Talk:Utahraptor

Fix up

this page needs fixing up bad...

Umm...can you please clarify?Cas Liber 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Removed uncited addition == it also need a non-fetherd pics

This was just posted, and I wouldn't doubt that it's got some basis in fact, but I don't know of any citations for it. Any ideas, dromaeosaur people?

Some recent findings might suggest an even larger size for Utahraptor, perhaps more than 10 meters long. However, it is not clear if these remains (fragmentary) belong to Utahraptor ostrommaysorum, or to a completely new species.

J. Spencer 01:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's true, but there is no citation as it's just gossip at this point, hasn't been published. Better wait for the paper. Dinoguy2 02:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur Comics

As I said on Talk:Dromiceiomimus, you need to look at the proportional relevence of these pop culture things. Especially in a case like Dinosaur comics. Raptor Red is *about* Utahraptor. The relevent portions of WWD are *about* the (hypothetical) behavior and environment of Utahraptor. The reader may gain more information, correct or incorrect, about this animal species by looking at these sources (can't speak to the other novel mentioned--since it's sci fi, I'd guess it's probably less notable and could be removed or reduced in emphasis). Now, Dinosaur Comics--you could replace the Utahraptor with an elephant or a talking carrot, and it would not change the comic one bit. It's a talking head (I'll reiterate I'm a fan!). The comic is not about dinosaurs (usually) in any way except that the author's points happen to be put in the mouths of dinosaur drawings. I would hesitate call anything in it but the rex "characters"! I'll leave the brief mention in here so I'm not the guy unilaterally removing DC stuff, but I'll state that I do not think DC is notable to the topic of Utahraptor at all. Dinoguy2 01:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Utahraptor already has a popular culture section; adding a reference to DC would take one sentence and wouldn't add a new section on its own. I don't see how saying that Utahraptor could be replaced by anything else is relevant, because it's still a Utahraptor. There are plenty of talking head characters that are still, in the end, characters. This seems to be exactly the kind of reference that popular culture sections are made for.(Ktwsolo (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

So, the character named Utahraptor adds what, then? Does it provide a look at intrepretations of the living animal, like the other sources mentioned? Is it an otherwise nonscientific character that makes use of the actual characteristics of a Utahraptor (like, say, a Garfield-like comic with a Utahraptor instead of a house cat)? Or is it something chosen because another character was needed and there was some suitable art on hand? I don't find the present argument for inclusion that strong; by that line of thought, one could put an "in popular culture" section on Human, and note that there is a human in Dinosaur Comics. Actually, I would find that hilarious, and I'm not sure why. J. Spencer (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it provides a look at a Utahraptor in popular culture which, from what I can see, is the very point of the heading. If popular depictions of Utahraptors were omnipresent, then yes, it would be silly. However, since that isn't the case, we don't really have to worry about that kind of escalation. Links to popular culture depictions of certain specific and unusual creatures abound. If adding a DC reference required adding a section just on its own, it probably wouldn't be worth it. But since there's already a section, we're talking about adding a single relevant sentence. It is relevant to Utahraptor in a popular culture framework to know about DC. Reading over the trivia advice shows me nothing to the contrary. (76.24.17.91 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

In what way? What does knowing about DC add to the understanding of Utahraptor, other than the fact Utahraptor is in DC? Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but I still wanted to note that before reading DC, I didn't know that the Utahraptor was gay. Maybe this fact is common knowledge in the general dinosaur fandom, but as someone to whom all this stuff is more of a secondary interest, learning this was a surprise!91.15.207.78 (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Knowing about Utahraptor in DC does the same thing that knowing about depictions in popular culture that explicitly involve "speculative reconstructions", "anatomical inaccuracies", and "fictional characteristics". What does any fictional depiction add in the way you mean? Your narrow rubric is obviously flawed. Knowing about a significant popular culture depiction of Utahraptor adds to understanding of Utahraptor in popular culture. How can this be so questionable considering a DC reference on the Tyrannosaurus page, where the proportional importance is much less?(Ktwsolo (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

What is "the same thing"? This is an article about Utahraptor, an extinct animal, and a pop-culture reference in the article should at least be relevant to the extinct animal. Raptor Red is speculative fiction that presents a detailed interpretation of the life of Utahraptor the extinct animal. The two documentaries named also present interpretations. If nothing else, these are useful gauges of how the dinosaur was interpreted over time. I've never read Raptor, so I don't know if it falls into this or not. I don't care if it's removed. DC has a character named Utahraptor that doesn't do anything utahraptor-ish. That, of course, is part of the joke; it might as well be a guy in a t-shirt that say Utahraptor, and if it actually was, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Objectively, DC's intentionally non-existent take on Utahraptor as an animal is not the same as detailed documentary-style presentations.

