×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Velociraptor Had Feathers

CowboyNeal posted more than 6 years ago | from the well-and-wings-to-put-them-on dept.

News 189

Spy der Mann writes "A new look at some old bones have shown that velociraptor, the dinosaur made famous in the movie Jurassic Park, had feathers. A paper describing the discovery, made by paleontologists at the American Museum of Natural History and the Field Museum of Natural History, appears in the Sept. 21 issue of the journal Science."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

189 comments

Wow, what a dinosaur! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20694421)

It's reputation is about to be tarred and feathered once this news gets out...

Also... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20694435)

I am replying to this post so that ShieldW0lf [slashdot.org] doesn't get first reply to first post.

Mod Parent Up! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20694553)

Do eeeeet

Artist's rendering: (4, Funny)

flimflam (21332) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694425)

Misleading picture (5, Funny)

merikari (205531) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694937)

Clearly this is not a realistic portrayal of the dinosaur. It doesn't have a saddle, and Adam is missing from the picture too.

I for one... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20695007)

welcome our feathered velociraptor overlords!

cowboyneal is fat (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20694429)

cunt

new reason for extinctin of the dino's (1, Funny)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694431)

All those little 'created' humans walking around at the same time must have killed them all to make headdresses.

It all makes sense! How could I have been so foolish before!

Hang on, did I take my tablet today?

sidebashing creation again? :D (-1, Troll)

g4b (956118) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694605)

God had a bit of fun while letting birds evolve, just to make our children happy in Dinosaur Parks, so what?

Even if theologically I can only add, that man was created after the mammal after the bird, and philosophically God never seems to be the guy, who just drops something finished from heavens, like some Software Giants try to, it also could be possible that he had some private contract with Spielberg.

Or he wanted to make Spielberg happy.

My theory is simpler.
Adam pointed to the Velociraptor and said: "big tasty chicken". blame him. He just ate them all.

Re:new reason for extinctin of the dino's (1)

certain death (947081) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694729)

I was thinking more along the lines of the little red chicken hawk from looney toons fame...

Re:new reason for extinctin of the dino's (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20694865)

All those little 'created' humans walking around at the same time must have killed them all to make headdresses.

No, no... dinosaurs became extinct because they tasted terrible with the Colonel's secret herbs-and-spices recipe. Go back and read Darwin's famous treatise, Oregano on Species , where he proposes the theory that all food evolved from lesser forms of food -- the survival of the tastiest. After all, you don't see chickens, sheep, or beef cattle threatened with extinction, do you?

Re:new reason for extinctin of the dino's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20694951)

Raptor Jesus says "You're going to burn in hell."

Is this news? (1)

olehenning (1090423) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694437)

I was under the impression that this has been known for a long time. Or perhaps it was just suspected. Can anyone clarify?

Re:Is this news? (4, Informative)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694451)

Its been suspected for a long time, but what was laking was decent quality fossil evidence. There have been clues before, but the evidence wasn't good enough until now.

Re:Is this news? (2, Funny)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694815)

There have been clues before, but the evidence wasn't good enough until now.

My theory is that the 'raptor wasn't a dinosaur at all. It was just a really big ostrich. OK... a really big, really smart ostrich.

Re:Is this news? (0, Redundant)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694955)

In Soviet Russia, Ostrich is really dumb dinosaur! Taste like chicken!

Re:Is this news? (1, Funny)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695697)

In Soviet Russia, Ostrich is really dumb dinosaur! Taste like chicken!
"In Soviet Russia, The Chickens eat YOU!"

There, fixed that for you....

Re:Is this news? (5, Informative)

syntaxglitch (889367) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694963)

My theory is that the 'raptor wasn't a dinosaur at all. It was just a really big ostrich. OK... a really big, really smart ostrich.

Your theory is almost correct, in that one could probably say the ostrich is just a small, stupid dinosaur.

