall? That doesn't make any sense at all. Troodon58 21:54 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could just look at the scale chart in the article that clearly shows the head/hip at almost exactly 1m, yet with a total length of 3.5m. Or, here are the leg measurements from Theropod Database [1]: femora=336mm, tibia=368mm, metatarsal I=46mm, so total leg length when not bent (i.e. not life position) = 750mm or 2.4ft tall at the hip. Remember, more than half the length of this animal was tail. MMartyniuk (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

But a lion is shorter in length than Deinonychus. And lions are 4 feet tall at the shoulder. And remember, lions are also quadrupeds. And Deinonychus was bipedal. Saying that a lion is taller than a Deinonychus is just like saying that a dog is taller than a human. Troodon58 20:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If a lion had a tail as long as Deinonychus, it would most certainly not be shorter. If you chopped the long tail off a Deinonychus, it would probably be only half the length of a lion. The proportions of these animals are as different as comparing the height of a crocodile to a lion. You could argue that since lions are shorter than crocodiles, yet reach 4ft tall, a croc should therefore be 10ft tall, not 1 or 2ft. Did you have a look at the size chart? What do you think is wrong with it that you're arguing it should be taller? That it should have a longer neck or something? MMartyniuk (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that these animals were about 6 feet tall? Is there a reference for the new revised height? ScienceApe (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reference for the 6ft height? I haven't heard anything like that since 70s kids books that gave it an upright posture (note that the current reference for the height is from 1988, not exactly new). If you've ever been next to a mounted Deinonychus skeleton, you'll know it's nowhere near 6ft tall. The one at the AMNH is partially upright and jumping two feet into the air and it's still shorter than I am. I have a feeling this old meme originated when popular writers heard these described as "man sized" and assumed that meant height. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That AMNH Deinonychus mount, while small, still scared the living crap out of me when I visited New York. I felt like it was leaping straight for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Deinonychus has always been a fairly popular dinosaur since its discovery in the 1960's, although not quite as famous as its relative Velociraptor. Deinonychus has appeared in countless children's books and television documentaries. Deinonychus has also been featured in the Land Before Time series. In episode 2.1 of the sci-fi television series Primeval an anomaly to the Late Cretaceous opened in a shopping mall and a pack of Deinonychus came through —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.141.8 (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I would think that Deinonychus would have a bigger popularity than Velociraptor and would appear in more films, because it is bigger than Velociraptor. I think that the reason that it is not getting the reputation it deserves is because it did'nt live in the Late Cretaceous, it lived in the Early Cretaceous. Dinosaurs that lived in the Late Cretaceous seem to be more appealing to people because they think of them to be bigger and ferocious, as was T.rex when it lived in the time period. Velociraptor was ferocious, but it was'nt big, the creative team behind Jurassic Park made it seem bigger than it really was.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason why Deinonychus wasn't made more popular than Deinonychus is simply because Velociraptors sounds cooler. I doubt that the main populace even know that most of the dinosaurs they're fond of lived in the Cretaceous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.91.81 (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ironically the Jurassic Park film team decided to actually model their 'velociraptors' on Deinonychus, since they thought Deinonychus looked more impressive than the velociraptors of the Jurassic Park book. So visually, Deinonychus has actually ended up being far more well-known than Velocraptor...it's just the case that most people don't know they're looking at one! I don't have a source on hand for this at the moment unfortunately but if someone has one I think it would be a good addition to the article. 217.33.39.10 (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Scavenging Deinonychus image

I was wondering if the image showing the Deinonychus scavenging was anatomically incorrect. I noticed that the hands are folded in a way similar to bird wings. I believe the idea nowadays is that Deinonychus held its hands palm-in, right?68.255.104.64 (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but note that bird hands are also palm in. The folding comes from the 'blade' of the hand folding back towards the forearm, not the palms. The position in the image is correct. MMartyniuk (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I used the wrong phrasing. I was aware that Deinonychus held its hands (or claws) in a sort of clapping motion, because studies showed that they could fold their hands back like birds. In fact, I believe this article makes a mention of it. Or is it just that I'm looking at the image wrong, and the hands are not being folded back in the way I described?--68.255.104.64 (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to describe... what the image shows (correctly) is as follows: Hold out your hands as if you're holding a basketball in front of you, palms facing each other. Now angle your hand backward like you're trying to touch your little finger to your forearm. You won't be able to get very far because you lack a half-moon shaped wrist bone, but this is the posture seen in maniraptoran dinosaurs and birds. The "incorrect" posture you've probably heard of is: hand extended, palm down like you're playing with a yo-yo, then fingers folded in towards the wrist and knuckles pointed down. This was anatomically impossible for almost all dinosaurs except one or two very specialized quadrupedal lineages. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Having typed all that I just remembered there's an excellent guide with diagrams here: [2] MMartyniuk (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Although I would contest the lack of primaries in large dromaeosaurids as it describes, or the idea that "floppy feathers" are going to be a problem in hunting. Regarding the image in the actual article, I think the (apparently) scaly fingers are of slightly more concern. The mobility of the wings is certainly accurate. Albertonykus (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe he is referring to this, from the section on limb function: "Carpenter's biomechanical studies using bones casts also showed that Deinonychus could not fold its arms against its body like a bird ("avian folding"), contrary to what was inferred from the earlier 1985 descriptions by Jacques Gauthier[52] and Gregory S. Paul in 1988." By the way, what happened to the John Conway image? FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was referring to that, FunkMonk. But I guess MMartyniuk cleared that up for me. I simply misunderstood what Carpenter said. Thanks for the explanation. Sorry about causing this entire hassle.--128.135.98.29 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually based on the data on wrist folding by Sullivan, Hone et al. 2010 the hand is folded far beyond what was possible in the image, so it is indeed incorrect! MMartyniuk (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Since the image was removed, this one could maybe be used, from the new PLOS paper[3]. The first drawing strikes me as very weird in the limb department, so perhaps only the bottom drawing should be extracted and used? FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it is a generic dromaeosaur rather than Deinonychus from the image description though. FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking of drawing a new Deinonychus image for the predation section based on the Fowler paper. It won't be immediately though so if you guys find something else in the meantime, that's fine with me. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Nice! I think it's leagues ahead of the illustration in the paper itself, heheh. FunkMonk (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. :) The full version (the non-CC version) is here if you're interested. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, do you think that the Limb Function section is the best place for discussion of the RPR hypothesis? Even though limb and sickle claw use is an integral part of the paper, the research also incorporates other aspects of dromaeosaur morphology such as the function and strength of the jaws. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps not, it seemed fitting after the "no slashing" hypothesis, but in any case, my single sentence probably doens't do the paper justice! FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, well, I think the line you added is fine where you added it, but I agree the paper should be discussed in more detail elsewhere. Perhaps a paragraph under the initial "predatory behavior" heading would be good. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Deinonychus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
==Lead==
  • Seven references, especially seeing as most of them are probably sourced in the article, is overdoing it. (Be mindful of not creating empty refs, though)  Done
  • It generally fails to give a good sumary of the article (e.g., no proper description).  Done

==Description==

  • Would be a better idea to give the most general measurements first, and the most specific last.  Done
  • "Based on" used twice in three sentences.  Done
  • Consider either switching that "which" for "that" or adding a comma before it.  Done
  • Is there no proper term for these "hands"? I've never been a fan of the "so-called"–type of quotes. (This has been debated elsewhere and there is no easy solution. further, italicizing hands looks really funny too as it is such a common word. I will investigate in some popular books)
    • Okay, just asking.
I've substituted manus/forefeet/forelimbs/talons where they seemed appropriate. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
As you like, I was actually happy knowing that there was apparently no generally accepted term. Circeus 05:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The article seems to contradict itself as to whether the claws could slash or not. Consider not mentioning the claws' possible uses/movements at all in this section.  Done
  • Maybe specifically mention the claws are on the inside of the legs? (or however the proper formulation is <_<;;;; (again, I know how I'd do it in medicine, also would I talk of a non-mammal having a big toe ="right where the big toe would go...")
I've changed the wording so that the sentence reads: The first digit was shortest and the second one longest. Each hind foot bore a sickle-shaped claw on this second digit, which was probably used during predation...Is the description of the claw on the second digit enough, do you think? Firsfron of Ronchester 08:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The last sentence is quite confusing. Consider splitting it.  Done