Another category that is useful to include is "starring roles," where the dinosaur in question is a lead animal. Thus, the movies noted in Allosaurus (which also double by having historical significance and by crossing genres).

If you were to take the DC reference out of Tyrannosaurus, I wouldn't stop you. If a reference can't be expanded beyond "X is a character in Y, and is Z to [other character]" (i.e if there isn't potential for something beyond the mere fact of its presence), then it probably shouldn't be in. I don't see how this goes beyond "A Utahraptor is a character in "Dinosaur Comics," and is the friend of Tyrannosaurus." You could describe the character's personality, and add a few of its witty lines, but there's not much relevant to Utahraptor (the animal) about that. If there's more to this potential reference, please post it. J. Spencer (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. Look, I love DC. But it's not even about dinosaurs. You could replace the clipart picture of the raptor with a picture of a car and name the character "car" and nothing would change. That alone should tell you it has no relevance to this subject.

For, the record, I don't think the inclusion of DC in the T. rex article is notable either and didn't know it had been snuck in. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, arguing for other fanciful depictions of Utahraptor but not for one (more famous) one in particular is pretty silly. We could go back and forth on this for a long time, but it's pretty obvious that the popular culture section is not determined on whether the pop reference adds to the scientific understanding of the creature. And it's ridiculous to argue about proportional importance when a DC reference is sitting under the Tyrannosaur entry.

But I guess we've reached an understanding since now it is mentioned, although I'd say in a pretty amateur way. I'm going to clean it up if you don't mind. (Ktwsolo (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC))

Measurements

The article says Utahraptor was 'up to 2m/6ft in height'. What posture does this refer to? The Jurassic park films are hardly documentary evidence, but they clearly show a raptor style skeleton is capable of changing ultimate hight by a fair margin. With mammals we measure up to the fore-shoulder whilst standing still. Is there an equivalent standardized measurement & posture for dinosaurs?ANTIcarrot 17:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The hip height is your best bet, but you'll see a lot of variability in how flexed the various parts of the leg are. J. Spencer 22:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't take any estimates cited here as gospel at the moment. A new paper in press is set to downsize Utahraptor a fair bit. Dinoguy2 08:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does the picture have it as 7m long when the article says that it's 6.5m long? 122.109.250.74 (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The tail looks longer because of the feathers. Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

It's a picky point, but I felt bad after reverting an IP's change to "plunderor" (a typo, but obvious what it is intended). So, "raptor" has been variously translated as "thief", "robber", and "plunderer". My American Heritage College Dictionary presents it as "one who seizes". The Dinosauria On-Line Omnipedia, from classicist Ben Creisler's work, uses "robber". Any thoughts? J. Spencer 19:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should feel bad about reverting an obvious spelling error. Articles decline in quality from stuff like that getting added. Since it's debatable about whether the translation is better as "thief", "robber", "plunderer", etc, I don't think it's a big deal about which one is used... but whatever is used needs to at least be spelled correctly. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, but if "plunderer" is the better choice, it could easily be fixed. I'm just wondering if there is a "best" choice, but there might not be (i.e. Thescelosaurus). I also don't want to start acting like Dinosaur Dictator or something.

Interestingly enough, given the recent increase in explicitly expostulating etymologies, there are probably cases already of different choices for the same words (maybe "Xraptor" was intended by the authors as X-thief, whereas "Yraptor" was intended as Y-robber). Is there actually a difference? Does it matter? Tune in next week, same Raptor-time, same Raptor-channel! J. Spencer 21:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Anybody have the paper? Authors usually give etymology in the description. We should go with whatever translation they intended. Dinoguy2 03:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have it...its hard to get as its not online. The authors say...'Etymology. Name refers to the occurrence of this formidable predatory dinosaur in Utah, 'Utah's predator'... Steveoc 86 12:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is funny because the velociraptor article says velociraptor means "swift thief" not "swift predator". Raptor is derived from rapere which is "to seize" so I don't see how they finagled predator out of thief. Then again this is Wikipedia and nothing is supposed to be verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.16.72 (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's often no one standard, direct translation between any given language and English. "Seize, thief, and predator" are all related, and the Latin rapere can refer to any of these (actually, "rape" is probably the closest translation, but the meaning of that has shifted to something very specific over the years). What matters is the author's individual intent. Osborn meant "-raptor" to mean thief, and he says so. That's verifiable and not our place to correct him. Similarly, Kirkland meant it to mean "predator." Standardizing translations would not only be original research but would directly contradict the published papers. It would take away from the integrity of Wikipedia, not add to it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Feathers