If you want something a little more convincing than an ostrich, consider the cassowary; a six-foot tall bird that can run at 30 mph, jump 5 feet high, and swim well, with a 5-inch middle claw on each foot that the bird can and will use as a weapon, disemboweling a human with a single kick. They are intelligent, vicious when threatened, and cunning enough to outflank organized groups of humans they perceive as a threat.

Fortunately, they aren't carnivores.

Re:Is this news? (1)

TheEdge757 (1157503) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695405)

"Cassowaries, deftly using their surroundings to conceal their movements, have been known to out-flank organized groups of human predators." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary [wikipedia.org]

Creepy.....

Re:Is this news? (2, Insightful)

dcollins (135727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695725)

Actually, Wikipedia asserts that they do eat small animals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary):

"They are frugivorous; fallen fruit and fruit on low branches is the mainstay of their diet. They also eat fungi, snails, insects, frogs, snakes and other small animals."

Re:Is this news? (2, Interesting)

dave1791 (315728) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695003)

Not that big actually. 2 meters long and most of that tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor [wikipedia.org]

IIRC, I read somewhere that it is that all of the dromaeosaurids were very, very, closely related to birds and might actually have been flightless birds, having descended from that first bird (the one with the unpronouncable name).

Re:Is this news? (2, Informative)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695787)

IIRC, I read somewhere that it is that all of the dromaeosaurids were very, very, closely related to birds and might actually have been flightless birds, having descended from that first bird (the one with the unpronouncable name).
"ar-kee-OP-ter-iks"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx [wikipedia.org]

Re:Is this news? (1)

mr-mafoo (891779) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695689)

The science museum in london has had their raptors covered in feathers for quite a while. I remember going in a thinking, fluffy dinosaurs, wtf; their almost cute.

From what i can remember the raptor's feathers resembled something close to a newborn penguin's. That is, they look more like they had fur/hair than feathers - with maybe some longer, more bird like ones, around the arms

Re:Is this news? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20694813)

No, it was not known for Velociraptor. Your second sentence is correct. Feather impressions were known for some pretty close relatives to Velociraptor, and it was therefore suspected that Velociraptor could have had feathers too, but no direct evidence of them had been found until this discovery. This new discovery isn't feather impressions either, but the presence of knobby structures on the bone that correspond to where the base of feathers in modern birds are up against the limb bone.

The full article by Turner et al. can be found here [sciencemag.org] in Science.

Looking at the pictures, the features are quite suggestive, and the structures are in the right place, but I'm not 100% convinced. If the interpretation is correct, though, these sorts of structures could be found on other specimens and in related species (according to the article, though, not all modern birds have these structures, so the distribution might be variable). I'm sure that this will be tested out fairly quickly by other workers.

Not Velociraptor at all. (4, Interesting)

Chess_the_cat (653159) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694445)

What was depicted in the movie Jurassic Park was clearly Deinonychus. Velociraptor didn't have that large inner claw. In fact, the name Deinonychus means Terrible Claw while Velociraptor means Speedy Predator. I suspect they misnamed the dinosaur in the movie because the name Raptor was more marketable to children.

Re:Not Velociraptor at all. (4, Funny)

caluml (551744) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694633)

What was depicted in the movie Jurassic Park was clearly Deinonychus.

I think you'll find it was just computer generated.

Re:Not Velociraptor at all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20694771)

Actually, Velociraptor *did* have the inner claw, just not nearly as large. The raptors in Jurassic Park were based much more on the Utahraptor, which was discovered at about the same time. It gave them an excuse to beef up the Velociraptors.

Re:Not Velociraptor at all. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20694965)

AC #1 above me is right. Utahraptor was 2 meters at the shoulder. They actually talk about the discovery of Utahraptor and how it was used to justify the Raptors in Jurassic Park in the book "Raptor Red"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utahraptor [wikipedia.org]

Re:Not Velociraptor at all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20694971)

According to wikipedia the velociraptor, while smaller than depicted in the movie, DID have a large sickle-shaped claw. So the movie version was probably a combination of the two.

