Talk:Deinonychus

{{Archive box|

Minor edit for clarity regarding image

Hi wanted to discuss a very minor change. I had did a minor editing on two images stating that this is the animal if it was feathered. An editor seems to have an issue with that. I just wanted to bring that up before reverting it seemed nobody else had an issue with me adding in that specific fact.Mcelite (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, unlike something like Tyrannosaurus, no scientists doubt all dromaeosaurs were feathered. So it is misleading to suggest it is somehow only a possibility. You wouldn't have a caption saying "this is Smilodon if it had fur" either. FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with FonkMonk. That dromaeosaurs were feathered is so well established by fossil evidence and phylogenetic bracketing that positive evidence of lack of feathers in some genera would be necessary to consider it a "possibility" likely enough to be worth mentioning in an image caption. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

All I want to say is that phylogenetic bracketing isn't perfect and that we don't know with 100 certainty that Deinonychus had feathering. Not arguing that members of its family did at all. I'm only saying we should be more precise in saying this is the animal feathered. I'm just being honest from a scientific standpoint we don't know with 100% accuracy God forbid we find fossilized scale impressions of Deinonychus.Mcelite (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

But again, regardless of the reason, all modern experts believe dromaeosaurs as a group had feathers (even those who don't believe birds descended from dinosaurs just claim dromaeosaurs aren't dinosaurs either). You'd have to demonstrate that there are still scientists who do not believe dromaeosaurs (or just Deinonychus) had feathers to add any claim of doubt to the article. And for the record, the discovery of Zhenyuanlong proved even large dromaeosaurs were fully feathered. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I already knew about Zhenyuanlong but thank you for a good example. I honestly am just concerned I apologize if I seemed overly picky. Just wanted to make sure we weren't jumping on a band wagon when there is still some uncertainty.Mcelite (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, considering the constant back and forth over Tyrannosaurus feathering, I can understand why caution would be advised. But in this case, there doesn't seem to be any uncertainty. Even people like Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin, who don't consider birds descendants of dinosaurs, just consider dromaeosaurs as birds instead, while explaining their dinosaur features as due to convergent evolution; dromaeosaurs are simply so bird-like that their arguments don't hold up if they are considered dinosaurs. Ironically, given what we now know about the integument of small ornithischians, this restoration[1] used in the article is probably inaccurate by not giving the Zephyrosaurus prey protofeathers. FunkMonk (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

We know very few things in science with 100% certainty, but for something like this that's represented uncontroversially in reliable sources, this is because the accumulation and convergence of evidence reflects a high probability of it being true. If we devoted a "but what if" parenthetical for everything like this, science articles would be twice as long and half as informative. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Continuously deleting flight section

This is rather silly considering its pretty relevant if Deinonychus was capable of flight or not. Yet the aforementioned study gets a single line, while the bulk of its discussion - pretty extensive within it - is left out. Modern analogues are there for the sake of analogy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconfly (talk • contribs)

The paragraph is wholly irrelevant if you exclude the statement "adults would have been flightless because they had proportionally shorter arms" since that statement is not found in any sources and thus must be removed. Reverting more will hopefully result in a permanent edit ban. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

If you suggest analogues yourself, and make your own conclusions, it is WP:original research and WP:original synthesis, which is not allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

'Modern' reconstruction in Cultural Significance section - looks outdated?

The image in the Cultural Significance section features an 'outdated' scaly model and a 'modern' feathered model of Deinonychus. However, forgive me if I'm way off the mark here, but the feathered one looks almost as outdated as the scaly one to me?

The face looks shrink-wrapped (though it's slightly hard to tell), the feathers look 'glued on' to a scaly body rather than like the real plumage we know dromaeosaurids had, and certain unfounded palaeomemes are present like the mohawk and naked head.

I therefore question whether this image should be present here, particularly because the caption insinuates that this is an accurate modern reconstruction.

Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say something is incorrect just because it's a "meme". Plenty of modern birds have naked heads and "mohawks", even those closely related to some that don't. "Anti-shrinkwrapping" has itself become a meme; plenty of modern animals have demarcated orbits, for example. A close up of the model's head doesn't seem to show even the common sunken antorbital fenestra, though:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure the image you've linked to depicts the exact same model? The colouration of the skin on the face appears different, with the article image's feathered model appearing to lack the dark markings visible in your image. To me it appears as though the outline of the antorbital fenestra is present in the feathered model in the article's picture; an outline very similar to the clearly visible fenestra in the scaly model. But yeah it is admittedly hard to make out. Though the palaeomemes I brought up aren't necessarily incorrect, they were typical in, say, early-mid 2000s dromaeosaurid reconstructions, which rings alarm bells that it's an older reconstruction. Additionally, my thoughts about the shaggy fur-like plumage remain. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Deinonychus Skeletals.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

How to cite the author of Velociraptor antirrhopus and implications for all other articles

I see in the synonyms section that the author of Velociraptor antirrhopus is listed as Paul, 1988. But shouldn't the listed author be the author of the specific name, except in brackets? This is because the author of the specific name is bracketed when the generic name in the binomial is not that of the genus to which the author of the species originally assigned the species. You can see this logic applied on the Tyrannosaurus article, for example.

I've also noticed that some pages go another route. To illustrate, the Torosaurus page lists TWO different authors for the second (dubious) Torosaurus species, T. utahensis. It gives first the author of the specific name, in brackets (which I believe would be 100% correct), but then ALSO gives the author who assigned the species to that particular genus. While subjectively that would seem a sensible way to convey all the relevant information, I've found absolutely nothing to suggest that this is in any way acceptable according to the ICZN or anything.

Does anyone have clarity on this subject? This has massive implications for other articles, since articles currently seem to vary wildly in how authors are cited. Deinonychus, Tyrannosaurus and Torosaurus each demonstrate completely contradictory ways of citation so this needs remedying asap. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I've also noticed these types of issues in many other articles; the author of the specific name should be the one shown, say Tarbosaurus bataar for example, the author who created "bataar" is the one that should be shown, and obviously in brackets if there's a later combination with another generic name. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)