I think we should use a different picture. Although smaller Dromaeosaurids had feathers, I don't think feathers would've been practical or useful to a large dinosaur such as Utahraptor, and there is no proof for it. --JohnVMaster (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Utahraptor is the same size as moa, and smaller than giant furry tropical mammals like ground sloths. There's no reason to think they'd have lost their feathers, and the only published source I know that deals with this expressly states that it's unlikely larger forms would have lost feathers (the Velociraptor quill knob paper). Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of definitive information either way, the picture seems fine. I think that characterizing the History Channel show's portrayal of a featherless Utahraptor as an inaccuracy is a bridge too far, though. Wellspring (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, the drawing explains itself as the personal work of a primarily Harry Potter fan, and looks like nothing more than a roadrunner. The feathers are much more exaggerated than any picture of a theropod with feathers that I've ever seen, and a quick google image source confirms that nearly all representations of a utahraptor are not shown with excessive feathers. For the first few pages of results, this is the only one even with feathers that I can find, and they are much reduced. I really think we should change the image, and I'm going to go ahead and remove it for now.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because we should base a science article on a random internet image search. To check, I also ran a Google image search on Utahraptor and could not find a single anatomically accurate drawing, aside from ArthurWeasly's. Even other feathered drawings had significant problems. And no credible scientist today would argue that Utahraptor lacked feathers. The amount and style is purely a stylistic choice. In the future, rather than unilaterally deciding an image is wrong, please allow time for discussion here or bring it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Dinoguy. You can't judge an images accuracy based on what other images look like. For exarmple we now know that velociraptor has wings on its arms, based on the the quil knobs on its ulna. Now lets google velociraptor, only 2 on tha first page have any trace of wings.

'The feathers are much more exaggerated than any picture of a theropod with feathers that I've ever seen', Really, what about this theropod, [1] or this theropod [2] or this one, [3] Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, aren't both of its colours wrong, green and blue? FunkMonk (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a nitpick, but I agree that green and blue are not the most accurate colors to give a flightless feathered dinosaur. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not simply due to improbability, but apparently that kind of feathers could not have had those colours, some old discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review/Archive_1#Note_on_blue_coloration_for_artists FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of the argument. It's always theoretically possible that an unusual pigment like turacoverdin arose independently in dromaeosaurs, but highly unlikely. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

However, in this newer guide it is said that if internal structure is more important than just shape, blue protofeathers might still be feasible. Albertonykus (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The blue feathers in the image appear to be pennaceous, not plumulaceous, so there's no issue there (pennaceous with coherent vanes at that, itself a bit unlikely for a gigantic arid-climate deeply nested flightless bird). The green feathers are more problematic. They require a lot of specialization and are almost exclusively found in arboreal frugivores. Not completely impossible, just too highly implausible for an encyclopedic image IMO. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I made it more orange. FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I presented a new Utahraptor illustration for the article? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No, but there are probably other genera that need the attention more, heheh. That's what determines which genera I draw for Wiki when I do so, if the articles lack images. If I want to draw a genus that already has an illustration, I just draw a closely related one instead. FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the image with one that I created over the last several days. If anyone has any objections or suggestions for improvement, please let me know! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is impressive! Nice work. Only quibble I can think of is that the wrist is probably folded too much (really need to finish my blog post on that today...) MMartyniuk (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I unfolded the wing very slightly and uploaded a new version. I probably can't alter it much more without messing up the composition, but hopefully it's an improvement anyway. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff, wouldn't it perhaps have had vaned feathers along the tail, which both dromaeosaurs and troodontids had apparently? FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say it's necessary to keep them on such a large and derived species. The overall kiwi-like appearance of the feathers isn't unexpected, and of course the vanes of feathers tend to become unzipped and simplified in more and more derived forms among modern birds. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you think I ought to make the arm folding more accurate? Using the Deinonychus arm from your blog as an analogue, it probably could use some work... [4] -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it could go either way. The limited folding in Deinonychus seems to be a reversion from ancestors which could fold more, and in therizinosaurs, the folding ability increased in later, larger species. So an arm posture like you posted above would be more in line with what we know of other large dromaeosaurs, and is probably more parsimonious, yes. But there's no evidence that can be used to say your version is inaccurate. Based on other maniraptoran lineages, bracketing isn't extremely reliable in this case. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. If it's a little more parsimonious, I'll change it. Also, while we're at it: I know there's no conclusive evidence either way, but do you think it's More Accurate to depict Utahraptor with a crest and tailfan, or without? I'd like this illustration to be as accurate as possible, at least for the time being. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I altered the hand position. It's not quite as wide an angle as the Deinonychus wrist in your blog, but it's close. [5] Added tailfan too. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, the tail fan is probably more parsimonious since we don't know of any non-pygostylian aviremigians that lack one. There are plenty that lack crests, though (I think crests are only known for Microraptor and Anchiornis, absent in Jinfengopteryx, oviraptorosaurs, Sinornithosaurus, "Dave", etc.). As crests are a highly species-specific trait in modern birds I don't think they should be bracketed for at all. That would be like saying it should be black and red with white spangles because Anchiornis was. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Pronounciation