Re:Not Velociraptor at all. (1)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694993)

Velociraptors as big as the ones in the film weren't found when the first Jurassic Park movie was made, and anyway they had flatter snouts. The animals in the movie were always Deinonychii (pl?), with that rounder head, rigid tail and sickle claw on each foot.

Just looked up when the Utah raptor was discovered - 1993 according to Wikipedia. Hmm... might be close either way. The book was from '90 and the film was released in '93. Hmm...

maybe because of (2, Informative)

g4b (956118) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_issues_in_Jurassic_Park

Deinonychus was rechristened by some authors, which happens moreoften, like the all known Brontosaurus which is named Apatosaurus.

There have been renamings all along, including to believe in a species and revoking his own line. Happened to the Gorgosaurus, too. Depends which line of Paleonotology you follow, there was always big debate over such things from the beginning of this science.

Re:Not Velociraptor at all. (1)

Yold (473518) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695811)

Velociraptor does not mean Speedy Predator, raptor means theif.

And the Megaraptor, not the Deinonychus, was the villan of the JP movies.

Re:Not Velociraptor at all. (2, Informative)

Yold (473518) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695871)

BTW, contrary to parent post, a Velociraptor did have a large 3-4 inch scyth-like claw.

2000 called... (0, Flamebait)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694447)

And it wants it's shocking feathered velociraptor back.

You can see Disocvery documentaries from years ago where the velociraptor is small and feathered.

SO. F*CKIN'. WHAT.

Yes, Jurassic Park is fiction, not documentary, and also the story says they filled-in some holes in the dino DNA with grod DNA and so on (so they're not perfect replica of the original dinosaurs).

But also it's a damn entertainment movie. You can either get entertained (Jurassic's velcoraptors kick ass! well at least in the first two movies), or get pedantic and rediscovered the damn feathers each few years.

As if someone gives a damn.

Re:2000 called... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20694513)

>>and also the story says they filled-in some holes in the dino DNA with grod DNA

No wonder the dinos went nuts and started killing people. You mixed in DNA from evil villian and Legion of Doom member Gorilla Grodd [hyperborea.org]?!

Re:2000 called... (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694777)

No wonder the dinos went nuts and started killing people. You mixed in DNA from evil villian and Legion of Doom member Gorilla Grodd

Yea :( Well, that explains why Velociraptors where able to steal Grant's credit cards and order enormous amount of crap online in JP 3.

Missing Link? (2, Interesting)

Algorithmnast (1105517) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694449)

So is velociraptor going to be announced as the earliest known ancestor of birds?

I wonder why other velociraptor fossils haven't been found with feathers, if all velociraptors had them? If this is the first one where feathers were identified then I'd ask if it really is the same species. Is it possible that this new fossil is a different species, but one where the skeleton was close enough to velociraptor that a fossilized version is originally identified as one?

Re:Missing Link? (1)

raving griff (1157645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694489)

It's not that this velociraptor was found with feathers--it wasn't--it's that for the first time, scientists noticed that there were sockets for the feathers to fit into.

Re:Missing Link? (4, Interesting)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694491)

the suspicion is that all dinosours had feathers.

Feather are made from the same stuff as scales, chitin (snakes and so on), its just a form of scale thats better suited to temperature regulation. Having feathers did not mean flight was even possible, that would have required specific adaption that feathers would probably have helped, but it would have been some environmental push, not the feathers themselves that caused birds to emerge.

Re:Missing Link? (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694601)

I have a really hard time imagining the large herbivorous dinosaurs with feathers.... Not that that means anything, just that I have sucky imagination ;-)

Re:Missing Link? (3, Informative)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694759)

I have a really hard time imagining the large herbivorous dinosaurs with feathers.... Not that that means anything, just that I have sucky imagination ;-)

Some dragons are drawn with feathers instead of scales. It looks pretty good.

The problem seems to be people keep imagining that those feathers are same as present day feathers, and brightly colored. In fact, the Discovery raptors had brightly colored feathers which didn't make any sense for a carnivore.

