Talk:Utahraptor: Difference between revisions

File:Utahraptorskeletonrun.jpg

Image removed by anon. contributor 4.8.141.208 as "inaccurate" without discussion

Fix up

this page needs fixing up bad...

Umm...can you please clarify?Cas Liber 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Removed uncited addition == it also need a non-fetherd pics

This was just posted, and I wouldn't doubt that it's got some basis in fact, but I don't know of any citations for it. Any ideas, dromaeosaur people?

Some recent findings might suggest an even larger size for Utahraptor, perhaps more than 10 meters long. However, it is not clear if these remains (fragmentary) belong to Utahraptor ostrommaysorum, or to a completely new species.

J. Spencer 01:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's true, but there is no citation as it's just gossip at this point, hasn't been published. Better wait for the paper. Dinoguy2 02:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur Comics

As I said on Talk:Dromiceiomimus, you need to look at the proportional relevence of these pop culture things. Especially in a case like Dinosaur comics. Raptor Red is *about* Utahraptor. The relevent portions of WWD are *about* the (hypothetical) behavior and environment of Utahraptor. The reader may gain more information, correct or incorrect, about this animal species by looking at these sources (can't speak to the other novel mentioned--since it's sci fi, I'd guess it's probably less notable and could be removed or reduced in emphasis). Now, Dinosaur Comics--you could replace the Utahraptor with an elephant or a talking carrot, and it would not change the comic one bit. It's a talking head (I'll reiterate I'm a fan!). The comic is not about dinosaurs (usually) in any way except that the author's points happen to be put in the mouths of dinosaur drawings. I would hesitate call anything in it but the rex "characters"! I'll leave the brief mention in here so I'm not the guy unilaterally removing DC stuff, but I'll state that I do not think DC is notable to the topic of Utahraptor at all. Dinoguy2 01:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Utahraptor already has a popular culture section; adding a reference to DC would take one sentence and wouldn't add a new section on its own. I don't see how saying that Utahraptor could be replaced by anything else is relevant, because it's still a Utahraptor. There are plenty of talking head characters that are still, in the end, characters. This seems to be exactly the kind of reference that popular culture sections are made for.(Ktwsolo (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

So, the character named Utahraptor adds what, then? Does it provide a look at intrepretations of the living animal, like the other sources mentioned? Is it an otherwise nonscientific character that makes use of the actual characteristics of a Utahraptor (like, say, a Garfield-like comic with a Utahraptor instead of a house cat)? Or is it something chosen because another character was needed and there was some suitable art on hand? I don't find the present argument for inclusion that strong; by that line of thought, one could put an "in popular culture" section on Human, and note that there is a human in Dinosaur Comics. Actually, I would find that hilarious, and I'm not sure why. J. Spencer (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it provides a look at a Utahraptor in popular culture which, from what I can see, is the very point of the heading. If popular depictions of Utahraptors were omnipresent, then yes, it would be silly. However, since that isn't the case, we don't really have to worry about that kind of escalation. Links to popular culture depictions of certain specific and unusual creatures abound. If adding a DC reference required adding a section just on its own, it probably wouldn't be worth it. But since there's already a section, we're talking about adding a single relevant sentence. It is relevant to Utahraptor in a popular culture framework to know about DC. Reading over the trivia advice shows me nothing to the contrary. (76.24.17.91 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

In what way? What does knowing about DC add to the understanding of Utahraptor, other than the fact Utahraptor is in DC? Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Knowing about Utahraptor in DC does the same thing that knowing about depictions in popular culture that explicitly involve "speculative reconstructions", "anatomical inaccuracies", and "fictional characteristics". What does any fictional depiction add in the way you mean? Your narrow rubric is obviously flawed. Knowing about a significant popular culture depiction of Utahraptor adds to understanding of Utahraptor in popular culture.(Ktwsolo (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

Measurements

The article says Utahraptor was 'up to 2m/6ft in height'. What posture does this refer to? The Jurassic park films are hardly documentary evidence, but they clearly show a raptor style skeleton is capable of changing ultimate hight by a fair margin. With mammals we measure up to the fore-shoulder whilst standing still. Is there an equivalent standardized measurement & posture for dinosaurs?ANTIcarrot 17:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The hip height is your best bet, but you'll see a lot of variability in how flexed the various parts of the leg are. J. Spencer 22:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't take any estimates cited here as gospel at the moment. A new paper in press is set to downsize Utahraptor a fair bit. Dinoguy2 08:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does the picture have it as 7m long when the article says that it's 6.5m long? 122.109.250.74 (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The tail looks longer because of the feathers. Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

It's a picky point, but I felt bad after reverting an IP's change to "plunderor" (a typo, but obvious what it is intended). So, "raptor" has been variously translated as "thief", "robber", and "plunderer". My American Heritage College Dictionary presents it as "one who seizes". The Dinosauria On-Line Omnipedia, from classicist Ben Creisler's work, uses "robber". Any thoughts? J. Spencer 19:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should feel bad about reverting an obvious spelling error. Articles decline in quality from stuff like that getting added. Since it's debatable about whether the translation is better as "thief", "robber", "plunderer", etc, I don't think it's a big deal about which one is used... but whatever is used needs to at least be spelled correctly. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, but if "plunderer" is the better choice, it could easily be fixed. I'm just wondering if there is a "best" choice, but there might not be (i.e. Thescelosaurus). I also don't want to start acting like Dinosaur Dictator or something.

