Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
9410 81cd 500

palaeofail-explained:

palaeofail:

Jurassic World’s “Indoraptor” - and please see @palaeofail-explained‘s reblog for why it being genetically engineered in-universe does not explain its issues.

Here’s a quick drawing of the skull I mocked up, based on what’s implied externally, along with @skeletaldrawing‘s guide for reference:

A few things to note: 

  • The orbit (eye socket) is waaay too big, so the eyeball/sclerotic ring are just kinda floating around.
  • The back of the skull lacks (at least) the quadrate, and probably the quadratojugal as well. This means it lacks a jaw hinge.
  • The back of the skull also lacks a squamosal and occipital, as well as the aforementioned quadratojugal. This has two main effects:
  1. The temporal fenestrae are absent. These are the main points of attachment for the jaw muscles; therefore, the creature cannot close its jaw. Perhaps more significantly,
  2. These bones and this area of the skull compose the braincase. Therefore, as they are absent, the creature does not have a brain.

Looking more externally, it’s clear that the animal lacks other jaw muscles and air sacs that would be essential to real theropods. 

Its teeth make no sense, pointing in random directions and having no pattern or regularity to their distribution. They don’t seem to be well-supported either; this combined with their long, round, conical shape suggests that the creature specialises in catching fish, but it lacks any other featured associated with piscivory (such as an elongated snout, large numbers of teeth, etc).

It also entirely lacks lips. Readers who follow palaeontology will know of some debate over the presence/absence of lips in theropods, but the general consensus is thin lizard-like lips that would cover the teeth when the mouth was closed.

The way that the neck curves after leaving the back of the skull seems much too sharp for an animal with a head of this size; it likely doesn’t have the muscle or bone necessary to support it.

Finally, assuming this is supposed to be based off a dromaeosaur like Velociraptor, scaly or bare skin is just untenable. All skin impressions of dinosaurs even remotely close to them show feathers - after all, dromaeosaurs were some of the closest relatives of birds. They should be covered in feathers, including wings and a fan on the tail and some sort of down/contour feathers on the body. Places not feathered should have naked skin or scutes (distinct from scales).

And for the inevitable people who say that this doesn’t matter, that it’s genetically engineered in-universe - it does. People do get much of their education from pop culture. Dinosaurs may not be the most vital subject in the world, but constantly having one’s conceptions reinforced and science/the real world ignored for no good reason is lazy at best and actively counterintuitive to science education at worst. People should not be taught to ignore science and facts.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl