Talk:Deinonychus

In popular culture

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: [1] 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[2]. 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)

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.[3] 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)

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)

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)

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)