Interestingly enough, given the recent increase in explicitly expostulating etymologies, there are probably cases already of different choices for the same words (maybe "Xraptor" was intended by the authors as X-thief, whereas "Yraptor" was intended as Y-robber). Is there actually a difference? Does it matter? Tune in next week, same Raptor-time, same Raptor-channel! J. Spencer 21:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Anybody have the paper? Authors usually give etymology in the description. We should go with whatever translation they intended. Dinoguy2 03:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have it...its hard to get as its not online. The authors say...'Etymology. Name refers to the occurrence of this formidable predatory dinosaur in Utah, 'Utah's predator'... Steveoc 86 12:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is funny because the velociraptor article says velociraptor means "swift thief" not "swift predator". Raptor is derived from rapere which is "to seize" so I don't see how they finagled predator out of thief. Then again this is Wikipedia and nothing is supposed to be verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.16.72 (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's often no one standard, direct translation between any given language and English. "Seize, thief, and predator" are all related, and the Latin rapere can refer to any of these (actually, "rape" is probably the closest translation, but the meaning of that has shifted to something very specific over the years). What matters is the author's individual intent. Osborn meant "-raptor" to mean thief, and he says so. That's verifiable and not our place to correct him. Similarly, Kirkland meant it to mean "predator." Standardizing translations would not only be original research but would directly contradict the published papers. It would take away from the integrity of Wikipedia, not add to it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Feathers

I think we should use a different picture. Although smaller Dromaeosaurids had feathers, I don't think feathers would've been practical or useful to a large dinosaur such as Utahraptor, and there is no proof for it. --JohnVMaster (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Utahraptor is the same size as moa, and smaller than giant furry tropical mammals like ground sloths. There's no reason to think they'd have lost their feathers, and the only published source I know that deals with this expressly states that it's unlikely larger forms would have lost feathers (the Velociraptor quill knob paper). Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of definitive information either way, the picture seems fine. I think that characterizing the History Channel show's portrayal of a featherless Utahraptor as an inaccuracy is a bridge too far, though. Wellspring (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, the drawing explains itself as the personal work of a primarily Harry Potter fan, and looks like nothing more than a roadrunner. The feathers are much more exaggerated than any picture of a theropod with feathers that I've ever seen, and a quick google image source confirms that nearly all representations of a utahraptor are not shown with excessive feathers. For the first few pages of results, this is the only one even with feathers that I can find, and they are much reduced. I really think we should change the image, and I'm going to go ahead and remove it for now.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because we should base a science article on a random internet image search. To check, I also ran a Google image search on Utahraptor and could not find a single anatomically accurate drawing, aside from ArthurWeasly's. Even other feathered drawings had significant problems. And no credible scientist today would argue that Utahraptor lacked feathers. The amount and style is purely a stylistic choice. In the future, rather than unilaterally deciding an image is wrong, please allow time for discussion here or bring it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Dinoguy. You can't judge an images accuracy based on what other images look like. For exarmple we now know that velociraptor has wings on its arms based on the the quil knobs on its ulna. Now lets google velociraptor, only 2 on tha first page have any trace of wings.

'The feathers are much more exaggerated than any picture of a theropod with feathers that I've ever seen' Really, what about this theropod, [1] or this theropod [2] or this one, [3] Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation

How is Utahraptor to be pronounced, since it is a mixed English-Latin word? If it was pronounced as a pure latin word (like most of scientific names), it would simply be IPA:utahraptor (a form I have actually heard used.) However, if mixed pronounciation is used, it would be something like IPA:ˈjuːtɑːraptor. On a note, I'm leaving out pure English pronounciation because I don't think it would be appropriate (even the mixed form might be problematic for speakers of other languages.) Is there any established rule concerning this? arny (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This only really matters if you're trying to write an entire sentence in Latin and then read it aloud. I'd be astounded if at least 80% of all English-speaking biologists in the world didn't pronounce it /ˈjuːtɑːˌræptɚ/. Foogus (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no real reason to believe these animals posessed feathers. It is impractical considering the climate of the period, and the nature of the animal to claim it had feathers. 8/30/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.98.46 (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Turner, Makovicky, & Norell (2007) disagree and claim there is no reason an animal this large would lose all feathers, given that feathers act as insulators against both hot and cold weather. Also consider that other giant birds like giant moa and elephant birds (about the same weight as Utahraptor, not to mention the much larger, desert-living Gigantoraptor) are always depicted as being fully feathered, and the later lived in the tropics. I don't know what you mean about the "nature" of the animal but Senter (2006) showed that even if dromaeosaurs had fully developed wings (which the smaller ones at least seem to) the feathers would not get in the way of the predatory stroke, given they way in which they held/moved their arms. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)