==Classification==

  • Consider mentioning that Deinonychus predates Velociraptor (their relative temporal placement is not very clear here).  Done but maybe not strongly enough
  • The repetition of "Late Cretaceous" gets tedious, but I don't think it can be avoided easily.
I've combined two sentences so LK gets one less mention in that section. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sub-epochs could be used instead. That holds true for many dinos; I fare rather well with doing that in fossil birds. Using sub-epochs also provides much interesting information for discussion of evolurion of higher-level taxa. As a rule-of-thumb, the average Neornithes species seems to exist for a few Ma before either transformation of cladogenesis have turned it into something else - that is, bird species usually persist a bit less than one sub-epoch. Don't know anything anything about how it was in non-avian dinos. Dysmorodrepanis 17:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes. And sub-epoch ale have such cool names! Circeus 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "Late Cretaceous" appears only twice in this article now. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That last statement should probably be sourced.
Sourced. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe the "Implications" section could be merged here, as it discusses more the classification than the discovery itself (and, as a plus, would make the section longer than a paragraph).
Well, that suggestion worries me a bit, Circeus. That sub-section was apparently written for the discovery and naming section, and its emphasis is on that subject. The two opening sentences read The description in 1969 by Ostrom of Deinonychus has been described as the most important single discovery of dinosaur paleontology in the mid 20th century.[17] The discovery of this clearly active, agile predator... The following paragraph begins with discoveries, too. If you insist it must be merged, then it will have to be merged, of course. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, just seemed a good idea at the time. Circeus 14:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Why isn't the reclassification as Velociraptor mentioned here, as opposed to all the way down in "popular culture"?
Because it seemed redundant and a little like undue weight to mention the same discredited theory in two different sections, and since the most noticeable impact has been to the animal's depiction in media, that is where it was stuck. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Feels odd considering the attention given to these questions in other dino FAs. Circeus 14:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

==History of discovery==

  • discovered by a team led by paleontologist
    • That stringing of "by" is painful.  Done - (juggled a bit)
  • Why is there a comma before "in the Cloverly formation"? (removed anyway)
  • Consider "called" instead of "named"?  Done
  • did not finish this work. → "never finished [...]"  Done
  • Interestingly, Brown had another skeleton from a small Cloverly theropod, of a smaller animal with seemingly oversized teeth. This he informally named "Megadontosaurus".
    • Drop "interestingly"  Done
    • had another skeleton from a small Cloverly theropod, of a smaller animal with → "brought back from the Cloverly Formation the skeleton of a smaller theropod"  Done - much better
    • teeth. This he → "teeth that he [...]"....well, a semi-colon?  Done
  • the material → "this material"  Done
  • Brown's small carnivore → "Brown's "Daptosaurus"", since 2 different skeletons have just been mentioned.  Done
  • published his findings
    • Is that referring to Brown? I'm expecting "their". Consider reformulating. (I have - revert to original or something in betwenn if you don't think it flows)
      • Went with just "their findings." I'd have suggested it directly, but it just wasn't clear what was meant.
  • representing between them at least three individuals. → WORDY "from at least three individuals."  Done
  • Drop "only"  Done
  • The cataloguing bit and following paragraph would gain from a source
  • (and most complete) → Does that mean that the original specimen is the most complete known?