How is Utahraptor to be pronounced, since it is a mixed English-Latin word? If it was pronounced as a pure latin word (like most of scientific names), it would simply be IPA:utahraptor (a form I have actually heard used.) However, if mixed pronounciation is used, it would be something like IPA:ˈjuːtɑːraptor. On a note, I'm leaving out pure English pronounciation because I don't think it would be appropriate (even the mixed form might be problematic for speakers of other languages.) Is there any established rule concerning this? arny (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This only really matters if you're trying to write an entire sentence in Latin and then read it aloud. I'd be astounded if at least 80% of all English-speaking biologists in the world didn't pronounce it /ˈjuːtɑːˌræptɚ/. Foogus (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

English speaking ones, yes. However, I've heard everything from non-English speaking people, and there should be some consensus. --arny (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Feathers down here... There is no real reason to believe these animals posessed feathers. It is impractical considering the climate of the period, and the nature of the animal to claim it had feathers. 8/30/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.98.46 (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Turner, Makovicky, & Norell (2007) disagree and claim there is no reason an animal this large would lose all feathers, given that feathers act as insulators against both hot and cold weather. Also consider that other giant birds like giant moa and elephant birds (about the same weight as Utahraptor, not to mention the much larger, desert-living Gigantoraptor) are always depicted as being fully feathered, and the later lived in the tropics. I don't know what you mean about the "nature" of the animal but Senter (2006) showed that even if dromaeosaurs had fully developed wings (which the smaller ones at least seem to) the feathers would not get in the way of the predatory stroke, given they way in which they held/moved their arms. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

the most common consensus is that all Dromaeosaurs had feathers, because of this fact it is very unlikely that the image will be changed to suit your opinions, also you brought up a topic that is no longer even a debate anymore and is completely unrelated to this section.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Skeleton image

The present image in the taxobox shows a reconstructed skeleton of Utahraptor with pronated hands. It also gives the wrong idea that the animal is known from a complete skeleton. Skeletal reconstructions, compared to images of actual fossil or a cast of it, should probably be put on the same level than real life reconstructions and be subjected to the same level of scrutiny. Does anybody feel the same? ArthurWeasley (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I'd move it to the text, or remove it completely due to the incorrect posture. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just put a note about this in the Dino Project page... ArthurWeasley (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree in this case, though I was the one who put it in. Wasn't sure if the hand was pronated or if the angle of the arm just made it look like that. Should maybe be fixed in the Saurornitholestes article too, there the pronation is even more obvious. FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A Question

I heard that there was evidence it may have reached 12m long! Its probally false but i wanted to check. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, According to M. Mortimer here http://dml.cmnh.org/2003Jul/msg00355.html, (Britt et al., 2001) is referenced to caudals twice as long as the holotype. A full specimen would thus be over 12m. This is also mentioned in DinoData: http://www.dinodata.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7556&Itemid=67 - Rlinfinity (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but so far there's no official description of those vertebrae, so even their identity as Utahraptor and not something else should be taken with a grain of salt until they're formally described. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Second Largest dromaeosaurid?

Apparently so, but i dont know of anydromaeosaurid that excceeds 6m other than Utahraptor. Even Austroraptor and Archilobator are only 5m. Im sure its the largest Dromaeosaurid. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any larger ones either, I'll change that. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Flexomornis was bigger.

Eh what? All I can find of "Flexomornis" is one site saying it's an enantiornithine from Texas and another (apparently a message board with a bunch of kids?) saying it's a giant dromaeosaur. Cite please. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed: Flexomornis is a very small enantiornithine bird, not a gigantic dromaeosaur. [6] Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was a dromeosaur.

