|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 16, 2013 22:18:17 GMT 5
You can also remark that the ecological question and issues are more highlighted. Numerous fans hope the fourth film will get too a more ecological plot (predators/preys ratio, disease, behavior...).
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 17, 2013 0:23:50 GMT 5
That's true. I must say the book, very unlike the film, is indeed largely about scientific issues, more in a general sense than concerning specific facts being accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 17, 2013 2:03:28 GMT 5
Yes numerous scientific subjects are discussed through the evolution of the animals on the island. The Lost World novel is even more different from the movie adaptation than the JP novel/movie. But here too, there are many differences in the faith of some characters, the part accorded to the scientific/biologic discussions. Like for TLW, the first novel is also far more violent and graphic than in the movies. And Grant is the exact physical description of J.Horner !
I think you have access to the first chapter on the amazon page.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Apr 20, 2013 19:14:19 GMT 5
Back then I loved the first book and I was somewhat indifferent towards the second. definitely one of Crichton'sbetter works (though not as gripping as 'prey'). I would however caution to take anything he writes at face value, the facts he lets his characters explain are often questionable at best.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 21, 2013 6:42:04 GMT 5
Now, that's quite in his style. Questionable in which sense you mean ?
He perhaps judged this more immersive than longly explain this in the narration ?
"Prey" had an infernal rhythm indeed !
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Apr 21, 2013 15:12:15 GMT 5
He had a tendency to pick the most sensionalistic hypothesis and then gave the strong impression that it was the correct one. In the case of dinosaurs being active it panned out - but I remember instances were it did not .
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 21, 2013 15:30:02 GMT 5
eg. velociraptor=deadliest predator ever?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 22, 2013 4:22:01 GMT 5
Pound of pound, I have no big problem with that suggestion. I've always envisionned this with their plausible efficiency at pack-hunting, something similar to African Wild Dogs.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Apr 22, 2013 21:55:51 GMT 5
I don't think you can say that. The pound for pound allometry is difficult (smaller animals are just about always stronger pound for pound). It's better to say "for their weight range" (=10-20 kg).
I agree about the AWD thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 22, 2013 22:30:24 GMT 5
Of course, pound for pound can be applied to anything. But this is about the combination of an assumed high level of agression, decent intelligence, efficiency at hunting and quite powerful weaponry at parity (strong potential bite force).
Yes, I envision these as fearsome agressive dinosaurians AWD.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Apr 22, 2013 22:38:57 GMT 5
The strong bite force only seems to apply for Dromaeosaurinae. I don't have the link at the moment, but Hone et. al (2010) said Velociraptor's teeth were very fragile, they even could break when hitting a tough bone in the carcass of a large animal. This does not suggest a strong bite In this comparision, you can also see that Deinonychus skull is much more massive and robust. Deinonychus:  Velociraptor:  References: "New evidence for a trophic relationship between the dinosaurs Velociraptor and Protoceratops" By David Hone, Jonah Choiniere, Corwin Sullivan, Xing Xu, Michael Pittman and Qingwei Tan (2010) |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 22, 2013 23:01:25 GMT 5
The strong bite force thing seems doubtful for all dromaeosaurs, its their claws that are so deadly. Just look at those things, I'm always wondering why they and modern raptors seem to be the only animals who developed long claws, perfect for stabbing, as their primary means of attack. Dromaeosaurines seem to have had somewhat more robust jaws than velociraptorines (deinonychus is a velociraptorine tough, isn't it?), but going by those mandible stress-diagrams, their mandibles are weaker than komodo dragons, which don't rely on bite force at all. I also see some parallels in their tooth design tough, so their bites could be effective nevertheless. ask coherentsheaf for more, he's the one who is knowledgeable on stress values and monitor lizards  For their weight range, I see no problem either, the combination of their agile built, probable pack behaviour and oversized weaponery would make them very effective, but they were definitely monsterified in JP/Lost world |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Apr 23, 2013 0:42:35 GMT 5
1. Even the lower end for Deninonychus' bite (1450 N) is not low at all.
2. You are right with the taxonomy, I made a mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 23, 2013 1:07:30 GMT 5
Lower range for driving that tooth into bone with adductor musculature force, but who even sais it did so? The mandible just isn't strong enough, more likely this was some postcranial force applied along the upper jaw-teeth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 23, 2013 5:18:41 GMT 5
The teeth marks on Tenontosaurus bones still indicate a very powerful bite for its size, but not a bite force usually used at attacking preys like Tyrannosaurus.
Even when biting more moderately, it had probably a fearsome bite.
I don't think they are that monsterized in JP, only not totally accurate in some anatomical aspects.
But I'm sure, you would be in far more risky situation facing these guys than facing a giant carnivore.
|
|