==Possible egg==

  • The entire beginning is not actually about the eggs. Consider renaming the section.  Done - (alternative is two smaller subsections, though I think these would be too stubby)
    • "Further findings" is alright.
  • The significance of the gastralia is at best unclear. (I'll come back to that one)
  • errr... Link Egg (biology).  Done
  • Either disambig incubation or switch to link "brooded" to avian incubation  Done

==Implications==

  • See above about merging suggestion (although that create a lone subsection, that header could then go without too much trouble). "Impact" might be a slightly better title.
  • Maybe this image and the first feathered one can be combined with {{double image stack}}? (not sure I'd agree with that, I generally like a left-right alternation but I am not too fussed and can cope with a column)
    • I'm suggesting it not to place them on the same side (although I personally prefer images nto on the left at the beginning of section, I don,t inflict it on other articles unless there's conflict). I'm suggesting it because that way we get both images in the same section without risking to damage the layout (floats are such irky things). The template is also useful when two images have to be in a small section (e.g., for comaprison). See Banksia#May Gibb's "Banksia men" for an example of the latter).
  • Replace that semicolon with a period.  Done
  • Consider linking Dinosaur Renaissance, since the discovery is linked to it.  Done
  • Thirty years later, this idea is almost universally accepted. In fact, Deinonychus and other dromaeosaurids are so birdlike that there has been debate whether they are in fact true birds.
    • Either source and expand on this, or delete it. It makes for a very poor (and IMO overly sensationalistic) transition to the next paragraph.
      • My first thought was to delete the second sentence, so I did. How does it work now?
        • Looks alright to me.
  • Move the two Latin names to after "structures"  Done
  • Comma before "which"  Done - (I tried juggling with this but it seems the best way...)

==habitat==

  • Idea: remove the "habitat" header and add a paragraph or two summarizing the following sections. This both removes the single-paragraph section and lack of text between two headers.
  • was found → "inhabitated" or something such. It was actually found in Montana rocks .  Done
  • Comma before "in which"  Done
  • Instead of saying "larger" and "smaller" (unless they were larger/smaller than Deinonychus, that is), name one, and say the other was smaller/larger  Done
  • the fish Lepisosteus.
    • I find it interesting that the genus is actually extant. Consider saying "gar genus" or naming a specific species. Also, Goniopholisis not monospecific, so "the crocodile" is probably incorrect.  Done -also, for the record, gar scales are incredibly common fossils
      • *files that under "you never know how useful it might turn out to be" factlets*

==Predatory behavior==

  • the taphonomy of the tenontosaur sites → (?) "the taphonomy of tenontosaur sites"  Done
  • if the smaller animal dies → "is killed"  Done
  • individual variation, sexual variation, or age-related variation. → "individual, sexual or age-related variation."  Done
  • Ostrom has speculated → "Ostrom originally speculated"  Done
    • BTW, wasn't that speculation widely reported in popular descriptions of the species?
  • also confirm → "confirmed"  Done
  • also show → "also showed"  Done
  • a possible indication of difference in behavior between young and adults.
    • Wait, this logically is not in and of itself an "indication" as much as a likely cause of different behaviors, right?
      • Good point; it indicates to observers of the bones that there were different behaviors, but such a different structure could also cause different behaviors in the animals.
        • I guess I'm just interpreting "indicate" differently. I'd use it for the results of different behavior, not its cause.

==Speed==

  • a surprisingly low .48. → This is not "surprising" of itself, only in relation to prior speculation (from what is in the article, anyway).  Done
  • Move that ref to the end of the paragraph.  Done
  • The metatarsus of smaller individuals, while still short, are longer than those in larger individuals. Reopened
    • Wait, isn't that a contradiction and they are relatively longer? If not, that should cleared out.
    • Tried an alternate formulation.
  • Use proper dashes or parentheses,not these two dashes. (n- and m-dashes are available right below the edit window)  Done
  • The entire second paragraph sounds vaguely out of place. Maybe it is too detailed?

==Reproduction (Eggs)==

  • This section does not discuss the actual reproduction of Deinonychus.
    • that's what we need - hot dino sexx! Changed the heading to "Eggs"; let's see how we like it.
      • This is where I snigger uncontrollably. But yeah, I guess I was too distracted by the (at the time) other "Eggs" header to suggest one myself...
  • Why isn't "gastralia" italicized?
    • Made it a redlink; these bones are found in many things, and there's been a lot of discussion about their functions, so someone should make an article.
      • You're missing the point. I'm asking because they are italicized under "Further findings"!
I've remove the italics, and explained what they were without the "scare quotes". We generally haven't used italics on anatomical terms, even if they originally came from Latin, because they're not italicized in the literature that way, and I specifically asked on the last article that they be removed so that all the articles are standard. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • the [...]eggs [...] that it
    • Are there one or several?  Done
  • There doesn't seem to any good reason to use a dash. Use a period instead.  Done