Would that message board be called topix dinosaur forum? If so im sorry on behalf of the guy who posted that, it was a prank, he got everyone fooled though! Spinodontosaurus (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This shows why we only allow published sources on wiki... Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who changed that. Sorry about that. Oh and hi spinodontosaurus! I'm UTAHRAPTOR from topix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessboy123 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

About the size: (sorry all :/ ). I have the original description and it says, estimated as much as 7m long and somewhat less than 500 Kg I don't know of any other pulished estimates. Does anyone know where the estimates in the article are comming from because currently it's inncorectly cited. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the odd thing: I don't have the original description (Hunteria being one of those things it's hard to get for love or money), but Glut's encyclopedia states that "Utahraptor was estimated by Kirkland et al to have reached a length of as much as 7 meters (about 24 feet) and weighed almost 500 kilograms (about 1,100 pounds)." Obviously Glut got his information somewhere. Perhaps there was a press release or he saw an early version? (misread your statement, thought you said that it wasn't in the article! J. Spencer (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC) )

For what it's worth, Holtz's supplement uses the 7 m figure, and I can find references to a 565 mm femur (Britt, Chure, Stadtman, Madsen, Scheetz, and Burge. 2001. New osteological data and the affinities of Utahraptor from the Cedar Mountain Fm. (Early Cretaceous) of Utah. JVP 21(supplement to 3):36A.) and a 600 mm femur (Erickson, Rauhut, Zhou, Turner, Inouye, Hu, and Norell, 2009. Was dinosaurian physiology inherited by birds? Reconciling slow growth in Archaeopteryx. PLoS ONE. 4(10), e7390. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007390). J. Spencer (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to the Kirkland estimates. Dimensions were made accurate as far back as February 2005. It was "correctly" 7 m for a while; somebody probably got irritated with 7 m being converted (correctly, with sig figs considered) to 20 ft and changed it to 6-something, and it went from there. The mass was expanded in August 2005. Lord knows how the height was derived, or why it was left in so long. J. Spencer (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that and sorry about the poor wording. ;). I'll send you the original description if you like. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It was my fault - I was reading too quickly. J. Spencer (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ref

You know the first reference that has no actual link, i would like to know how to get a link for it. As refs like that are quite annoying (to me atleast) as you cant actually check them unless you have the paper itself, if it is a paper of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinodontosaurus (talk • contribs) 19:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a fact of life right now that in science, many professional-level references are not available easily on the internet. Papers from the journal Hunteria seem to be one of them. In these cases you will simply have to get the paper at your local library or email the authors for a copy. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC

Weight

Utahraptor weighed 1,500 pounds, not somewhat less than 1,100 pounds, as this article states. Would a 23-foot long dinosaur weigh "somewhat less than" 1,100 pounds? I dont't think so!

You mean a 10-foot long dinosaur with a 13-ft lightweight skin-and-bones pole of a tail sticking out the back, not to mention air-filled bones? Sure, in fact 1,000lbs is probably an overestimate. Anyway we can't just take published research, say it doesn't sound right to us, and then change it. That's not we Wikipedia editors saying what we think it weighed, that's Jim Kirkland, the guy who actually discovered and studied the thing, saying what he thinks it weighed. If you disagree with him, publish a scientific paper explaining your methods and we can include a reference to it. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Utahraptor wasn't 10 feet long. That's Deinonychus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troodon58 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

He's talking about snout-to-vent length, more or less. Head to hips (where most of the mass is going to be): 10 ft; tail (not much mass): another 13 ft. J. Spencer (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

But there's another theropod called Majungasaurus. It was the same length as Utahraptor, but it weighed one ton! And for Utahraptor, 1,000 pounds might be an overestimate? That doesn't make sense at all! Troodon58 05:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, compare the silhouettes in those scale diagrams. Utahraptor may be the same length but is 'smaller' overall due to much slimmer proportions. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that Majungasaurus had heavyset hind legs and a more solidly built skull. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Researchers have differing ways of coming up with these estimates. The Majungasaurus estimate could be correct, the Utahraptor estimate could be correct, both could be correct, and neither could be correct. It's not up to WP to decide among these alternatives, but to present estimates from reliable sources. J. Spencer (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Utahraptor also had heavyset legs. Its leg bones are twice as thick as the larger Allosaurus. And I do have a reference for this information: http://www.dinosaurfact.net/cretaceous/Utahraptor.php Troodon58 18:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Does it fit the "reliable" of "reliable source"? J. Spencer (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does fit the "reliable" in "reliable source". Unlike Wikipedia, this site doesn't allow anyone to edit it. (I'm not saying that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information, though). Troodon58 18:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it only allows one person to edit it, and he doesn't provide research methods for his conclusions, or cite research he used to write his descriptions, and blatantly plagiarizes images from 10-year old TV shows. By "reliable source" we mean published in the scientific literature and preferably by a peer-reviewed journal. Not a random web site. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean Walking With Dinosaurs? (talk)