I would expect more subdued hues, lots of gray and brown, so they are not as noticeable to their pray.

In fact, from some distance, it wouldn't look much different compared to scales, it'll just be somewhat less shiny.

No idea (5, Informative)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695601)

Well, if you look at nodern carnivores, you see such examples as:

- the fox, which is pretty darn red

- the tiger, which is relatively bright orange and with stripes too (and cats somewhat inherited that: a normal tabby male is almost always orange, though the females are nearly always grey when they're tabby.)

In fact, think about this: the most logical camouflage colour would be green, right? That's the colour we dress our soldiers in, right? Well, in practice mammals are coloured anything but green.

A hypothesis there is that camouflage doesn't always mean having the same colour as the surroundings. Three quarters of camouflage in the animal world seems to have to do more with the mental capacity of your opponent (prey or predator, as the case may be) than with blending in.

Primates have very evolved, arguably top-of-the-line image analysis and recognition capabilities. A lot of more primitive animals don't. For example, strange as it may seem to you, a lot of animals have trouble recognizing a snake as a snake. (In fact, one hypothesis is that a lot of the natural selection pressure for increasingly bigger brains in primates was... snake recognition.) A lot take "shortcuts" to save neurons, like mainly processing edges instead of whole shapes, or mainly seeing stuff that moves instead of analyzing the whole picture. A lot are nearly colour-blind, or have other primary colours for their vision than humans have. Some species (e.g., a lot of birds) don't even try to recognize another animal as a whole, but just look at where the eyes are: both in front for stereoscopic vision means predator, eyes on the sides means harmless herbivore. Etc.

So basically don't assume that what's piss-poor camouflage for _you_, also counts as such for another species. It may be actually _excellent_ camouflage in the environment that animal has to deal with.

E.g., lots of stripes and dots may look like begging for attention to you, but may severely overload the edge detection in more primitive species, by creating lots and lots and lots of extra edges, and thus prevent them from figuring out the whole.

E.g., the reason a lot of exotic fish are orange, yellow and red, is because those frequencies get absorbe the fastest in water. If you go deep enough, pretty much all available light is... blue. So you don't really need to colour yourself black, you only need to absorb blue. A simpler and cheaper to produce pigment can serve the same purpose and achieve the same effect.

E.g., a big tail like that of the pheasant may look like an unexplainable handicap, until you realize that most animals have a very simplified way of judging how big an opponent is. They only judge how big the image looks, not try to reconstruct the 3D animal in their brain and judge the size that way. There's a reason cats puff up and turn sideways when they might need to fight. To _you_ it's the same cat turned sideways, but to more simple-brained animals (apparently including other cats) it just became a lot larger and thus more dangerous. Or to the same animal you might look like a lot of an easier prey if you crouch or sit than if you stand up. So, depending on what predators it had to evolve with, being able to fan a giant tail can actually act as a deterrent.

So basically, we probably can't extrapolate what the raptors' plumage looked like. It probably depends a lot on the environment, and on how their prey's brain worked. And given the many millions of years involved, I wouldn't be surprised if it changed over time as their environment and prey evolved.

Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20695855)

This is interesting stuff!

Dazzling camouflage works on humans, too (4, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696203)

It was used in WWII. [wikipedia.org] No real evidence it worked well, but the principle applies to predators. Who is going to miss a big galumphing thing charging towards them, no matter how well camouflaged? That's not the point. The point is to make the prey misjudge distance, direction, and speed, so that when you leap, they dodge the wrong way.

Humans use the same kind of visual shortcuts that other animals do. In fact, it's in the basic structure of the eye. The rods and cones in the eye are cross linked and inhibit each other, meaning that only large changes between adjacent cells are transmitted by the optic nerve. The brain then rebuilds a complete picture based on the edge and tone information transmitted.

Re:No idea (1)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696321)

>the most logical camouflage colour would be green, right?

