|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 17, 2015 23:28:19 GMT 5
There's not so much predatory dinos battles in the franchise either.
T. rex preying on raptors in JP, territorial dispute between a chimera Spinosaurus and alleged subadult T. rex in JP3, that's all.
Also, all the T. rex attacks in TLW are territorial (trailer destruction, attack on the hunters) because of the neonate's blood on Sarah Harding jacket. The deaths in San Diego at the end is explained because the T. rex is on drugs and furious.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 17, 2015 23:35:38 GMT 5
Well, there’s not a single battle between carnivore and herbivore. If anything, it should be the other way around.
What "chimera Spinosaurus" tough? Either they are all chimeras (after all none are accurate, often attributed to the frog DNA), or none are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 17, 2015 23:48:11 GMT 5
Frankly the frog DNA is a fanboy non canon hypothesis, nothing else. That's nt even hinted in the novels.
The nickname the Spinosaurus a chimera because it is vastly different than its real counterpart, whereas the scientifical inaccurracies in the others are less shocking, but that's not the point.
If JP The Game is canon, then there is actually a battle T. rex/Triceratops in the franchise.
Now, the main purpose in JP is to see humans attacked by dinosaurs, primarily.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 18, 2015 2:55:04 GMT 5
Frankly the frog DNA is a fanboy non canon hypothesis, nothing else. That's nt even hinted in the novels. I haven't read the novels, but Wikipedia claims it is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic_Park_(novel)Besides, in JP I, I remember them saying that the frog DNA is the reason why the dinos were able to reproduce despite a lack of males. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 18, 2015 9:06:04 GMT 5
Yes of course, DNA from frogs (and reptiles and birds in the novel) is used and explains why the dinos were able to reproduce.
What I m saying is that the DNA is not responsible for the potential inaccuracies of the dinos in the movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 18, 2015 14:32:44 GMT 5
It is not said, but one could conclude that. For example Tyrannosaurus bad eyesight can be explained like that. Frogs can't see things that don't move either, so it makes sense. I admit that it can't explain all the inaccuracies, but some.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 18, 2015 15:45:20 GMT 5
Frogs can also pronate their arms, and probably protract their forelimbs in the odd way shown for the JP theropods. So if their shouder and elbow happened to have been extensively patched with frog DNA…
At least there’s nothing else to explain that. I’ve heard repeatedly that these dinosaurs were supposed to be genetic reconstructions, not the real thing, so how else would you explain the difference?
On the other hand, it most certainly does not explain the scaly, featherless skins. If that was affected so as to inhibit feather formation, it would have to be devoid of scales too, and probably slimy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 18, 2015 16:14:52 GMT 5
All the DNA frog explaining any inaccuracies is not canon anyway.
In TLW novel, it was hinted that the T. rex actually saw Grant but simply wasn't hungry at the time.
DNA frog won't explain either the frill and venom in Dilophosaurus or the small, slow moving Carnotaurus of the novel.
The pronates hands are just an outdated depiction based on Greg Paul book.
I really reject these kinds of JP fanboys speculations because this is not canon and it just destroys JP spirit-> I watch JP to see dinosaurs (despite the potential inaccuracies) not to watch frogs hybrids.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 18, 2015 16:22:36 GMT 5
The thing is, they are not pure dinosaurs, regardless of what can be attributed to frog DNA and what not (nobody claimed all the inaccuracies come from frog DNA anyway). The reproduction example (which requires more than a superficial DNA deviation from a normal dinosaur) already is enough to tell that it aren't pure dinosaurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 18, 2015 16:36:02 GMT 5
Either way, they are not real dinosaurs. There might be an explanation based on the plot, or there might not be, it doesn’t change the result. They are inaccurate, and they are supposed to have frog DNA, both for themselves or both taken together.
Pronated hands for theropods were widely depicted back then, not just by Greg Paul. Funny enough, Gilmore (1920) got it right…
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 18, 2015 17:12:25 GMT 5
In the context of the movies universe (more than the novels) they are real dinosaurs.
Hence the contrast between the I. rex and the others "real" dinos species in the future movie.
Outdated data (science progresses too much quickly for SF movie franchise) and some creative license are the reasons of the pronate hands, frills or movement based vision.
BTW, when have been definitely established that dinosaurs did not have pronate hands ?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 18, 2015 19:55:40 GMT 5
In a way it has always been definitely known that theropods mostly could not and did not pronate their hands. Some studies explicitely dealing with the matter are Sereno 1993, Carpenter 2002, Senter & Robins 2005 (but I suppose a number of earlier monographic descriptions of non-avian theropods must have done the same), but as I already wrote at least the neutral posture being non-pronated must have been recognised far earlier (Gilmore 1920: p. 57), albeit not widely acknowledged, as demonstrated by the vast number of inaccurate images. Now its getting better, but there are still fairly recent publications that get it wrong (for example Nesbitt et al. 2009 still figured Tawa with a pronated manus, there are some old Greg Paul illustrations in the Princeton Field Guide and in Lockley et al. 2008…). In short, among non-avian theropods only deinonychosaurs could pronate their hands–they did this by rotation at the wrist, not of the entire forearm–and it was not a habitual posture in any of them (and certainly not one that would be used in predation). There are enough people ignoring it, but among those actually looking at them, it’s consensus.
References:Carpenter, Kenneth: Forelimb Biomechanics of Nonavian Theropod Dinosaurs in Predation. Senckenbergiana lethaea, Vol. 82 (2002); 1; pp. 59-76 libgen.asia/ca574f74b2daab29a02122b778753042/carpenter2002.pdfGilmore, Charles W.: Osteology of the carnivorous Dinosauria in the United States National Museum, with special Reference ro the genera Antrodemus (Allosaurus) and Ceratosaurus. Smithsonian Institution United States National Museum Bulletin, Vol 110 (1920); pp. 1-159 Lockley Martin; Kukihara, Reiji; Mitchel, Laura: Why Tyrannosaurus rex had puny Arms: An integral morphodynamic Solution to a simple Puzzle in theropod Paleobiology. In: Larson, Peter; Carpenter, Kenneth: Tyrannosaurus rex the Tyrant King. Bloomington (2008); pp. 131-164 Nesbitt, Sterling J.; Smith, Nathan D.; Irmis, Randall B.; Turner, Alan H.; Downs, Alex; Norell, Mark A.: A Complete Skeleton of a Late Triassic Saurischian and the Early Evolution of Dinosaurs. Science, Vol. 326 (2009); 5959; pp. 1530-1533 Senter, Phil; Robins, James H.: Range of motion in the forelimb of the theropod dinosaur Acrocanthosaurus atokensis, and implications for predatory behaviour. Journal of the Zoological Society of London, Vol. 266 (2005); pp. 307-318 Sereno, Paul C.: The Pectoral girdle and Forelimb of the basal Theropod Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 13 (1993); 4; pp. 425-450 |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 30, 2015 18:41:03 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by allosaurusatrox on Jan 31, 2015 2:35:24 GMT 5
Is it safe to come back?  ? |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 2, 2015 11:35:45 GMT 5
|
|
?