![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
Archived 2004-2006 and 2007. J. Spencer ( talk) 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
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
section Predatory behavior
section limbfunction
section description
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.
section speed
I hope this helps a bit – and thanks for this great article. Cheers, -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 22:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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==
==Description==
==Classification==
==History of discovery==
==Possible egg==
==Implications==
==habitat==
==Predatory behavior==
==Speed==
==Reproduction (Eggs)==
==Popular culture==
|
Last edited at 04:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 21:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/6508252h00612424/fulltext.pdfWhen 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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
Archived 2004-2006 and 2007. J. Spencer ( talk) 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
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
section Predatory behavior
section limbfunction
section description
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.
section speed
I hope this helps a bit – and thanks for this great article. Cheers, -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 22:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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==
==Description==
==Classification==
==History of discovery==
==Possible egg==
==Implications==
==habitat==
==Predatory behavior==
==Speed==
==Reproduction (Eggs)==
==Popular culture==
|
Last edited at 04:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 21:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/6508252h00612424/fulltext.pdfWhen 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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)