Actually, the most logical camouflage color is countershading [wikipedia.org], which the Wikipedia link does a terrible job of describing. Essentially, countershading says animals are darker on the top than on their bellies, fading from one to the other -- like thousands of species of fish, many or most mammals, and a fair number of insects. What happens is that when light is falling from above, on something that is darker on top and lighter on bottom, it appears to predators' eyes as being flat. It doesn't disappear: its distance and size information is obscured.

There are three general types of coloring in animals: camouflage, warning, and disruptive. Most animals exhibit one of the three patterns. Countershading seems to be the most common camouflage technique, from what I've read.

Re:Missing Link? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20694981)

Feathers/scales/hair/fingernails are all made of keratin, not chitin. Feathers are a form of scales??? Why the fax machine is nothing but a waffle iron with a phone attached!

Re:Missing Link? (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694957)

So is velociraptor going to be announced as the earliest known ancestor of birds?

That would assume evolution works as a ladder - but it doesn't. It's more like a tree. This indicates that velociraptor *could* be an ancestor of birds; probably more likely is that they share a common ancestor.

If this is the first one where feathers were identified then I'd ask if it really is the same species. Is it possible that this new fossil is a different species, but one where the skeleton was close enough to velociraptor that a fossilized version is originally identified as one?

Yeah, it would be nice if the article gave better evidence and more analysis to answer questions like that. One possibility is that it could take a well-preserved bone to show the quill knobs, which might be missed in other specimens. But I'm purely speculating.

Not bird ancestor (2, Interesting)

YetAnotherBob (988800) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695735)

Velociraptor was a late dinosaur. there had already been birds around for a while. Not a bird, just a distant cousin.

Indications are that all dinos had down as young, probably had feathers growing up. May have lost them, if they were the large species, may not have. All the species I am aware of had stones in the chest cavity, when found whole, indicative of a gizzard. Like birds, the large species also had hollow bones. That saves weight. In birds, it helps the power to weight ratio which is vital for flight. In dino's it made possible larger body size. Preditor/prey ratios also indicate that they were warm blooded. Footprint evidence gives speeds of up to 45 KPH. Not often, but possible. That is very impressive for an animal the size of a whale. Most all of this evidence has come up in the last 30 or so years. Dinosaurs were not birds, but were in many respects bird like. It'll be interesting to see what else we can learn about them.

They also had tar pits back then... (3, Funny)

mrRay720 (874710) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694467)

Constantly being tarred and feathered, the poor velociraptors were often the butt of the larger dinosaurs' jokes.

Nowhere is there proof that the 'raptors actually grew those feathers out of their skin!

Queue XKCD comic (2, Funny)

Xyde (415798) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694479)

I'm sure XKCD will have something to say about this. We welcome our Mwahahah flying, feathered velociraptor overlords! ..first post!

Re:Queue XKCD comic (1, Informative)

Brother Dysk (939885) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694529)

Queue XKCD comic
"Cue", surely.

Re:Queue XKCD comic (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20694959)

It depends on what the intent of the post was. If it was to notify or remind XKCD to do a comic on the topic, it would be "cue". If it was to go to XKCD after reading slashdot, then it would be "queue".

Han shot first... (2, Funny)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694487)

Does that mean Spielberg is going to retouch Jurassic Park to add feathers?

Re:Han shot first... (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694825)

Does that mean Spielberg is going to retouch Jurassic Park to add feathers?
And he's going to replace their scary teeth with walkie talkies.

Re:Han shot first... (1)

Drathos (1092) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695031)

It's been a while (several grateful years) since I've seen any of them, but I'm pretty sure that in the third one some of the raptors had a little plumage on their heads. Not what was meant in the article, but still..

Separated at birth... (3, Funny)

Kildjean (871084) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694537)

Barrens Velociraptors, and most of them found through Azeroth have feathers too. Are these types related or they are distant cousins.