==Popular culture==

  • See above under "Classification"
  • I'd like to see a source specifically addressing the Jurassic Park stuff, even if in a more indirect way.
I'm still looking for a reliable source for this; the only websites I could find are absolute crap. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
See [4] and [5]. The latter is a published paper. I googled "jurassic park movie science velociraptor". Circeus 14:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I no longer have Jurassic Park (the novel), but didn't Grant flat-out tell Tim that Deinonychus had been reclassified as a species of Velociraptor? J. Spencer 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Neither of the links that Circeus provides above will work, sadly: the first does not even mention Deinonychus, and the second seems like "reader submissions", complete with grammar errors ("the creature would dislocate it's own knees...", "very little of which found it's way back into our coffers...", etc), no italics on generic names, and the only mention of Deinonychus is that the movie Velociraptor were the same size. I haven't read the JP book in years. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and the depiction of Velociraptor as an endothermic animal is reported as an "error", too! Firsfron of Ronchester 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There's also the possibility that this is a dinosaur urban legend. From my reading of the Velociraptor article and the cites it uses, Crichton accepted Deinonychus antirrhopus as a species of Velociraptor, but named the island's raptors as V. mongoliensis (albeit too large). From Bakker's recollections in Raptor Red, which I just checked, when Spielberg was filming, he wanted an even larger raptor and ordered a scale-up that really wasn't "based" on any particular species. Is there a special feature on the DVD or anything that talks about this? The official JP website rapidly becomes tedious with various website tricks. J. Spencer 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 21:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Subfamily

Deinonychus jumps back and fourth between being a dromaeosaurine, velociraptorine, or neither literally from analysis to analysis. Is having it listed as a velociraptorine (presumably conforming with the most recent, highly flawed, Turner et al. analysis) in the infobox really the most logical conclusion? Would not leaving it as a Eudromaeosaur be enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomozaurus (talk • contribs) 03:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the classification section here needs to be updated with some more recent studies than Turner 2011 and Norell 2006. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

On the taxonomy...

Considering the article states that the most recent phylogenetic analysis says Deinonychus is a dromaeosaurine, we should probably update the classification section to reflect that; though if it's not consensus then leave as is. Tomopteryx's suggestion of having it just at Eudromaeosauria works just as well, though. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that a Velociraptor?

I think that the head and teeth of this animal... are the head and teeth of a Velociraptor... so calling this a Deinonychus is a loud mistake, isn't it? Kintaro (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Older restorations of Deinoychus with a more generic theropod head are wrong, so no. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a Deinonychus, but it's inaccurate. Real dromaeosaurids bad pennaceous feathers rather than the protofeathers you see in the image. Only the tip of the snout (likely a beak) was unfeathered. The wings are too small and should be folded to the side. Real Deinonychuses were much more bird like.JordanL462 (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Pennaceous feathers can degrade to downy feathers in flightless forms, and the exact kind of feathers large dromaeosaurs had are not known. FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Cast of the holotype foot YPM 5205

as far as I can see these are two different animals feet. not a single specimen. the big toe-claws are too different in shape, size AND angle. more probably they come from two individuals. I assume it is the literature and not a wrong caption, but wanted to give note anyhow. 62.163.232.224 (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The difference is just due to perspective. You can even see the same dirt on both photos, especially some white spots that are pretty much identical. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The YPM 5205 foot is described in detail in "Ostrom, J.H., 1969, "A new theropod dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of Montana", Postilla 128: 1–17". The left pes was found nearly complete and articulated, the right more fragmentary. I think it's safe to say it's one foot from a single animal. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
AMNH 3015
  • Another fossil image issue, this mount of is apparently the only Deinonychus mount in the world that incorporates real fossils, but being from 1995[6], it is a bit incorrect, as it has pronated hands. I'm thinking it could be shown in the discovery section, next to where the specimen is mentioned? It is the only "historical" section here after all, so we could note the inaccuracy in the caption. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deinonychus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deinonychus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Which skull is correct for Deinonychus?