Yes. As the webmaster of that site should know, using someone else's image like that without permission or even credit is not a very polite thing to do, to put it mildly. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess you're right. That's not a very good website. It also says that Troodon lived in Antarctica here: http://www.dinosaurfact.net/cretaceous/Troodon.php

Yeah... that's a pretty weird mistake. I'd say the guy just confused Antarctica with the Arctic, but then he says this: "Had it existed in Antarctica it is the largest Antarctic dinosaur, in contrast to most of the rest of the world where the largest dinosaurs were invariably herbivorous." There are both Arctic and Antarctic dinos larger than Troodon, though none from the same time frame as Troodon in the Antarctic, but then again aside from Vegavis there aren't any dinos known from the Antarctic in that time period at all. Very confused stuff. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Name

I was wondering, would the right name be U. ostrommaysi or U. ostrommaysorum? Wasn't it changed to the latter because of a grammar error? Albertonykus (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It was, just fixed it now. I can't find who is the first revisor on the name though, which would be good to cite. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

PaleoDB cites the following, but Olshevsky apparently made no comments as to why he wrote it as such:

• Olshevsky, G. 2000. "An annotated checklist of dinosaur species by continent". Mesozoic Meanderings 3[1-157]. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

IIRC the ICZN doesn't require an explanation. If the name is wrong somebody simply needs to publish the corrected spelling. Or it did, this rule isn't in effect as of the current code. If he published the new form today it wouldn't stick (or was that just for family-level names?) MMartyniuk (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And isn't there another species of Utahraptor? I think it's called U. spielbergi.70.80.215.121 (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that was an early unpublished name for the type species, which was rejected apparently for legal reasons and ostrommaysi (or ostrommaysorum) substituted when the actual publication was produced. J. Spencer (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, since Dougal Dixon's World Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Creatures lists them as two separate species. And it was published in 2007, nonetheless!70.80.215.121 (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

User 65.102.29.189 has been insisting in edits that "raptor" properly translates to "thief" and so the etymology given in the description should be changed. Holtz 2008 translates the name as "Utah thief" so I went ahead and included both definitions. But, for the record, "raptor" is most precisely translated as "ravisher" or "abductor". See [7] MMartyniuk (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The concept is less about stealing furtively, but taking away by force. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Timeline Error

The timeline at the top of the infobox has an apparent mistake in it. It shows the temporal range of Utahaptor in the late Permian. This is impossible and also contradicts the rest of the article which puts it in the Cretaceous. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the template didn't know what to do with the word "to". It's fixed now. J. Spencer (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture

Could you please explain why Primeval: New World is not an appropriate inclusion into "In popular culture"? --79.223.23.167 (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Because it is connective trivia of no particular importance to the topic Utahraptor. Furthermore, the last time someone added it, the addition in its entirety was "Utahraptors feature in the first episode of Primeval: New World." This is the epitome of "spot the dinosaur". J. Spencer (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Gotta agree. The addition doesn't help the reader understand anything about Utahraptor. A good pop culture addition says more than 'X was in Y in episode Z'. What did critics say? Why was it important? How did it change people's perceptions of Utahraptor? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

all i can say is one would hope that people have now accepted that Utahraptor was probably feathered, but it appearing in one episode is not enough to justify adding it to the Popular culture section--50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Utahraptor Feet

The image Utahraptor_ostrommaysorum.JPG shows the "large curved claw" on either the first or third toe, depending on which side you start counting on. However, the first paragraph in the description states that it was on the second toe. This appears to be a contradiction, unless I'm somehow missing something. Any suggestions about how to fix this? Bayushikazemi (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The dewclaw is the first toe. Abyssal (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, Also, we always start counting on the same side when describing anatomy to avoid confusion, so it's always the second toe because the dewclaw always counts as the first toe. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Revised Anatomy

According to Scott Hartman, the current anatomical model of Utahraptor is incorrect. Exactly how incorrect is unknown at the moment because the paper detailing the changes has not been published yet. 207.216.213.8 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)