Just as well the feathers were left off (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694567)

I just can't take a giant feathered dinosaur seriously, even if it is chewing my face off. Just looks like a big fruity lizard with a feather boa, probably going to catch a Broadway show when it's done devouring me.

Re:Just as well the feathers were left off (1)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695399)

"That doesn't look very scary. More like a six-foot turkey!" -- Annoying fat kid

Re:Just as well the feathers were left off (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696335)

Kind of makes the E. Dickinson poem a bit more ... diabolical.

Hope is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune--without the words,
And never stops at all...


unprecedented evile never sleeps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20694609)

it would appear so. it's way overdue for an extended 'breather' though.

nowhere to hide now. get some oxygen on yOUR brain. gaze up towards the heavens, the skies seem to be clearing somewhat, & there's lots going on up there. clean house, trust yOUR creators, help another. that seems to be most of the deal.

despite everything we've been highly trained to never disbelieve, change, way beyond the controll of our 'keepers', sometimes radical, does occur. the lights are coming up all over the place now. see you there?

Now we have to bring them back (3, Funny)

DanielMarkham (765899) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694649)

What with America being so overweight and all, now we have to bring back the 'raptors.

I can see it now. A car pulls up to the drive-through. "I'd like the 48-pound chicken bucket, 4 pounds of mashed potatoes, and a 10-pound sack of beaks and feet"

"Would you like that Crunchy Jurassic, or Original Recipe?"

Re:Now we have to bring them back (1)

rangek (16645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695603)

What with America being so overweight and all, now we have to bring back the 'raptors.

I thought you were going to say so they can hunt down the unheathly. Like:

"I can see it now. A car pulls up to the drive-through. 'I'd like the 48-pound chicken bucket, 4 pounds of mashed potatoes... What the...GRARGH!'"

Re:Now we have to bring them back (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695975)

Yes, the raptors should be brought back... but not to feed the portly. Rather, to cull the herd.

You can bet that more people will stick to their diets (or "lifestyle changes" if "diet" is too non-PC) if their intact survival depends on outrunning velociraptors.

Actually, there would be no possibility of outrunning the raptors. However, the principle still applies, since there would be a need to outrun the poor slob running next to you.

Woot! 7p (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20694909)

was at the ?same I've never seen

Who Says Wikipedia Doesn't Have a Sense of Humor? (2, Funny)

riffzifnab (449869) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694977)

Deinonychus Scale Drawing [wikipedia.org]

Look out dude, its going for your leg!

Re:Who Says Wikipedia Doesn't Have a Sense of Humo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20695641)

If there was a 2 meter dog about to chew your legs off, I'd be concerned.

Something doesn't add up for me (4, Insightful)

OfficialReverendStev (988479) | more than 6 years ago | (#20694979)

See, in the article it mentions briefly before getting to the feather part that the Veliciraptor may be smaller than originally thought. Then it goes on about how this guy found bumps on the arm bone that correspond to bumps on the same bone in birds. Alright. But then it mentions that the bumps have never been found on any Velociraptor bones before.

My question: Why is the conclusion that Velociraptor had feathers and not that they've discovered a different species?

Great... (1)

Spudtrooper (1073512) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695287)

There go all my childhood fantasies. Instead of being scary, they ran around looking like Liberace.

"GRR! Don't I look FABULOUS?!"

See on IMAX (1)

Se7enLC (714730) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695571)

I was very disappointed to hear that they now believe velociraptors had feathers. Not very menacing when they look like tall chickens.

The process of discovering this new feathery information was shown in a lame IMAX documentary called Dinosaurs Alive! [dinosalive.com], narrated by Michael Douglas. It's playing now in a number of markets as both a 2D and 3D film.

Re:See on IMAX (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695939)

I was very disappointed to hear that they now believe velociraptors had feathers. Not very menacing when they look like tall chickens.

Isn't that like saying that a lion doesn't look so menacing since it's fluffy and looks like a kitty from a distance?

I suspect they probably looked a little more menacing than simply a chicken. :-P

Cheers
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...