I see two skulls for Deinonychus, one is very Carcharodontosaurus-like and the other is more similar to the skull of Velociraptor. Which one is correct? I've seen statements that the Carcharodontosaurus-like skull is inaccurate but it seems to show up more often than the Velociraptor-like skull. The images of the skeletons in this article seem to show the Carcharodontosaurus-like skull but the illustrations are based off the Velociraptor-like skull. 50.195.51.9 (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The old skull restorations are restored after Allosaurus (most of the skull of Carcharodontosaurus wasn't discovered until the 90s or so). But it doesn't seem like any complete skulls are known yet, and all newer skull restorations I've seen differ quite a bit from each other. Greg Paul alone seems to have restored it in at least two different ways for different books (upturned snout in 1988, triangular snout in 2001). So for now, there's no definitive reconstruction, but check Scott Hartman's.[7] But it seems the triangular snout is more correct, since it is apparently based on newer material. The old upturned version is one of the reasons why Greg Paul sunk Deinonychus into Velocirator back then. So the allosaur type snouts here at least aren't upturned, which is more correct. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The most recent reconstructions (Gregory S. Paul 2010, Scott Hartman) look very similar, the tall, Jurassic Park skull originally reconstructed by Ostrom is inaccurate now. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Skull reconstruction
  • Since the skull is now thought to be much different, is it misleading to have a photo of an isolated skull with the "old" shape in the article? Not that we should remove photos of whole skeletons with such skulls (no mounts with updated skulls exist for some reason), but it is different when it is the main focus... FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Scott Hartman explained how the allosaur-like and the Velociraptor-like Deinonychus skull reconstructions are inaccurate, and came to be, here: [8]. As Scott mentioned, John Ostrom's 1969 Deinonychus monograph shows separate skull bones accurately, but has a skull reconstruction where those bones don't match up at all! A striking example is how different the snout in the skull reconstruction is to the actual fossil remains shown in the monograph two pages later. So the allosaur-like Deinonychus skull reconstruction is shown to be inaccurate by Deinonychus bones illustrated in the same monograph it is from. It's a shame so many Deinonychus reconstructions have been based on the inaccurate skull reconstruction in the monograph, ignoring actual Deinonychus skull remains, to the point that there are even dinosaur exhibits with Deinonychus "skulls" that are actually sculptures based on that inaccurate skull reconstruction from the monograph.
I think currently, the photo of the isolated allosaur-like "skull" on the Deinonychus Wikipedia page is definitely misleading. It suggests the skull of Deinonychus actually looked like that, but it's known that it doesn't. For example, a quick comparison to the snout of Deinonychus shown on page 17 of Ostrom's 1969 monograph shows the "skull" in the photo looks very different and that its teeth don't even look like the teeth of Deinonychus. The "skull" in the photo has other major inaccuracies too, such as the sideways-pointing eyes/sclerotic rings. I think the photos of Deinonychus skeletons with allosaur-like "skulls" are also misleading, and that if they are kept it should be mentioned their skulls are inaccurate. The skull in this photo looks much better: [9] It was mentioned its hands are pronated, but is that definitely the case rather than its forelimbs being posed mid-flap resulting in its hands being in that position? In any case, I think that photo would be better as the first image for the Deinonychus page than the photo currently used [10] which has an allosaur-like "skull" with all the inaccuracies I listed previously for the isolated "skull". 90.192.98.34 (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the isolated skull is too inaccurate, and will remove it soon. But as for the AMNH mount, if you look at the radius and ulna of the right arm (more visible here[11]), they appear to be crossed, which apparently wouldn't be possible. Also, even if we suggest the arms are pointing sideways in a "flapping" motion, the palms wouldn't face that far away from the body... The skull in the current taxobox image is shown at an odd, foreshortened angle, so it isn't too obvious that the shape is wrong (though it probably is). FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Seems the Perot Museum has a nice mount[12], the photo isn't too great, though... FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deinonychus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deinonychus/Archive_4&oldid=1184572222"